Studies on German-Language Islands

Studies on German-Language Islands Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a c...

Author: Michael T. Putnam

46 downloads 2067 Views 40MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Studies on German-Language Islands

Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical

Studies in Language.

Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University ofVienna

Arizona State University

Editorial Board Bernard Comrie

Christian Lehmann

Max Planck Institute, Leipzig and University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Erfurt

William Croft

Carnegie-Mellon University

University of New Mexico

Marianne Mithun

Osten Dahl UnivtYsity of Stockholm

Gerrit J, Dimmendaal

Brian MacWhinney

University of California, Santa Barbara

Heiko Nanog Tohuku University

University of Cologne

Johanna L. Wood

Ekkehard Konig

University of Aarhus

Free University of Berlin

Volume 123 Studies on German--Language Islands

Edited by Michael T Putnam

Studies on German-Language Islands Edited by

Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University

John Benjarnins Publishing Company Amsterdam/ Philadelphia

The paper used in tllis publication meets the minimwn requirements of American National Standard for Information Scie.t1~-:es Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-198-1.

Library of Congress C'.ataloging-in-Publication Data Studies on German-language islands I edited by Michael T. Putnam. p. em. (Studies in Language Companion Series, ISSN 0165-7763; v.12.3) Includes bibliographical references and in~x. German language--Syntax.

2..

Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax._. Ger-

man language--Foreign countries. 4· German language--Variation. I. Putnam, Michae!T. PF5861.S68

2011

435--dc22 ISBN 978

90 272 0590 2 (Hb; alk. paper)

ISBN 978

90:1.7:1.8740 3 (Eb)

2010045325

© 2011- John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm. or any other means, without 'A-Titten permission fmm the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P. 0. Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam · 1he Netherlands John Benjarnins North America· P.O. Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • usA

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

VII

List of abbreviations

IX

List of contributors

XI

Why study Spra.chinseln from generative or structural perspectives? Introductory remarks

1

Michael r Putnam SECTION 1.

Phonetics & Phonology

On final laryngeal distinctions in Wisconsin Standard German

13

ReneeRemy Past participles in Mocheno: Allomorphy, alignment and the distribution of obstruents

33

Birgit Alber SECTION 2.

Morphology & texical studies

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German

Annemarie Toebosch Anaphors in contact: 'Ihe distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German

111

Michael r Putnam Lexical developments in Texas German Hans C. Boas & Marc Pierce Gender assignment of English loanwords in Pennsylvania German: Is there a feminine tendency? B. Richard Page SECTION 3·

1;1

Syntax I - Verb clusters

Synchrony and dial~hrony of verb dusters in Pennsylvania Dutch Mark L Louden

165

VI


Looking for order in chaos: Standard convergence and divergence in Mennonite Low German Gaz Kaufmann SECTION

4- Syntax II

'lhe syntax of Cimbrian German

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic islands in Northern Italy- and what they (do not) betray about language universals and change under areal contact with Italo-Romance

233

Werner Abraham Diachronic clues to granunaticalization phenomena in the Cimbrian CP

279

Andrea Padovan Hidden verb second: The case of Cimbrian Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto Revisiting the Wackernagelposition: The evolution of the Cimbrian pronominal system

301

347

Ermenegildo Bidese SECTION 5·

Syntax. Ill- 'Ihe syntax of Pennsylvania German

Changes in frequency as a measure of language change: Extraposition in Pennsylvania German

Jil

Gesche Westphal Fitch From preposition to purposive to infinitival marker: The Pennsylvania Germanfer... zu construction Kersti Borjars & Kate Burridge SECTION 6.

Pragmatics & Conversation analysis

Word choice, turn construction, and topic management in German conversation: Adverbs that are sensitive to interactional positioning

415

EmmaM. Betz Texas German discourse pragmatics: A preliminary study of the English-origin discourse markers of course, see, and now

455

Hunter Weilbacher Index

475

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the series editors, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, f()r their interest in this project and for the invitation to submit this volume for review. I would also be remiss not to profusely thank and laud the efforts of the contributors of this volume; I am thankful for their patient support of this project and for their insightful contributions. Thanks are also in order to Vanessa Pearson tor her assistance in proofreading some of the contributions to this volume. I am also indebted to my wife, Jill Putnam, for her last-minute help in compiling the index. Lastly, although my interest in German--language islands extends as far back as my childhood, it was not until my graduate studies at the University of Kansas that I gained a true appreciation for the formal, systematic study of these Sprachinsellanguages. It was under the tutelage of Dr. William Keel, "The Kaiser;' that the exciting world of Sprachinselforschung was opened up to me in full bloom. Thanks for the advice and mentorship over the years and the many trips throughout the Midwest to visit and investigate the communities who still speak these Sprachinsellanguages. University Park, PA December 2010

List of abbreviations

ACC AE AG AM CA CP CD DAT DM DO DOM DP EPG EPP(-feature) FM FPP IDS

IM 10

IPP IR

Ll L2 LF LPG

MF

Accusative Case American English Amana German Agglutinative Morphology Conversation Analysis Complementizer Phrase Clitic Doubling Dative Case Discourse Marker Direct Object Dative-· object Differentiation Determiner Phrase Early Pennsylvania German Extended Projection Principle Fusional Morphology First Pair Part Institut fUr Deutsche Sprache Inflectional Morphology Indirect Object Infinitivus pro Participio Italo·· Romance First language Second language Logical Form Lexical Functional Grammar Middle Field

MHG

MLG MPG NHG

NOM NP OD OPS

OT OV OVE PF PG PL pp

PPT SG SGG SLA

SOV svo TCU TGDA TGDP TP TxG USPG vP

Middle High German Mennonite Low German Modern Pennsylvania German New High German Nominative Case Noun Phrase Other-directed predicates Oberdeutscher Priiteritumsscwhundl Upper-German Preterite Demise Optimality 1heory Object-Verb ordering Ottawa Valley English Phonological Fonn Pennsylvania German Palatinate German Prepositional Phrase Past Participle Standard Genna.tl Strong Gra.rnmatical Gender Second language acquisition Subject--Object--Verb ordering Subject-Verb-Object ordering Turn Construction Unit Texas German Dialect Archive 1exas German Dialect Project Tense Phrase Texas German United States Pennsylvania German light/little-vP, i.e., lower phase (vP-phase)

x


v2 v3 Vlast VO VOT

VP WCPG WGG

Verb-second language Verb-third language/ordering Verb-last Verb-Object ordering Voice Onset Time Verb Phrase Waterloo County Pennsylvania German (Canada) Weak Grammatical Gender

List of contributors

Werner Abraham

UniversW:it Wien Lindwurmstr. 120c D-80337 Munich Germany Email: wemer.abraham@t--online .de Birgit Alber

Facolta di Lingue e Letterature Straniere Universita di Verona via S. Fnmcesco 22 I-37134 Verona Italy Email: [email protected] Emma Betz

Kansas State University Department of Modem Languages 104 Eisenhower Hall Manhattan, KS 66506 USA Email: [email protected]

Kersti Borjars 'Ihe University of Manchester School of Languages, Linguistics & Cultures Room N 1.11., Samuel Alexander Building Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected]. uk Katie Burridge Monash University Linguistics Program School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics Building 11 Victoria 3800 Australia Email: [email protected]. edu.au Gesche Westphal Fitch

Ermenegildo Bidese

Universita degli Studi di Trento, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia ViaS. Croce 65 Italy Email: e.bidese@lett. unitn.it Hans Boas

Department of Germanic Studies 1 University Station C 3300, Burdine 328 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-0304 USA Email: [email protected]

Universitiit Wien Department for Neurobiology and Cognition Research Faculty of Life Sciences Althanstrasse 1.4 A--1090 Vienna Austria Email: [email protected] GUnther Grewendorf

Universitiit Frankfurt Institut ftir Kognitive Linguistik Griineburgplatz 1 D-60629 Frankfurt (Germany) Email: [email protected]· turt.de

XII

Studies on German-Language Island~

Gi.1z Kaufmann Albert- Ludwigs- Universitat Freiburg Deutsches Seminar Germanistische Linguistik Platz der Universitat 3 79085 Freiburg (Germany) Email: goez.kaufinann@gennanistik. uni-- freiburg.de Mark Louden University of Wisconsin Department of German 812 Van Hise Hall Madison, WI 53706 USA Email: [email protected] Andrea Padovan Universita degli Studi di Trento, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia Via S. Croce 65 Italy :Email: [email protected] Richard Page The Pennsylvania State University Department of Germanic & Slavic Languages & Literatures 427 Burrowes Building University Park, PA 1.6802 USA Email: [email protected] Marc Pierce Department of Germanic Studies l University Station C 3300, Burdine 328 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-0304 USA Email: [email protected]

Cecilia Poletto Dipartimento di Scienze del Linguaggio Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia Ca' Bembo Dorsoduro 1075 30123 Venezia Italy Email: [email protected] Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University Department of Germanic & Slavic Languages & Literatures 427 Burrowes Building University Park, PA 16802 USA Email: [email protected] Renee Remy Fremdsprc:1cheninstitut der Landeshauptstadt Munchen Amalienstr. 36 80799 Munich (Germany) Email: [email protected] Annemarie Toebosch University of Michigan-- Flint Department of English 326 French Hall Flint. MI 48502 USA Email: [email protected] u Hunter Weilbacher University of Texas at Austin Department of Germanic Studies 1 University Station C3300 Burdine 382 Austin, TX 78712-0304 USA Email: weilbacher@mail. utexas .ed u

Why study Sprachinseln from generative or structural perspectives? Introductory remarks* Michael 'I: Putnam The Pennsylvania State University

1.

Introduction

German-language islands, also known as Sprachinseln, have been the focus of inquiry for centuries (cf. see Abraham 2009; Armand 1867; Csaba 2005; Haldeman 1872; Schmeller 1855/1984; Schweizer 1939; Schweizer 1952). The onset of the 21st century bears witness to the last potential (semi- )functional speakers of many of these dialect communities throughout the world. Given the moribund status of the majority of these dialect communities, it would seem that the time to conduct meaningful research on these dialects is now. To date, most volumes dedicated to the study of Spmchinsel languages have focused primarily (if not exclusively) on socio- and ethnolinguistic aspects of these dialect communities (ct~ Berend & Mattheier 1994; Keel & Mattheier 2003). The focus of this volume, however, centers on generative and structural shtdies of Sprachinsellanguages world"'ide, thus serving as a much--needed supplement to the majority of sociolinguistic research that exists on these dialects and dialect communities. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, this volume represents the first of its kind with a generative/structural focus. Approaching complex data from these diverse dialect-enclave communities through a theoretical framework enables linguists to better understand and model the status of the grammar of the speakers of these individual Sprachinsellanguages. In my brief introductory remarks here, my goal is to elucidate the importance of the studies found in this volume based on recent research in the fields of contact linguistics and L1 attrition.

*Thanks are in order to Werner Abraham, Elly van Gelderen, and Joe Salmons for helpful suggestions on how to improve this introduction.

2

Michael T. Putnam

2.

Answering the 'why question'

Although certain Spra.chinsel languages continue to exist - and in some cases tlourish due to the sectarian religious beliefs of the communities of speakers (with Plain Pennsylvania Gemtan being the most famous example of such a situation), this is unfortunately the exception mther than the norm. Most Spra.chinsei languages today are on the verge of extinction, with the majority of speakers exhibiting very limited knowledge of the dialect. 1 As mentioned in the introduction above, most studies to date have shown a trend to focus almost exclusively on the sociolinguistic aspects of the language-attrition situations currently taking place in these languageenclave communities. 1he past two decades, however, have witnessed the development of detailed studies of Sprachinsellanguages in a multitude of generative and structural frameworks which have paved the way to further inquiry concerning the underlying grammatical competence of the Ll in these decaying dialects. An example of such an investigation is Silvia Dal Negro's (2004) detailed study of the language decay under way in the Pomattertisch dialect an Alemannic (Walser) dialect spoken in Forrnazza, a relatively small, isolated Alpine community in Italy. Clearly, the status of

Speakers of these dialects have been referred to in lhe literature as 'seffii..speakers' (Dorian 1981), 'in(Oinplete acquirers' (Montrul 2002; Polinsky 2006), \mbalan(ed, dominant, or pseudo ..bilinguals' (Baker & Tones 1998), and 'early bilinguals' (Kim et al 2006). The exact cognitive status of the internal grammars ofthese speakers, however, is still a matter of serious debate. As pointed out to me by Werner Abraham (p.c.), Bidese & Padovan (2010) point out some salient trnits that the grammar of'semi-speakers' share with aphasic, pigeon, and code· mixing speech patterns. They report: 1.

Auch bei der Pidginisierungwirdgrammatische Struktur abgebaut,gleichzeitigjedoch entsteht neue Struktur, vor allem indem lexikalische Elemente grammatikalisiert wurden. Auch beim Code-mixi11g im bili11gualen Spracherwerb weisen Kinder eine sttirkere bzw. vollstiindige Kompetenz in einer Sprache auf, withrend die Kompetenz in der anderen Sprache zeitlich mangelhaft ist. Nach der "I-ry Hypothesis" bildet die starke Sprache die funktionalen (also die oberen) Strukturen, an die sich die lexikalischen der schwacheren anlehnen. (cf Bernardini & Schlyter (2004)). [As found in (linguistic) pidi.gini.zation, grammatical structure is decomposed while simultaneously new structure is built, most importantly in environments where lexical elements are grammaticali:z.ed. Also as evidenced in code-switdting in bilingual language acquisition, children display a stronger/complete competence for one of the languages while the competence for the other 'weak.er' language is temporally stunted or defective. According to "The Ivy Hypothesis," the stronger/dominant language serves a~ the ba~is for the functional structures, onto which the lexical elements from the 'weaker' language a~similate to. (translation by M. Putnam)]

\Vhy study Sprachinsein from generative or structuraJ perspectives?

particular linguistic aspects ofthese grammars (e.g. phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc.) illuminate exactly which components of the grammar are more susceptible to contact-induced change and which are not. 2 Detailed studies of Sprachinsel languages such as those in this volume stand to increase our working knowledge of the (in)stability of particular aspects of these grammars in flux. Not only do these descriptive/empirical studies enrich our knowledge of these Spmchinsel-language grammars, but recent psycholinguistic research also confirms that these grammars occupy a special status in the mind and, as a result, are unique in many aspects from 'regular' monolingual grammars. For example, as highlighted by Schmid and Kopke (2007: 3), "only recently has it been recognized that bilinguals may not have one 'normal' language (in which they are indistinguishable from monolinguals the Ll in the case ofL2-learners and the L2 in the case of Ll attrit-ters) and the one 'deviant' one (in which knowledge is less extensive than that of monolinguals, and also tainted by interference from L1 in SLA and from attrition):' Psycholinguistic studies have demonstrated that bilinguals have an 'in-between' way of processing sentences (Hernandez, Bates & Avila 1994), of structuring their phonetic space (Cutler, Mehler, Norris & Segui 1989; Flege 1987), and exhibiting an 'always on-line' status for lexical items regardless of the language in use (Van I-fell & Dijkstra 2002). As pointed out by Schmid & Kopke (2007: 3), based on these findings "if traffic is always bi-directional [... ] then L1 attrition may not be the special and rare 'condition' as which it is often perceived?' Findings such as these suggest that although certain sociolinguistic situations must arise that lead to the proper environment for L1 attrition to set in;~ a unified account of the structural properties of the L1 grammars that have undergone this attrition is sorely needed. 4 Formalized theories of grammar competence and performance provide us with an opportunity to gain fllrther insight into the nature of these L1 attrition grammars. As demonstrated by the psycholinguistic studies cited above, the research questions that

2. Of particular interest and relevance here is Abraham's (this volume) study that presents strong arguments against the Double Base Hypothesis, arguing rather than many changes undetway in Cimbrian German dialects should be understood as an increase in the frequency of already existing forms in both Italo-Romance and German(ic) rather than mere 'borrowing' from the former.

3· Some more commonly cited sociolinguistic situations generaily held to function as a catalyst for language attrition are (but definitely not limited to): emigration, a shift in the Ll speaking community to exclusively adopt an L2 as the dominant language, lack of usage of the Ll in daily life, a significant decline in the duration of actively speaking the Ll (sometime involving decade-long pauses in action), etc. 4· As noted by Cook, the most likely scenario is one in which the acquisition of any L2 in the lifetime of an individual can have irrevocable effects on the L1 of an individual.

3

4

Michael T. Putnam

need to be asked at this stage in the development of Sprachinselforschung (i.e. languageisland research) could be enhanced greatly through the implementation of generative and structural approaches to human cognition and grammar. Note that the inclusion of generative and structural approaches into the f(mnal study of the properties of these endangered dialects does not exclude or trump the on·· going sociolinguistic and experimentallpsycholinguistic research that is under way in bilingual and language attrition studies. On the contrary, the inclusion of generative/structural studies into this growing domain of linguistic research has the chance of improving our ever·· expanding knowledge of these grdlllmars that is underway. In this regard, we can answer the 'why question: i.e. 'VVhy should we concern ourselves with theoretical and structural studies of tl1ese dialects' as follows: Studies such as these have the potential of not only enhancing the research under way in related fields (e.g. generative linguistics, applied linguistics, and psycho linguistics to name a tew), but their addition to the ever-growing research in contact linguistics and L1 attrition also has the potential of establishing a working framework where insights into the behavior of these language and dialects can be formally analyzed. The study of German-language enclaves (i.e. Sprachinsellanguages) provides us with an even more unique opportunity to see how one particular language - one, I might add, that has been the extensive source of rigorous linguistic study for centuries- behaves in a multitude of diverse environments. For some, their Sprachinsel language exi.sts as an Ll. variant in a stable bilingual situation (as is commonly the case for speakers of Plain Pennsylvania German); for others, it behaves as an L1 no longer actively used by a c.ommunity of speakers. Regardless of the diverse environments these Spmchinsellanguages currently are situated in, generative and structural stud-· ies of these variants will undoubtedly strengthen and expand our current knowledge of the internal grammar of these languages. In this regard, this volume represents a 'call to arms' for continued, extensive research of these Spmchinsellanguages. This 'call to arms' serves as the raison dHre for the existence of this current volume, namely, to provide a forum tor the on-going discussion and research of German-.Janguage enclaves that exist in a language contact situation where the German-language variant is the minority and that also by in large exists in a moribund state. In most of these communities, the last generation of 'semi-speakers' of these dialects under study are all that remain.

3·

Scope and content of the contributions

The various foci of study of these individual contributions investigate topics from the phonology of Mt'lcheno to the morphos};·ntax of Plautdietsc.h in Henderson, Nebraska,

\\l'hy study Spradtinsein from generative or structural perspectives?

to the stalus of verb-second in Cimbrian German (Northern Italy). As noted above, not only are these papers rich in interesting typological data, but they also make use of many contemporary theoretical frameworks such as Optimality Theory, the Minimalist Program, and Conversation Analysis. Concerning the areas of phonetics and phonology, i.e. SECTION 1.: PHONETICS & PHONOLOGY, Renee Remy investigates the phonetic and phonological properties of German 'final devoicin.g' (i.e. Auslautverhiirtung) from data obtained from Wisconsin German speakers. Specifically, Remy's study takes a closer look at laryngeal neutralization patterns in order to determine the status of final /b, d, g, zi consonants in Wisconsin German. Her study reveals that, although these dialect speakers of Wisconsin German do exhibit patterns of final laryngeal neutralization, these patterns diverge in interesting ways and in varying degrees of consistence from similar segments and environments found in modern High German. Birgit Alber's study engages in an in depth investigation on the formation of past par-ticiples in the Afocheno dialect (a Southern Bavarian dialect spoken in the language island Bersntol, also referred to as Fersentalerisch in German). Alber contributes to the debate of what determines allomorph selection by demonstrating that it is possible to analyze the process of past participle fi.)rmation in Mocheno as a process through which unmarked structures arise. Furthermore. Alber argues that it is optimal to analyze this process as one of optimalization since the constraint hierarchy responsible for allomorph selection subsumes two partial constraint hierarchies which are active in the language as a whole. The second section of papers, i.e. SECTION 2: MoRPHOLOGY & LEXICAL STUDIES, explores lexical and morphosyntactic issues related to Sprachinsel languages. Annemarie 1oebosch investigates the morphosyntactic/semantic notion of gender in the Plautdietsch dialect spoken in Henderson, Nebraska. Toebosch's study shows that this dialect exhibits a mixed semantic-grammatical gender system similar to that found in modern standard Dutch ·with regard to its semantic gender assignment involving pronouns, however with stronger grc:lffimatical gender in attributive targets and with semantic gender having spread to a wider nmge of targets in some speakers. Toebosch argues that the loss of gender inflection in Henderson Plautdietsch is, in fact, a gain in formal animacy features. The morphosyntactic/semantic properties of intensifiers and reflexives in the moribund Amana (Iowa) German dialect are the focus of Michael T. Putnam's contribution. His research documents the apparent shift in the inventory of Amana Germans intensifier and reflexive inventory evidenced in the dialect's morphosyntactic/semantic realization of recognizing two distributional types of transitive predicates; namely, typically 'other-directed' (e.g. [+On)) and typically 'selfdirected' predicates (e.g. [-Oo]). Hans Boas and Marc Pierce explore one of the most prominent aspects of contact languages, namely, the borrowing of lexical material. Their paper investigates the lexical borrowings in Texas German (TxG) to establish

5

6

Michael T. Putnam

the degree of lexical change that has taken place in this dialect over the past century. Richard Page's study on the assignment of gender to English loan words in modem Pennsylvania German closes out this section. Page's research reveals a tendency for the assignment of masculine gender to English loan words in Pennsylvania German. Section 3 (i.e. Sn..'TAX I VERB CLUSTERS) consists of two related and corn·· prehensive studies of verb clusters in Sprachinsel languages, namely, Pennsylvania German and Mennonite Low German (as spoken in six Mennonite colonies in the Americas). Mark Louden's el!:ploration of verb clusters in Pennsylvania German covers not only synchronic aspects of these vexing. complex structures, but also incorporates diachronic data to illustrate historical developments that have taken place in the development of Pennsylvania German. 1his predominantly descriptive study highlights these changes as well as the relative uniformity in variants of Pennsylvania German with regard to this construction. Goz Kaufmann's research exposes some of the ongoing convergence under way shaping the differences in final verb cluster structures in these Mennonite Low German dialects. Kaufmann's contribution combines work in structural linguistics with sociolinguistic variables (such as age and gender) to deliver a more accurate study of exactly which extra linguistic factors appear to be functioning as a catalyst for some of these observed structural changes. The syntax of Cirnbrian German, i.e. SECTION 4: SYNTAX II - THE SYNTAX OF CIMBRIAN GERMAN, serves as tl1e topic of discussion for the next (fourth) section of papers. Werner Abraham exposes a common held fallacy in the study of Sprachinsel languages; namely, the so-called Double Base Hypothesis, which holds that the mixture of structural properties of German and Italian in Cimbrian German is due to the century--long isolation of this language enclave being surrounded by an Italian majority. Abraham's research focuses on the exclusive orality of Cirnbrian and the specific structural changes oral-only variants are subject to as opposed to written, standard vernaculars. As a result, Abraham establishes a methodological nullhypothesis that change occurs under the narrowest accompanying structural conditions accessible within one and the same language rather than by borrowing from the social majority. Andrea Padovan investigates grarnrnaticalization phenomena within the Cirnbrian cornplernentizer layer (i.e. CP-layer), with a particular emphasis on the expansion of the Italian cornplernentizer ke. The central claim of his work from a structural perspective is that ke has not infiltrated the Cirnbrian CP-layer randomly but along a precise hierarchy from top to bottom. The work of Gunther Grewendorf and Cecilia Poletto continues with the theme of the CP-layer in Cirnbrian German. Grewendorf and Poletto restrict their study of Cirnbrian German to the variety spoken in Lusema showing that the language still can be classified as a V2-language. This is demonstrated by data involving subject (clitic) inversion in declarative clauses, a first position expletive pronoun similar to German es, and the typical asymmetry between main and embedded clauses (although restricted to one subclass of embedded clauses).

\Vhy study Sprachinsein from generative or structuraJ perspectives?

Ermenegildo Bidese's study of the development of the pronominal system in Cimbrian German closes this section. Accordingly, the syntax of Cimbrian object pronouns moves closer to that of the clitics of North Italy's Romance dialects, but without ever totally converging with the status of Romance exceptionless proclitics, due to the fact that in any stage of historical Cimbrian proclitics also can be shown to appear (based on Abraham's study from this volume). Section 5 continues with the theme of syntactic studies of aspects of Sprachinsel languages, focusing on Pennsylvania German (i.e. SECTION 5: SYNTAX III 'THE SYNTAX OF PENNSYLVANIA GERMAN). Gesche Westphal Fitch surveys the increasing frequency of the extraposition of adverbials (in particular, event-related adverbials) and prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German. Incorporating data from Standard German, Palatinate German, and Pennsylvania German, Fitch demonstrates that although Pennsylvania German dearly shows stronger tendencies toward the extraposition of these elements, the mother dialect (e.g. Palatinate German) itself displays more extraposed forms than St1ndard German. Fitch's research shows a high frequency of eventrelated adverb placement that corresponds to an English surface order and a lower frequency of the order corresponding to unmarked German in Pennsylvania German also is presented. Based on this study, Fitch argues that Pennsylvania German displays frequency changes in which previously marked variants rise in frequency, corresponding to English surface structure, which is possibly facilitated by pre-existing tendencies in Palatinate German. Kersti Borjars and Kate Burridge chronicle the development of fer in Pennsylvania German from a benefactive to a purposive to a general infinitival marker in the variant of Plain Pennsylvania German spoken in vVaterloo Country, zu" clauses from adjunct to subject and Canada. Although the spread of the "fer complement functions is common to a number of varieties of Germanic, Bc>rjars and Burridge argue that the unique aspect of this change in Pennsylvania German has taken place at the same time as a related and pervasive change in the language, namely the loss of the infinitival marker zu. Tt) model the phenomenon of grammaticalization and the role of reanalysis, Borjars and Burridge couch their study in Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). The final section of this volume, SECTION 6: PRAGMATICS & CoNVERSATION ANALYSIS, contains studies involving the discourse particle markers of Texas German (TxG) and position-sensitive adverbs in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch. Emma Betz engages in a study of position-sensitive adverbs in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch, couched within the Conversation Analysis framework. Her study investigates the lexical items ientz{t) 'now' and ientzter 'now' and demonstrates that in interaction, speakers use these variants as resources to mark the status of a turn construction unit or turn as complete or incomplete. Moreover, the selection and use of these two lexical items is sensitive to their placement within a larger sequence of conversation: Turn-final ientzter is tied to the management of topics in interaction, specifically to promoting a new action

7

8

Michael T. Putnam

trajectory. Finally, Hunter Weilbacher's study explicates a predominant characteristic of TxG speech, namely the prevalent use of English-origin pragmatic elements such as discourse markers (DMs) including well or you know, as well as other discoursepragmatic phrases or 'particles' from Engli.sh. Weilbacher reveals that the primary function of these DMs in TxG is that they appear to "lessen the load" by pragmatically indicating that the speaker is processing the upcoming utterance. In sum, the purpose of this volume is to expose various related research commnnities to under-researched aspects of these Sprachinsellanguages as well as to provide new perspectives on long-standing debates. With the ocean of new and interesting data couched within modern structural and generative frameworks, this volume hopefully achieves this preliminary goal and beyond.

References Abraham, Werner. 2009. (re'.'i.ew). Bruno: Schweizer: Zimbrische Gesamtgrammatik: Vergleichende Darstellung der zimbrischen Dialekte. James R. Dow (ed.). Zeitschrift ftir Dlalektologie und Linguistlk. Belhefte. 132(1): 247·· 257. Armand, Friedrich. 1867. Friedrlchsburg: Die Colonie des deutschen Fe.sten--verreins in Texas. Leipzig: F. Fleischer. Baker, Colin & Jones, Sylvia P. 1998. Encydopedla of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Berend, Nina & Mattheie1; Klaus (eels). 199·1. Sprachinselforschung: Bin Gedenksc.hrift ftir Hugo Jedig. Frankfi.trt: Peter Lang. Bernardini., Petra & Schlyte1; Suzanne. 2004. Growing syntactic structure and code--mixing in the weaker language: The I\')' Hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 49··69. Cook, Vivian 2003. The changing Ll in the L2 user's mind. In Fffects of the Sec.ond Language otl the First, Vivian Cook (ed.), 1···18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Csaba, Foldes. 2005. Kontaktdeutscil. Zur Theorie eines Varietatentyps unter transkuiturelletl Bedingungen von Mehrsprachigkeit. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr. Cutler, Anne, Mehler, Jacques, Norris, Dennis & Segui., Juan 1989. Limits on bilingualism. Nature 340: 229-230. Dal Negro, Silvia. 2004. The Decay of a Language: The Case of a German Dialect In the Italiatl Alps. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Dorian, Nancy. 1981. Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Flege, John. 1987. The production of 'new' and 'similar' phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal ofPhonetics 15: 47···65. Haldeman, S.S. 1872. Pennsylvania Dutch: A diaiect ofSouth German with an lnfosion ofAmerican Bnglish. Philadelphia PA: Reformed Church Publication Board. Hernande7., Arturo, Bates, Eli.1.abeth & Avila, Luis. 1994. On-line sentence interpretation in Spanish-English bilinguals: What does it mean to be 'in-between'? Applied Psycholinguistics 15:417-466.

\Vhy study Sprachinsein from generative or structuraJ perspectives? Keel, William & Mattheier, Klaus (ed~). 2003. Germar1 Lar1guage Varieties Woridwide: lr1temal and R~:temal Perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kim, Ji-Hye, Montrul, Silvina & Yoon, James. 2006. On the logophoric long-distance binding interpretation of the Korean local anaphor 'Caki-casin' by early bilinguaJs. Proceedings of the Armuai Boston Universit-v Coriferen.:e on Language Development 30: 305-315. Kopke, Barbara, Schmid, Monika, Keijzer, Merel & Dostert, Susa!l (eds). 2007. Lan,'5uage Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives [Studies in Bilingualism 33]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, Silvina. 2002. Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5: 39--68. Padovan, Andrea & Bidese, Ermeneglldo. 2010. Erodierte Sprachstrukturen und Grammatiktheorie: Zur Morphosyntax der Halbsprecher in der zimbrischen Enklave Lusern. Handout. Conference: DSWI Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien. Rome, Italy. Feb mary 4--6. Polinsky, Monika. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14: 161--219. Schmeller, Johann Andreas. 1855/1984. Die Cimbern der VII rmd XIII Communen auf venedischen Aipen und ihre Sprache. 1855: Weiner Akademieverlag. 1984: Munich, Curatorium Cimbricum Bavarense. Facsimiledruck der Ausgabe von 1855. Schmid, Monika & Kopke, Barbara. 2007. Bilingualism and attritio!l In Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives [Studies in Bilingualism 33], Barbara Kopke, Monika Schmid, Merel Kei)zer & Susan Dostert, 1---7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schweizer, Bnmo. 1939. 2imbrische Sprachreste. Teil1: Texte aus Giazza (Dreizehn Gemeinden

ob Veronaj. Nach dem Volksmunde aujgenommen und mit deutscher Oberssetzung heraus-gegeben. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer. Schweizer, Bruno. 1952. 2imbrische Gesamtgrammatik, Band V: Syntax der zimbrlschen Diaiekte in Oberitalien. Diesser1 am Ammersee. Tippskript. Marburg/Lahn: Institut ftir Forschung der deutschen Sprache. Van Hell, Janet & Dijkstra, Ton. 2002. Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psycho nomic Bulietin & Review 9( 4): 780--789.

9

SECTION 1

Phonetics & Phonology

On final laryngeal distinctions in Wisconsin Standard German* ReneeRemy Fremdspracheninstitut der Landeshauptstadt Munchen

Final laryngeal distinctions in the speech oftwo Eastern Wisconsin Germans provide insight into the German dialects spoken in Eastern Wisconsin, and how Wisconsin English has apparently begun to develop patterns of final fortition (Auslautverhiirtung). The speech samples show that both speakers differ from standard German and each other, with regard to laryngeally neutral consonants. In Manitowoc county, some voicing is present on underlying /s/ consonants, while underlying /b,d,g/ consonants remain almost exclusively laryngeally neutral. The Ozaukee county speaker shows neutralization across ib,d,g,z/ consonants v.ith predictable exceptions. Looking at Wisconsin German also helps to \Ulderstand American English as spoken in Eastern Wisconsin. Thus, final laryngeal distinctions are important for obtaining a clear picture of speech patterns used by bilingual Germans in Eastern Wisconsin.

1.

Introduction

This paper treats the phonetics and phonology of German 'final devoicing' - also known as Ausla.utverhiirtung, tinal fortition, or 'final laryngeal neutralization'. A set of debates continues over the status of neutralizations like that between Rat 'advice' and Rad 'wheef. both pronounced with final [t] - these include what features are involved and whether it is or can be 'complete'. Still, remarkably few data have been presented from free speech on this topic. I present such data here from recordings of two Wisconsin German speakers, speaking a variety of American Standard German. I look at laryngeal neutralization patterns in order to determine the status of final /b,d,g,z/ consonants in Wisconsin German.

•-I would like to thank Joshua Bousquette, Ryan Carroll, 'Iodd Ehresmann, Richard Page, Rose Rittenhouse, Blake Rogers, Joseph Salmons, Charlie Webster, and Stephanie Yau for their comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Kevin Kurdylo of the Max Kade Institute for assistance with the recordings. 'Ihe usual disclaimers apply.

14

Renee Remy

I consider it possible that the laryngeal phonetics of final consonants in Wisconsin German will differ from what would be expected in Standard German. Moreover, even ifboth speakers neutralize final consonants laryngeally, the neutralization pattern may not be consistent between these two dialect speakers. These possibilities are supported by the current results. This may have several explanations, and I explore two. First, German is a pluricentric. language including mutually unintelligible dialects. Dialect speakers often learn High German in school, but do not necessarily rid themselves of dialectal characteristics, including the phonetics of final laryngeal distinctions. That is, the lack of complete neutralization may simply continue the earlier varieties imported from Germany. Second, in multilingual settings like those of German--speaking communities, language contad can lead to reshaping of the dialectal variety as well as the majority language in the area. That is, German L1 speakers who are bilingual in English and use English much more than German may show phonetic effects on their German. This second point is of particular interest, given evidence that some Wisconsin English speakers appear to be developing patterns of final laryngeal neutralization. In the rest of the paper, I will discuss previous research on the topic of final laryngeal neutralization, in §2, and introduce the present dataset in §3. I present the results of a small perceptual study in §4 and acoustic analysis in §5. §6 outlines a possible connection between German and Eastern Wisconsin English, while §7 concludes.

2.

Background and rationale

Before continuing, note that the traditional English term 'final devoicing' is problematic in itself for languages like German. 1hat term does not reflect the phonetic and phonological differences between twu types of languages. Some, like Romance, Slavic or Dutch, rely heavily on phonetic voicing that is, actual glottal pulsing to distinguish /dl from It/ and so on. Others, like most of Germanic, Somali, Kashmiri and many others, mark their 'voiceless' stops by aspiration in prosodically prominent positions, and do not use phonetic voicing as a central signal to their laryngeal distinctions. Under this view of 'laryngeal realism' (Honeybone 2005), the term final fortilion (Iverson & Salmons 2006) allows for a more precise and accurate characterization for final laryngeal neutralization in 'spread glottis' languages like German or English, while 'final devoic.ing' is reserved for 'voice' languages like Dutch. 'Ihe complete vs. partial status of phonetic and phonological neutralization has been discussed in a long string of previous studies, many focused specifically on German final obstruents (Inozuka 1991; Port & Crawford 1989; Houlihan & Iverson 1979; Kiparsky 1976). These have often compared words in carrier phrases (i.e. "Please say for me"), with the result that participants became aware of the nature


of the experiment (Piroth & Janker 2004). 1 Another problem in determining what is complete vs. partial 'final laryngeal neutralization' is real world variation - it is dear that not all speakers of'Gennan' have neutralization, let alone complete neutralization, and such patterns need to be documented as part of the work in this arena. Pursuing the idea that sound change is a primary shaper of synchronic phono-logical patterning, Blevins (2004) shows that no single process leads to 'final devoicing' and that very few processes, when combined, consistently lead to 'final devoicing: For the case of German and its dialects, Mihm (2004) discusses the history starting with Middle High German (MHG) regional variation. He divides the German-speaking region into t'i.v-o sectors: the "northwesf' and the "southeasf'. Data in the current study come from a speaker with ancestry in the Kiel area (which lies in Mihn1s "northwesf' sector) and Pomerania (which does not fit directly in Mihm's sectors, although still exhibits typically northern characteristics). Mihm showed that the symmetry with p losives and fi·icatives in the sound system was not as clean in the "northwesf' as in the "southeast:' The data in the current study are consistent with Mihms analysis because some of the recording samples show final fortition across the board (with fricatives) even though other plosives are less consistent across regional recordings. Complete neutralization of [b,d,g] to [p,t,k] in New High German (NHG) is actually quite low (only 31% according to Mihm 2004: 185). Partial neutralization is found more often, showing up in some environments but not in others. Before moving on, note that fortition may be arising today in some varieties of American English, at least those with heavily German roots. According to Purnell et. al. (2005) speakers in a formerly German-speaking Wisconsin town produce final laryngeal distinctions differently in their spoken English than speakers of most other varieties of American English, showing partial laryngeal neutralization, especially of /s/ versus /z/. It is, in other words, possible that German speakers have contributed to the development of modern American English in the Wisconsin area. I will return to this in §6. As noted, many aspects of German final laryngeal neutralization remain unstudied and we lack information on the status of the process in many varieties of German, especially extraterritorial ones. A first goal, then, is simply to broaden the empirical foundation on the topic, drawing data from extraterritorial varieties. With that, let us turn now to the present study.

3·

The present study

The current study examines, as indicated, final tortition (.Auslautverhiirtung) among speakers of German living in Eastern \Visconsin. My data come from two heritage

Standard German speakers are clearly sensitive to spelling, and German-English bilinguals, 1. like the subjects in Port's work, can often produce such distinctions.

15

16

Renee Remy

speakers of what has been called 'American Standard German' (Salmons & Lucht 2005), one each from Manitowoc and Ozaukee counties. Both are from communities that spoke Low German natively but which used a standard-like variety in a full range of institutions, including schools and churches. 'Ihe Manitowoc and Ozaukee recordings were both recorded in 1968, and the language ofboth the interviewer and interviewee was (High) German. The Manitowoc sample is free speech by a female speaker whose German ancestors were ti·om a small area west of Kiel, Germany. The topics of the 27 minute recording include the occupations and lifestyle of her parents and grandparents, as well as her family's Christmas traditions. The Ozaukee sample is 29 minutes of free speech by a male speaker, with ancestry in Pomerania, about his grandfather and about various German societies in Milwaukee. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to using free speech samples. Although one cannot control for phonetic environment or number of tokens produced free speech recordings yield more natural production results than the randomized token words in carrier phrases used in previous studies, a problem already noted in Port's work above. In the present situation of advanced language loss in the community, studying free speech in older recordings is advantageous because newer recordings may show more attrition. The major disadvantage is naturally that we do not have directly parallel forms, minimal pairs like Rat vs. Radin the same phonetic context. But ultimately, this was the only approach possible given tlte data source. Finallary11.geal neutralization is a general trend in the data (especially with fricatives), but the samples show differences in the frequency of neutralized plosive consonants. The fact that German, including its northern spoken varieties, is a spread glottis language looks to be consistent with the Wisconsin German data. The data seem to shed light on specific dialectal differences, which are integrated into the standard variants. Some code-switching between Gennan and English can also be heard in the recordings. The tokens chosen were words ending in /b, d, g, z/. If these speakers were following standard High German patterns, one would expect all final obstruents to undergo tortition. I turn now to the results of a small perceptual study ainled at testing whether final obstruents in the speech of these two individuals are heard by American English speakers as voiced or voiceless.

4·

Perception of Wisconsin German final obstruents

Individual words from the recordings used in this study were played for six American respondents in order to determine their perceptions of the voiced/voiceless nature of the final obstruent~. I chose American respondents because a voicing contrast for final obstruents is found in most varieties of American English. It is important to know how these sounds are perceived and not just how they look acoustically. I assumed that German /p,t,k/ would be heard as [p,t,k], but underlyingly voiced consonants

On final laryngeal di.~tinction.~ in Wisconsin Standard German /b,d,g,:d would possibly be variable in terms of being perceived as voiced or voiceless. Therefore, I only chose to look at /b,d,g,v' and Is! consonants, where there were good examples in the data. Respondents heard each word twice and were asked to write down whether they heard the voiced or voiceless variant of the final obstruent. For example, subjects were asked: "is the final consonant a [b] or [p]?" The written words were not seen by the respondents. However, all respondents knew basic German and occasionally recognized certain words. Not all words analyzed in the section of phonetic data were used in perception testing. Words for perception testing were chosen based on their envi.-· ronment, so that (when possible) at least one final consonant followed by a voiced obstruent, a voiceless obstruent, and a pause were present for each consonant group (ip,bi, /t,di, /k,gi, /s,'ll respectively). Words with high and low glottal pulsing percent· ages were also chosen, in hopes of presenting a broad sample of tokens to respondents. The results were then combined according to the aforementioned consonant groups and compared across respondents. Each perception data table lists the word followed by the number of respondents who heard the final consonant as voiced or voiceless. The characterization of the first sound of the following word in the recording is listed in parentheses after the token: D = voiced obstruent; T = voiceless obstruent; N = nasal; pause = phrase final/pause in speech. Words that occurred more than once in the speech sample are numbered.

Perception of Manitowoc (speaker with ancestry near Kiel) final obstruents

4.1

The Manitowoc speaker produced final consonants that were fairly easily identified by respondents. Although each respondent heard each word twice, many respondents were able to identity the final consonant the first time they heard it. Table 1. Perceptions of Manitowoc German Underlying Final/sf Word

[s]

[z]

alies 1 (T) alies 2 (D) als (D)

6/6 3/6 5/6 2/6 4/6 5/6 5/6 2/6 5/6 5/6 6/6 2/6

0/6 3/6 1/6 4/6 2/6 1/6 1/6 4/6 1/6 1/6

hat~(D)

damals 1 (D) damals 3 (D) gab~ gab~

1 (D) 2 (D)

gab~

3 (D)

damals 2 (pause) ausgezeichnetes (N) Gans (1\1)

Oi6 4i6

17

18

Renee Remy

The vast majority of these underlying final/sf tokens were heard as /s/ (see Table 1). Generally speaking, tokens followed by 'D' were heard most often by five of the six respondents as I sf. Tokens followed by 'T were always heard as I sl, and tokens followed by 'pause' were heard by five of the six respondent~ as Is!. Tokens followed by 'N' were heard on average by four of six respondents as /s/ and two of six respondent~ as /'li. However, only three tokens 'gab~ 2: 'Cans: and 'hatr were heard more often as l7l than/sf by the respondents.

Table 2. Perceptions of Manitowoc German Underlying Final/z/ Word

[s]

[z]

logs(D)

6/6

0/6

This token was agreed upon by all six respondents as sounding like isi, even though it is an English word. The final consonant should be /z/ in American English, though this did not seem to lead respondents to call it/z/.

Table 3. Perceptions of Manitowoc German Underlying Final/g/ Word

[gl

[k]

logs (T)

6i6

0/6

All six respondents also agreed that the /g/ in 'l.ogs' was in fact a /g/ and not a /k!. 'lhis response conforms to American English norms.

Table 4. Perceptions of Manitowoc German Underlying Final/d./ Word

[d]

[t]

Hund (p) Pferd(D) Deutschland (T) secondhand (N)

0/6 1/6 6/6 6/6

6/6 5/6 0/6 0/6

Only two of the underl)'ing final idi tokens were unanimously deemed /d/. The other two were overw·helmingly heard as It/. Final /di tokens followed by 'D' were very often heard as /t/, as only one person reported hearing a /d/. Tokens followed by both 'T and 'N' were heard as /d/ by all respondents. 'Secondhand' is of course a loanword from English, which could explain why all respondent~ heard the final consonant as I d!. 'Ihere was more agreement here than there seems to be among the other final consonants.


Table 5. Perceptions of Manitowoc German Underlying Final/b/

Word

[b]

[p]

gab (D) gab~ 1 (T)

6/6 5/6 2/6 5/6 1/6 5/6 5/6

0!6

gab~

2 (T) gab~ 3 (T) hab (N) ichhab~)

hab 1 (pause)

1!6 4/6 1!6 5!6

1!6 1!6

Five out of six respondents, in the majority of cases, he-ard tokens followed by 'T' as /b/. One token was perceived as /b/ and one as !pi in tokens followed by 'N: The token followed by 'pause' was heard by five out of six respondents as /b/, and the token followed by 'D' was heard by all respondents as /b/. Surprisingly, only two of the tokens in 'Iable 5 'gab's 2' and 'hab' were heard as !pl. This finding does not conform to Standard German norms, in which all final!b/ consonants should be heard as /p/. Table 6. Perceptions of Manitowoc German Underlying Final fbt/ Cluster

Word

[b]

[p]

erlaubt (I')

4/6 1!6 3/6

2/6 5/6 3/6

gehabt 1 (I') geiiebt(T)

Respondents exhibited widespread disagreement on whether they thought these final consonants clusters were /btl or /pt/. The 'erlaubt' token, however, had the most respondents hear the final/btl duster as /btl. 4.2

Perception of Ozaukee (speaker with ancestry in Pomerania) final obstruents

1he Ozaukee speaker produced final consonants that were difficult t{)r some respondents to identify. 1hus, respondents often did not agree with each other in their perceptions of these consonants. Table 7. Perceptions of Ozaukee German Underlying Final/sf

Word

[s]

[z]

alles (D) alles 2 (stress-D)

4/6 4/6 1/6

2/6 2/6 5/6

Dletze~(D)

19

20

Renee Remy

The final consonants in these tokens, all followed by 'IY, were primarily heard as Is/. The last token was heard as /z/ by all but one respondent, possibly because of the /z/ consonant that shows up towards the end of the word. Table 8. Perceptions of Ozaukee German Underlying Final lzfl Word

[s]

[z]

Klubs (D) Klubs2 (D)

·1/6 3/6

2/6 3/6

The respondents do not agree on the voiced/voiceless nature of the final consonants in the tokens with underlying final/zl (see Table 8).1he final consonant in the first token seems to have been heard as lsi by the majority of respondents, but there is no consensus for the second token. One would expect respondents to hear these tokens with final /z/ because of the 'D' in the following word, however many respondents report hearing Isl. Table 9. Perceptions of Ozaukee German Underlying Final/gl Word

[g]

[k]

fiinftig (D) genug(T)

4/6 0/6

2/6 6/6

Respondent~ marked the final consonant in the first token to sound primarily like a /gl, and the second token overwhelmingly like a /k/. This is possibly due to the sound that follows at the beginning of the next word in the recording (I will elaborate on this point in the section of glottal pulsing data).

Table 10. Perceptions of Ozaukee German Underlying Final/d/ Word

[d]

[t]

Deutschland 3 (pause) Kind (pause) Sc1zwarzwald (pause) Mitglled (T) Deutschland (D)

2/6 0/6 6/6 4/6 6/6

4/6 6/6 0/6

2/6 0/6

2. The word 'Klubs' may be d1aracterized as having an underlying final/z/ if it is a phonologically unintegrated loan word. It of course would have final [z] in English.

On final laryngeal distinction~ in Wisconsin Standard German

Underlying final/d/ consonants followed by 'pause' were heard on averc:tge by two of six respondents as/d/ and three of six respondents as/t/. Tokens followed by 'T and 'D' were heard as /d/ by four out of six and sil!: of six respondents respectively. Two final consonants were unanimously heard as /d/. Table ll. Perceptions of O:r.aukee German Underlying Final/b/ Word

[b]

[p]

Klub 1 (T) Klubs 1 (T) Klubs2 (T) giaub 1 (D) giaub 3 (D) Klub2 (D) Klub 5 (D) Klub 3 (pause) Klub 4 (pause)

1/6 4/6 3/6 5/6 1/6 5/6 6/6 4/6 4/6

5i6 2i6 3i6

1i6 5i6 1/6 0/6 2/6 2/6

Six out of nine tokens were heard by the respondents as having finalibi. 'Ibkens followed by 'D' were heard most often by five out of six respondents as /b/. Underlying final /b/ tokens followed by 'T' were heard more often as /p/, although many respondents heard them as /bi. When followed by 'pause' tokens were heard by four of six respondents as /b/. There was much more disagreement among the rest of the tokens than seen in the I d,g,z/ final consonants. 1he results of the small perception test show that respondents had more trouble deciphering whether or not certain consonants were voiceless or voiced in the Ozaukee tokens than in the Manitowoc tokens. 'Ihe Manitowoc speaker produced finallaryn·· geal obstruents that were interpreted by American listeners as definitely voiceless or definitely voiced. Respondents were not left guessing as to voiced/voiceless nature of the final consonant. With the Ozaukee speaker, respondents showed more instances of widespread disagreement. 'Ihese findings suggest that final laryngeal obstruents are not neutralized consistently within the same speaker and that the Ozaukee speaker may have been influenced by knowledge of and proximity to Wisconsin English. 1hus, the frequent use of Wisconsin English and infrequent use of German (as well as possible atrophy of German) may have led to such inconsistencies. Respondents had little trouble hearing when certain consonants were voiced or voiceless in the Manitowoc tokens. Here the majority of the respondents tended to agree ·with one another almost unanimously on the nature of the final consonants, especially with fricatives. Final /b/ consonants were heard as voiced by the majority of respondents, though the glottal pulsing data does not support this finding. Although the respondents' perceptions did not match the glottal pulsing data for final /b/, words

21

22

Renee Remy with high percentages of glottal pulsing (see phonetic data) still seemed to be heard by the majority of respondents as voiced, and words with low percentages of glottal pulsing as voiceless. Once again, the influence of German on Wisconsin English and Wisconsin English on German may be the reason for the agreement between what respondents perceived and the actual phonetic data

5·

A(:OUSti(:

analysis

After gathering perception data for these two German speakers, sound files from these interviews were analyzed using Praat Duration of final obstruents was measured and the amount of voicing during closure was then used to calculate the glottal pulsing percentages. This paper assumes neutralization to be presentin final laryngeal obstruents when the glottal pulsing percentage is below 50%. The duration of the final consonant (in seconds) was taken from the diagram (as shown below in the word 'hab') as well as the amount of voicing during closure. The top of the diagram shows the sound waveform and the bottom the spectrogram. The dark bands on the spectrogram indicate voicing. The voicing during closure divided by the duration of the final consonant yields the percentage of glottal pulsing. Higher percentages of glottal pulsing indicate a voiced consonant and lower percentages a voiceless consonant Example from Praat [0.029]

[ 0.097]

'hab' - Final/b! expected [p ]: 0.029 seconds with 0.097 seconds voicing during closure, thus 30.0% glottal pulsing.

On final laryngeal di.~tinction.~ in Wisconsin Standard German 5.1

Data from Manitowoc (speaker with ancestry in Kiel)

The speaker with ancestry in the Kiel area (the Manitowoc speaker) shows some voicing on underlying /z/ consonants, while underlying /b, d, gl consonants remain almost exclusively laryngeally neutr.U. The speaker with ancestry near Kiel produces many tokens with underlying final/sf consonants (see ·ntble 12). As noted above, the characterization of the first sound of the follmving word in the recording is listed in parentheses after the token: D = voiced obstruent; T = voiceless obstruent; N = nasal; pause == phrase final/pause in speech. Words that occurred more than once in the speech sample are numbered. The word is listed in the first column, followed by the percentage of glottal pulsing or voicing carryover (GP) in the second column, and the length (seconds) of the final consonant in the third column. Table 12. Manitowoc Tokens with Underlying Final/sf Length (sec.)

Word

GP%

alles 1 (T) alles 2 (D) alles 3 (T) als (D) ausgezeichnetes (N) bis..ui!.tic census carried out by the Autonomous Province of Trento in 2001 reports that 2.278 people declared their affiliation to the Mocheno minority (Annuario Statistico 2006).lt is highly unlikely that this number reflects the number of speakers of Mocheno, since Mocheno is spoken - except for single individtLals - only in the three municipalities of Palai/ Palu del Fersina, Vlarotz/Fierozzo and Garait/Frassilongo (which incltLdes also Oachlait/ Roveda). The mLmber of people who declared their affiliation to the Mocheno comunity in these mtmicipalities amotmts to 947 and represents 95,4% of the population. Howeve1~ even this number cannot correspond to the actual number of speakers, since for the villages of Garait/Frassilongo and Vlarotz/Fierozzo Rowley (1986) describes a language situation where few families (Garait) or at most half of the families (Vlarotz) still speak Mocheno. The high percentages resulting in the census could reflect at most the number of speakers in the villages of Palai/Palu del Fersina and Oachlait/Roveda, in which, according to Rowley (1986), most families still speak Mocheno. If we ass-ume a percentage of 50% speakers in Garait -Oachlait (who figtLre as a single municipality in the statistics) and Vlarotz and 95,4% speakers for Palai, we arrive at the hypothetical mLmber of 583 Mocheno speakers (s. also the disctLssion in the local journal Lem, 27. Nov. 2002, 29. Sept. 2003, 30. Dec. 2003).

Past participles in Mocheno

McCarthy & Prince 1993b; Mester 1994; Drachman, Kager & Malikouti-Drachman 1996; Kager 1996; Mascar6 1996; Tranel1996; Plag 1999; Rubach & Booij 2001; Wolf 2008). Under this assumption, the best of two or more allomorphs will be selected, where phonological markedness conditions determine what is 'best' in a certain context and language. Other investigators have followed a more cautious approach, proposing that while optimization may play a prominent role in allomorph selection, at least in some cases of phonologically conditioned allomorphy the distribution of the allomorphs is due to subcategorization of the allomorphs for a specific phonological context (Lapointe 2001; Mascaro 2007; Bonet, Lloret & Mascar6 2007). More radically, Paster 2006 and Bye 2007 propose that all phonologically conditioned allomorphy should be described through subcategorization of the allomorph for a phonological context. For the phenomenon under scrutiny in this paper, under the optimization approach we expect the distribution of [---cont, ---voice] and gain Mocheno past participles to create structures which are phonologically unmarked, in some sense. Under the subcategorization approach, on the other hand, we will have to mark each allo-morph as being selected f{)r a specific phonological context. The contribution of the present paper to the debate about what determines allomorph selection is to show that (i) it is possible to analyze the process of past participle formation in Mocheno as a process through which unmarked structures arise (ii) it is desirable to analyze the process as a process of optimization sinc.e the constraint hier-archy responsible for allomorph selection subsumes two partial constraint hierarchies which are active in the language as a whole. I will therefore conclude that although there might be cases of phonologically conditioned allomorphy which (still) resist an interpretation in terms of optimization there are other cases where optimization is the most plausible analysis. In this paper, past participle formation in Mocheno will be analyzed as driven by markedness, since the choice between the two allomorphs [-cont, -voice] and ga-- is shown to be triggered to a large extent by the markedness constraint "[+vOicE], favoring the voiceless allomorph [ ---cont, ---voice], and by an alignment constraint, ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L), favoring the morpho-prosodic alignment of left stem edges with syllable boundaries. In addition to these two constraints, the partial hierarchy determining the distribution of voiced and voiceless fricatives in Mocheno conditions the choice of the allmorph in the remaining contexts. 1he paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 an overview of the pattern of past participle formation in Mocheno is given. In Section 3 I argue for the existence of two past participle allomorphs and identify them as a floating subsegment [-cont, -voice] and a prefix ga-. In Section 4 I discuss alignment between left stem boundaries and

35

36

Birgit Alber syllable boundaries in Standard German and in Mocheno, and its significance for past participle formation. In Section 5 the distribution of obstruents in Mocheno is analyzed and a ranking deriving it is established. In Section 6, which contains the analysis proper, I analyze the single contexts of past participle formation and determine the constraint rankings that are relevant for the choice of the allomorphs in each context.

z. Past participle formation in Mocheno The regularities of past participle formation in Mocheno are exhaustively described in Rowley 1986, 2003. Andreolli 2004---05 has elicited an additional number of past participles with respect to those mentioned by Row ley, arriving at the same set of rebru-larities. I have double checked Rowley's and Andreolli's results by eliciting 68 past participle forms from two speakers, one from Palai (Palu del Fersina) and one from Vlarotz (Fierozzo). The regularities which emerge from these sources are consistent among each other and can be summarized as follows. 2 The past participle in Mocheno is formed by adding to the verbal root the suffixes -(a)t-3 (for so called 'weak: regular verbs, ct: a. and c. below) or -(a)n (for so called 'strong: irrebrular verbs, cf b. below). In strong verbs, the quality of the root vowel may change, in accordance to historical .Ablaut (b. below). In addition to the suffix and Ablaut. in certain phonologically conditioned contexts a prefix is added, which can be either realized as ga- (a. and b.) or take the form of an afiiicate by forming a complex segment with a root--initial fricative (c.): (2)

infinitive past participle a.

b. c.

bis--n nem-;m vier-n

ga--bis-t ga-nom-;m p-fier-t

'to know' 'to take' 'to conduct'

This paper focuses on the context in which past participle prefixes are realized as well as on the form they assume. The distribution of the past participle suffixes -(a)t and ·-(a)n is unpredictable and will be ignored from now on.

See Cognola, in press, for a discussion of the semantics of ga- prefixed verbs and de verbal nouns in Mocbeno. While the realization of the prefix is governed by phonological constraints in past participle formation, its realization in deverbal nouns seems to be sensitive to the semantics of the base nouns, as argued by Cognola. 2.

Tbe suffix can take the form of --et or --en in the variety of PalaL Tbe -(a)n suffix of strong verbs L'l not realized when the verbs end in a nasal (cf.jlo:IJ ~ t/lo:IJ•bea.t' and Sterm -7 (t)Stourm 'die' in (4)).

3·

Past participles in Mocheno 37 'lhe presence of a prefix depends, among other things, on the location of stress in the verbal root. As in Standard German, the prefix must be attached to a stressed syllable. It is never realized in verbal roots that do not bear initial stress, as in the following examples (cf. Rowley 1986: 239): (3)

infinitive past participle a. b.

konta:rn konta:rt vargtsn vargl:sn

'to tell' 'to forget'

Besides stress, the quality of the initial segment of the verbal root conditions the absence or presence of a prefix as well as its realization as ga- or as an affricate. As illustrated in the table below, the prefix ga-· is never reali1.ed when the root begins with a voiceless stop. When the first segment of the root is a labial [v), alveolar [z] or palatoalveolar [JI fricative, the past participle is formed by changing the initial segment into the corresponding voiceless affricates [pf], [ts] and [tJ].4 When roots begin with a sibilant-stop duster, the sibilant is always realized as [s] (described by Rowley 1986 as a postalveolar fricative) 5 before voiceless stops (e.g. spi:ln, 'to play'), and as [f) before sonorants (e.g. fnain, tfni:tn, 'to cut, cut past part:, Rowley 1982). Verbs with root-initial sibilant--stop clusters form their past participles either by creat-ing an initial affricate (similarly to roots where the first segment is a simple labial or a coronal fricative) or ·without a prefix. There is variation among speakers regarding these two strategies and even the same speaker might apply one strategy to one verb and the other strategy to another or might accept both possibilities for the same verb. In the analysis below I will treat sibilant-stop verbs in the same way as roots with a single initial fricative (hence forming the past participle through affrication) and will abstract away from the possibility of not realizing the prefix at all, a possibility I will attribute to cluster simplifkation. The prefix ga.-- is always reali1.ed when the root begins with a voiced stop, the voiceless glottal fricative [h] or a sonorant. 1he following table summarizes the regularities of past participles and gives examples for each phonological context. 'Ihe examples are transcriptions of verbs I elicited from one speaker of the variety ofVlarot:r., but except minor details, are identical to

4· Syllable-initial labial and alveolar fricatives are always reali:l.ed as voiced [v] and [z] and the palatoalveolar fricative [JJ is voiceless in tb.is conte.xt, in the native Mocheno lexicon (cf. Rowley 1986 and discussion in Section 4 of this paper). 5· Rowley distinguishes between postalveolar [s] and palatoalveolar [Jl Postalveolar [s] can be considered an allophone of [f] in the variety of Palai, but syllable finally still participates in phonemic contrast in tb.e variety ofVlarotz (cf. Rowley 1986 for detaiLc;).

38

Birgit Alber

those elicited for the variety of Palai.6 They confirm the regularities already described in Rowley 1986, 2003 and Andreolli 2004-2005. (4)

Mocheno past participle formation

past participle formation

first segment of verbal root

infinitive

past participle

gloss

0

voiceless stop

paizn ton.brn krotsn

pisn krotst

'to bite' 'to tlnmder' 'to scratch' 'to conduct' 'to look for' 'to beat'

labial and coronal fricatives

Jlo:l)

pfiert tsuaxt tJlo:l)

affricate or0

sibilant -stop cluster

spi:ln sterm

(t)spi:lt (t)stourm

'to play' 'to die'

ga

voiced stop

bisn grie:l;)n

gabist gadrukht gagriest

'to know' 'to press' 'to greet'

hupf:m

gahupft:

'to jump'

o:tn;~n

gao:tnt sa.iu:tst gareart galnxt ganutst gamnxt

'to breathe' 'to cl1eer' 'to c.ry' 'to laugh' 'to be of use' 'to make'

voiceless affricate

viern

tond;~rt

zuaX;~n

drukh;~n

h sonorant

ju:tsn rearn lnx;,n nutsn mnx.:m

The regularities exhibited by the verbs above don't seem to be relics of a historical process, but rather, are productive or, at least, have been productive at some point in time, since they are also active in a subpart of the loanword lexicon. Mocheno has integrated a certain number of verbs from the Italian dialect of Trentino (or, more recently, from Standard Italian) in its lexicon. The most common way of integration is to replace the inflectional ending of the Romance verbal root with the suffixes -a:rn, -e:rn, -i:rn (Rowley 2003: 247):

There is some variation e.g. in the realization of diphtongs (viern in Vlarotz, viarn in Palai) and in the length of the root vowel of one past participle (e.g. tjlo:l'} in Vlarotz, ~{lor,; in Palai). The rules that govern the patterns are the same.

6.

Past participles in Mocheno 39 (5)

'contar' (Trentino) 7 konta:rn 'to tell' 'rispondere' (Standard Italian) 7 respund:lrn 'to answer'

None of the loan verbs that have been integrated through this type of suffixation bear initial stress, since stress is preserved on the same syllable as in the Romance base verb usually the penultimate, or, in some cases, antepenultimate syllable of the verb. For this reason this class of loans will not tell us anything about the alternation of the ga- prefix with other strategies of past participle formation, since ga- is absent whenever stress is not root initiaL However, there is a small number of loan verbs which have not followed the usual path of integration and henc.e may bear initial stress. 'lhey are few in number and there are not examples for every single phonological context, but yet it is clear that the regularities of past participle formation hold for them as well. Below, I give a list of the ones I found, and the past participles produced by my informant in Vlarotz (to a large extent confirmed by the informant from Palai):7 (6)

Initially stressed loan verbs in Mocheno: past participle formation

first segment infinitive past part. of verbal root

gloss

Trentino base8 gloss

voiceless stop

pintsn

pintst

'to dent'

spintsar

'to dent, ruin'

tfu:dln

tfu:d;)lt

'to work badly'

tfondohir

'to work badly'

fricative

vri:gln

pfri:glt

'to grind'

sfregolar

'to grate, rub'

sibilant -stop

Skitsn

skitst

'to crush'

skit.far

'to crush'

Skaltsn

skaltst

'to kick'

skaltsar

'to kick'

cmbeJolarse

'to stutter'

voiced stop sonorant

7·

befin

gabcJlt

'to stutter'

dratJn

gadratJt

'to rain heavily' dratJ9

meiv~rn

gameiv;Jrt 'to move'

ritjln

garitflt

'to make cuds'

'sieve' (notm)

m5ver

'to move'

cnrioohh

'to make curls'

My informant in Palai did not know all the examples presented here.

8. Thanks to Lorenza Groff for providing the Trentino verbs from her native Trentino variety ofPine.

9.

See also the verb drazar 'separate' in Ricci ( 1904).

40

Birgit Alber

Loans form their past participles in the same way as verbs from the native lexicon: no prefix is inserted before voiceless stops, affricates are formed if the root begins with the voiced fricative [v] and the prefix ga- is present before voiced stops and sonorants. As for sibilant-stop clusters, in this case the speaker chose the strategy of not inserting any prefix in the verbs skitsn and skaltsn. Anthony Rowley has argued in two lectures (Trento, 1-3 April 2009; Verona, 17 December 2009) that the regularities of past participle formation in Mocheno cannot have arisen through historical change since they are unattested in this form among the German dialects. Historically, it would seem that syncope (i.e. deletion of the prefix vowel or of the entire prefix) targets first fricative-initial roots, then sonorantinitialroots, and evenutally stop-initial roots. Mocheno, however, would combine the first and the last stage of the development while leaving out the second. Rowley proposes that the pattern in Mocheno has developed through 'Dialektausgleich: which is assumed to have taken place early in the colonization, between 1220 and 1300 (Kranzmayer 1956). At least some of the mentioned Trentino loans can be assumed to have entered the language after that stage. The behavior of loans together with the fact that the Mocheno pattern of past participle formation is unattested as the result of diachronic change elsewhere among the German dialects point to the pattern as a productive process at least at some point in time.

3·

The allomorphs /ga-/ and [-cont, -voice]

The formation of past participles in Mocheno is interesting because of the variety of strategies used, which include prefixation, atlrication and absence of prefixation. In this section I will discuss the nature of the prefix and conclude that we are dealing here with a case of phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy (Paster 2006; Wolf 2008), i.e. a case of phonologically conditioned allomorphy where the two allomorphs are not linked to the same underlying form. In this sense, phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy is distinct from plain allomorphy as e.g. the [-z, -Iz, -s] allomorphs of English plural markers which can be seen as realizations (through epenthesis and voicing assimilation) of a single underlying morpheme /z/. To make clear the difference between the two types of allomorphy I will compare Mocheno past participle formation with past participle formation in some Tyrolean dialects of Sudtirol· Alto Adige, which, geographically speaking, are the closest Germanic dialect 'neighbors' of the Mocheno speech island. Only Mocheno displays phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy, while the

Past participles in Mocheno Tyrolean dialects can, to a large extent, be analyzed as cases of plain phonologically conditioned allomorphy. The Tyrolean dialects of Meran, Passeier and Upper Vinschgau display similar strategies as Mbcheno in past participle formation. The patterns are summarized in the table below, tollowing the description in Alber & Lanthaler 2005: (7)

Past participle formation in the Tyrolean dialects of Meran, Upper Vinschgau and Passeier

past participle formation


infinitive

past participle

gloss

Dialect of Meran g;)

stop

pikxn del)k'-n

g;)-pikXt g;)-del)kxt

'to glue' 'to think'

g/k

fricative

fro:gl) visn

k-fmk g-vist

'to ask' , 'to know

g

sonorant

esn loxn

g-csn g-loxt

'to eat' 'to laugh'

Dialect of Upper Vinschgau

0

stop

pikxn del)kXn

pikXt deiJkxt


g/k

fricative

fro:gl) visn

k-frok g-vist

'to ask' , 'to know

g

sonorant

f.Sn loxn

g-csn g-lnxt

'to eat' 'to laugh'

gr

stop

pikXn derJkxn

gr-pikxt gr -deiJkxt


k

voiceless fricative

fro:gl)

k-frok

'to ask'

gr

voiced fricative

visn

gr-vist

'to know

g

vowel

esn

g-csn

'to eat'

gr

sonorant

loxn

gr-loxt

'to laugh'

Dialect ofPasseier

,

Mocheno shares with all three varieties the presence of a gV-- prefix. Similarly to the dialect of Upper Vinschgau it omits the prefix completely before voiceless stops, but differently from the Upper Vinschgau dialect, the prefix is present before voiced stops. Similarly to the dialect of Passeier, the gV- prefix is present also before sonorants. The only strategy exhibited by Mbcheno alone is the expression of the prefix through an affricate in the case oflabial and coronal fricatives.

41

42

Birgit Alber

At first glance, the comparison with the dialect of Meran and the dialect of Upper Vinschgau might suggest that we are dealing here with a process guaranteeing syllable wellformedness. For these two dialects it seems plausible to assume an underlying prefix /g-/, which is augmented by a epenthetic vowel (in the dialect of Meran) or dropped altogether (in the Upper Vinschgau variety) whenever illicit clusters would be created. However, there are several differences with respect to the Tyrolean varieties which suggest that an analysis in these terms is not feasible for Mocheno. First, in Mocheno the prefix never appears in the form [g] or [k]. This makes the postulation of an underlying fonn /gj for the prefix rather abstract. Furthermore, while the schwa in the ga- prefix of the dialect of Meran can be plausibly analyzed as an epenthetic element, the same is not true for the vowel present in the Mocheno prefix ga-·. Epenthetic vowels in Mocheno have a schwa-like quality and are clearly distinct from [a], at least in the variety ofvlarotz. 10 We find it for example in the context of the adjectival inflectional suffix-s when it is suffixed to a root ending in a sibilant: (8)

Epenthetic schwas between sibilants: (variety ofVlarotz) a kholt-s bns:.~r 'some cold water' (n.sg.nom.) a hoaz--:.~s boS:.lr 'some hot water' (n.sg.nom.) a vrif--:.~s boS:.lr 'some fresh water' (n.sg.nom.)

Since the vowel in the Mocheno past participle cannot be interpreted as epenthetic, I propose that the underlying form of the prefiX is /ga--/. However, /ga-/ cannot be the only underlying form playing a role in past palticiple formation in Mocheno. If this was the case, it would be very difficult to explain why /gal does not surface when the root begins with a voiceless stop or a labial or coronal fricative. After all, fi.)rms like *ga-pis-n or *ga-11ier-t would be perfectly wellformed, from the point of view of syllable structure. If we limit our attention to the contexts where the prefix ga- does not appear, we see that a second allomorph must be at play here. Consider again the environment of voiceless stops and labial and coronal fricatives:

to. In the variety of Palai, we do find a vowel similar to [-e) in contexts where epenthesis can be assumed (cf. Rowley 1986: 821f. for details of the variation between the local dialects of vowel quality in unstressed syllables.). Epenthetic schwa, as we find it in the variety ofVlarotz, has often a lower, more advanced quality than schwa in Standard German. Rowley (1986) in fact often transcribes it as [t ].

Past participles in Mocheno (9)

No /ga-/ prefu before voiceless stops and labial/coronal fricatives:

strategy of past participle formation


infinitive

past participle

gloss

0

voiceless stop

paizn toncbrn krotsn

pisn krotst

'to bite' 'to thunder' 'to scratch'

pfiert tsuaxt tflo:I)

'to conduct' 'to look for' 'to beat'

voiceless affricate

labial and coronal fricatives

viern zuax~n

Jlo:I)

tond~rt

The past participle of verbs beginning with labial and coronal fricatives is formed by creating initial affricates which differ from root-initial fricatives in voicing. The prefix, in this case, can be assumed to be a subsegment specified for [-cont, -voice]. I will assume that it consists of a root node with the features [ -cont] and [-voice], but not specified for place: (10)

root

~

[---cont]

[---voice]

Adding these features to the initial fricatives, the complex segments lpf), Its] and [tJ] are created.l 1 Before voiceless stops, on the other hand, we can assume that the allomorph [-c.ont, -voice] undergoes coalescence with the root--initial stop, thus leading to the realization of a structure without a visible prefix. Note that it is not possible to reduce the allomorph to one of the two features, either [····cont] or I ---voice]. If we assumed that [····cont) was the relevant allomorph, we would expect coalescence to happen also with root--initial voiced stops. If, on the other hand, the allomorph consisted only of a [-voice] feature, we would not expect the par-ticiple to be realized by an affricate when roots begin with a voiceless [J]. To summarize, we can hypothesize that in Mocheno past participle formation two allomorphs are at play, one a more abstract prefix which takes the form of the features [-cont, -vok.e], the other a regular prefix ga.-: (ll)

Allomorphs in Mocheno past participle formation Allomorph I: [-cont, -voic.e] before voiceless stops and labial and coronal fricatives Allomorph II: /ga-/ before voiced stops, [h] and sonorants

n. For other analyses involving morphemes expressed as stLbsegments see Zoll 1996 and Rubach & Booij 2001.

4.1

44

Birgit Alber

If this approach to the data is correct, we are dealing here with a case of phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy, since the distribution of the two allomorphs depends on the quality of the first segment of the verbal root (and on the location of stress in the root, cf. above) but no common underlying form can be established for them. 12

4·

Alignment

It seems puzzling that in Mocheno past participle formation a CV allomorph should be chosen when roots begin with sonorants while a consonantal prefix is inserted before root-initial (voiceless) stops and fricatives. After all, from the point of view of syllable wellformedness we would rather expect the contrary. Indeed, we see that for example the dialect of Meran has more or less the opposite distribution, placing a gV- prefix before stops and a g- or k- prefix before fricatives and sonorants. At first glance thus it would seem that past participle formation in Mocheno does not easily yield to an analysis in terms of structure optimization. However, the distribution of past participle allomorphs in Mocheno does consistently respect a principle which is also at play in Standard German and many of its dialects, the principle that a stem should not be resyllabified with a prefix. 'Ihus, in Standard German consonant final prefixes do not readily resyllabify with vowel initial stems, instead a glottal stop is inserted at the stem boundary (s. Giegerich 1989, 1999; McCarthy & Prince 1993a; Alber 2001 for detailed descriptions of the phenomenon and analyses of it): 13 (12)

Vor.·· [?]ort 'suburb' ver.·· [?]antworten 'to take the responsibility' [?]auf.- [?]atmen 'to be relieved' [?]Er.·· [?]eignis 'event'

12. Things are yet more complicated in the dialect of Passeier, in which the [1] of the prefix could be epenthetic since it appears in clear epenthesis conte.xts such as adjectival inflection. Thus the correspondent form of Mocheno hoaziJs in this dialect would be hoas.rs (H Lanthaler, p.c.). Yet, an analysis in terms of syllable wellformedness is not as straightforward as for the dialects of Meran and Upper Vinschgau since the CV prefix appears also before sonorants and voiced fricatives. An analysis following Fleischhacker's (2001, 2005) findings that epenthesis is more readily obtainable before sonorants (and voiced fricatives?) rather than before obstruents might be possible but I have to leave a detailed investigation of this pattern for future research. 13. The relevant morphological boundary is indicated with a hyphen"-': the relevant syllable boundary with a dot ". ": Examples are given in orthographic form.

Past participles in Mocheno I will express this principle with an Alignment constraint (s. McCarthy & Prince 1993a for a similar proposal): (13)

ALIGN (STEM,

L,

SYLL,

L):

'if stem 3 syllable such that the left edge of the stem and the left edge of the

syllable coincide. 'align the left edge of a stem with the left edge of a syllable' If we want to analyze the lack of resyllabification across morpheme boundaries in Standard German in terms of alignment, we have to assume that the insertion of an epenthetic glottal stop violates alignment less than resyllabification of the prefix consonant. We can express this assumption informally by assigning less Alignment violations to misaligned structures containing an epenthetic consonant than to misalignment triggered by a prefix consonant: Tableau 1. Alignment ofleft stem edges in Standard German Vor-ort e1r

ONSET

a. Vor.Jl-ort b. Vor.-ort c. Vo.r-ort

ALIGN (STEM,

*

L, SYLL, L)

DEP

*

*! **!

The high-ranked constraint ONSET, requiring consonant initial syllables, is satisfied only by candidates a. and c. Between them, ALIGN chooses candidate a. which displays only an epenthetic consonant between the left morpheme edge and the syllable boundary. Epenthesis takes place at the cost of the low ranked constraint DEP, disfavoring the insertion of epenthetic elements. Ifwe now consider the different strategies of past participle formation in Mocheno, we see that the alignment constraint requiring coincidence of left edge and syllable boundaries is obeyed in all forms and that it determines the choice of the allomorph in some contexts (s. Kager 1996; Drachman, Kager & Malikouti-Drachman 1996; Klein 2003; Bonet, Lloret & Mascaro 2007 for other analyses of allomorphywhere alignment of a morphological and a prosodic category plays a role). Before roots beginning with a sonorant, a vowel, a voiced stop or [h], the presence of the prefix ga- allows the left edge of the verbal root to be perfectly aligned with a syllable edge. With sonorant-initial roots, alignment would be violated if the allomorph [-cont, -voice] was realized, e.g. through a voiceless stop with the same place features as the stem-initial sonorant. For instance, the participle for rearn could then be realized as *t-reart, in violation of the alignment constraint. In these cases, as will be discussed in the analysis below, the choice of the allomorph is conditioned by the alignment constraint.

45

46

Birgit Alber

Roots beginning with a labial or coronal fricative form their past participle by creating an initial affricate. If we assume that these affricates are complex segments, we can conclude that this strategy of past participle formation also leads to a well-aligned structure. 'Ihe leftmost segment of the root- which is the consonant associated to the affricate coincides "'ith the left edge of a syllable: 14 (14)

Alignment in verbs with root-initiallabial or coronal fricatives: ~·iern ~

pjiert

/[-cont, -voice]+

I

I

p

""

v/

f [0

C

/

Finally, if we assume that the past participle of verbs beginning with a voiceless stop are created through coalescence of the allomorph [-cont, -voice) and the first segment of the root, alignment of the root with a syllable edge is obeyed onc.e more, since the initial segment of the root which corresponds both to the root--initial segment and to the past participle allomorph- coincides with a syllable edge: (IS)

Alignment in verbs with root-initial voiceless stops: p11izr1 ~ pisr1 /[---cont. ---voiceh

"" Alignment explains why a gV- prefix is inserted before sonorants, and we see that this constraint is also obeyed when an affricate is formed before fricatives and when coalescence occurs with voiceless stops. Yet, it does not explain the distribution of the two allomorphs in every one of these context Why, for example, don't we insert ga-- before voiceless stops? After all, a torm like *ga.pisn would be syllabically well-formed, respect alignment of the stem with a syllable boundary and furthermore realize the prefix in a more transparent way than through coalescence. I propose that the answer to this question is that we have to consider [---·cont, -voice] to be the default allomorph of past participle f{)rmation in Mocheno. It will be

Note that this conclusion is independent of whether or not we assume that affricates have a two- or a one-root representation (see Clement'> & Hume 1995 for an overview), as long as we assume that alignment is calculated on the segment to which the single root node or, alternatively, the two root nodes are linked.

14.


inserted whenever possible. Only when the insertion of [-cont, -voice] leads to the violation of high-ranked constraints in the language such as the constraint requiring a stem to be aligned with a syllable boundary, will the other allomorph, ga-, be chosen. The reason why [-cont, -voice] is the default allomorph is that it is less marked than the allomorph ga- with respect to voicing, since it bears the (unmarked) feature [---voice) while ga- contains a (marked) [+voice) consonant (s. the discussion in Section 6 ). Although alignment seems to play some role in the formation of past participles in Mbcheno, it is not the case that the constraint ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L) is observed in the same contexts as in Standard German. Thus, differently from Standard German, in Mocheno no glottal stops are inserted in hiatus contexts at the prefix-stem boundary (examples a. below; cf. also Rowley 1986: 77) and resyllabification takes place between the prefix and the stem (examples b. below): 15 (16)

a.

Unresolved hiatus contexts: no.-nrbatn garo.-aus

b.

lo round off~ refine' 'straight ahead'

Resyllahification between prefix and stem: i.n-ntmn au.z-nstn va.r-nrbatn unt:l.r-oum u.r-nltn

'to breathe in:' 'to take off branches' 'to process, c.onvert' 'upside down' 'ancestors'

These data point to a language where onsetless syllables are not repaired in hiatus contexts, but misalignment of stems with syllable boundaries is tolerated in order to provide a syllable with an onset. Expressed in a constraint hierarchy, we will have a ranking where the faithfulness constraints MAx and DEP, which, respectively, militate against deletion of input material and insertion of epenthetic elements, will dominate the constraint ONSET, requiring syllables to have onsets. This constraint in turn will dominate ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L). (17)

Constraint hierarchy for stem-prefix alignment in Mocheno: >>ONSET>> ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L)

MAX, DEP

Thanks to Leo Toller for helping me find these examples and testing the syllabification for me; transcriptions are given in his native variety of Palai.

15.

47

48

Birgit Alber

The following tableau illustrates the constraint interaction: Tableau 2. Unresolved hiatus and misalignment of stems and syllables /no-orbat-n/

MAX

DI!P

ALIGN (STI!M,

L, SYLL, L)

...

..,. a no.orbatn b. nor.batn

ONSI!T

"'!

c. no. ?orbatn

,.

"'!

I in-otn-n/ ~

a.

i.n-otn~n

b.

in.-otn~n

c.

in.-tn~n

d

in.-?otn~n

...... "'! "'! "'!

...

The example no.orbatn illustrates that onsetless syllables are tolerated in hiatus contexts. They are neither repaired through deletion (candidate b.) nor through epenthesis (candidate c.). The evaluation of the example i.n-Dtnan shows us that onsetless syllables are repaired through resyllabification, as in candidate a., thus violating the alignment constraint twice. Not repairing the onsetless syllable, as in candidate b., or repairing it through deletion or epenthesis, as in candidates c. and d., is not an option. Alignment of a stem with a syllable boundary thus is a subordinate principle in the language as a whole. Yet it does play a certain role in the formation of past participles. The subordinate role of morphoprosodic alignment at the stem boundary is in line with the patterns that we find in Southern German varieties, where glottal stop epenthesis between stems and prefixes seems in general to be more restricted than in Standard German and resyllabification seems more readily available (Alber 2001). I interpret Mocheno as being most radically 'Southern' in the sense that the effects of morphoprosodic alignment are practically invisible in the language, except for the role that the alignment constraint plays in past participle formation. In the analysis in Section 6 I will show how the partial hierarchy established here for stem-prefix alignment in general interacts with other constraints in determining the distribution of allomorphs.

5·

Distribution of voiced and voiceless obstruents in Mocheno

Before turning to the analysis proper, it is necessary to take a closer look at the distribution of obstruents in Mocheno, since the partial hierarchy regulating it will play a role in allomorph selection in past participle formation. First of all, I will assume that obstruents in Mocheno, if at all, contrast for [±voice], since, as other Southern varieties of German, Mocheno does not exhibit any audible aspiration on stops (except, in some cases, on [k], see Footnote 24). In this sense it differs from Standard German, for which it has been proposed that stops contrast for the

Past participles in Mocheno 49

presence or absence of the feature [spread glottis] (for recent proposals in these terms see Jessen & Ringen 2002). Second, voiced and voiceless fricatives in Mocheno differ from voiced and voiceless stops in that they are in complementary distribution. 'Ihis means that the feature [±voice] is contrastive only in stops, not in fricatives. Thus, in the native lexicon, we find voiced [v, z] word-initially, when preceding a vowel or sonorant (ex. a. below) and word-medially either if they follow a so norant or if they follow a long vowel (ex. b below). We find voiceless [f, s] word--medially after a short vowel (ambisyllabic con-text, c.) and word--finally (ex. d.; examples are from Rowley 1982, 1986: 122ff.): (18)

a.

voiced [v, z]: word--initially, preceding a vowel or sonorant z:>k

vresn b.

'to say, 3.P.so: 'to eat (of animals)'

voiced [v, z]: word-medially, following a long vowel or a sonorant berven 'to throw' hdvrn 'to help' Jlo:vrn 'to sleep'

ri:vl c.

voiceless [f, s] :word-medially, after short vowels

Jafl pes:lr bas~rn

d.

'scab'

'little tub' 'better' 'to water'

voiceless [f, s]: word-finally birf i hilf Jlo:f

'to throw, imperative' 'to help, lP.SG.' 'sleep, noun'

tbf

'deep'

1he postalveolar fricatives [s, z] contrast with other sibilants only in the varieties of Vlarotz and Oachlait (and there only in few words) and are allophones of [JJ before stops in the variety of Palai. In the varieties where they are contrastive, their distribu-tion is similar to that of the fricatives [f/v, s/z] (Rowley 1986: 127). Since they are not contrastive in all varieties, I will ignore them in the following analysis of the distribution of voiced and voiceless obstruents. The palatoalveolar fricative [J] and the glottal fricative [h] are always voiceless .16 Summarizing, none of the fricatives exhibits a clear voicing contrast, at least when the native lexicon of Mocheno is considered.

16. Voiced [3] seems to appear sometimes when Iff undergoes assimilation to an adjacent voiced consonant (e.g. yne:r, 'grease: pe:ryz, 'Pergine, place name: Rowley 1986: 136), but Rowley does not note an assimilation of this fricative systematically. For example, verbs begin-ning with a sibilant--sonorant duster are transribed always \Vith voiceless [f] in Rowley 1982 (e.g. Jnai11, tfni:tn, 'to cut, cut past part.'). Pending clearer data on voicing assimilation of [fj I will ignore voiced realizations of this fricative.

50

Birgit Alber

The distribution of voiced and voiceless fricatives in Mocheno is reminiscent of that described for a variety of West Germanic dialects discussed by van Oostendorp 2003 (see also Bannert 1976 for the same phenomenon in Middle Bavarian). Van Oostendorp analyz~s Frisian, Thurgovian German (an Alemannic variety) and Roemtond Dutch, which tend to have an complementary distribution of fricatives in word-medial context: voiced fricatives follow short vowels and voiceless fricatives long vowels. Van Oostendorp concludes that fricatives in these varieties do not really differ in voice, but rather in length. Long fricatives appear after short vowels in order to dose the preceding syllable, in obeyance ofProkosch's law, which demands stressed syllables to be heavy. This leads to ambisyllabic structures as e.g. Mocheno (fajl] 'little tub: where the word-medial fricative is voiceless because in closing the preceding syllable containing a short vowel it undergoes final devoicing. On the other hand, syllables containing long vowels or closed by a sonorc:IIlt are heavy by themselves, hence obey Prokosch's law and therefore do not have to be closed by a following fricative. Thus, the word-medial fricatives in structures such as [hel.ven]'to help' and [flo:.ven]'to sleep' are not ambisyllabic and therefore do not undergo final devoicing. On the contrary, since the fricatives appear in a sonorant context, they will be voiced. Adapting the core of van Oostenorp's analysis, the complementary distribution of fricatives in Mocheno can be captured by the following constraint hierarchy: (19)

PROKOSCH's LAW, ~·GEM VOICE>> VOICE....SON >>"[VOICE)>> lDENT(VOICB)··fRIC

a. PRoKoscu's l..Aw: stressed syllables are heavy b. vmcB_SoN: an obstruent preceding a S<morant is voiced c. *[vorcn]: obstluents are not voic.ed d. lDBNT(vmcE)-FRIC: Correspondent fricatives have the same value for the feature [:!:voice] e. *GnMVmcE: no voiced geminate c.onsonants

The hierarchy characterizes a language where voicing cannot emerge as contrastive in fricatives since the markedness constraint " [VOICE) dominates the faithfulness constraint lDENT(vmcE)-FRIC, responsible for preserving the input value for [±voice] in fricatives. Word-finally, fricatives will therefore be voiceless (ex. d. above). On the other hand, voicing is mandatory before vowels and sonorants because of the constraint voiCE_SoN. Since VOICE_SoN dominates *[vOicE], we will have voiced fricatives in word-initial position preceding a vowel or sonorant (ex. a. above) and word-medially, when the fricative follows a heavy syllable which contains a long vowel or is closed in a consonant (ex. b. above). When the fricative follows a short vowel (ex. c. above), the fricative has to be long in order to close the preceding light syllable, thus satisfYing PRoKoscH's LAw. I will assume with van Oostendorp that the long fricative is attac.hed to two positions (two slots or two root nodes), having the structural representation

x.

Past participles in Mocheno of a geminate. As a geminate, it is targeted by the constraint *GEMVOICE, prohibiting the realization of voiced geminates, which are universally marked. Therefore the long consonants following short vowels emerge as voicelessP The following tableau summarizes the analysis of fricative distribution in Mocheno:

Tableau 3. Distribution of voiced and voiceless fricatives u

;

~

IJ.

j

·"'u

= lS

~ ~

""

u ....

~

rJl

C!l

6

~ *

il~

z

"''I

u

>

'iil' ~ 0

~

*

/hilv/ or !hilv/ ~a. hilf

vrtsn

b. frtsn

Q

(")

,.

(*) (*)

,.

hcl.wn

b. hcl.frn

"!

lfafll or 1/avl/ ~ a. Jaf.fl b. Javl c. Jav.vl

-

"!

"!

/hclven/ or !hclfrn/ ~a.

'~"'

(*)18

b. hilv /vrtsn/or /fr

.±. *

a. [-cont, -voice] 1 -

Q,

:a 0 u *

~

"gl

~

~

...z ""

-.. ~

I

p

f

""'-

.c

/

b. [-cont, -voice] - v

I

.p c. ga.- vier-t

~

.

v

I

"' """"'

:::3

< ~

~

"!

I

- f

"!

None of the three candidates incurs violations of the top-ranked constraints MAx, DEP or ONSET. Candidate b., a structure where the allomorph does not form a complex segment with the first segment of the root, is excluded because of its violation of the alignment constraint Candidate c., which realizes the second allomorph, would be equally well-aligned as candidate a., but loses because it violates*[ +vOicE]. Candidate a. wins, even though it collects one violation of *CoMPLEXSEG and violates IDENT(VOICE)-FRIC. Note that the ranking that generates devoicing of the root-initial segment is not quite as simple as represented here. First of all, we must exclude the possibility of affricates in which the stop element and the fricative element disagree in voicing, as e.g. in the hypothetical affricate *pv. These are affricates (or, indeed, tautosyllabic obstruent clusters) which seem to be ruled out universally. Second, the ranking has to select a structure where the root-initial segment is devoiced and rule out a competitor where the past participle allomorph is instead voiced. Hypothetical affricates of this type, i.e. *bv-, *dz, *d3 can be excluded by the fact that voiced affricates are not licit structures in Mocheno and hence can be assumed to be ruled out by some high-ranked constraint.23

23. The affricate [d3] is attested in Mocheno, but is limited almost exclusively to loan words from Italian. Rowley (1986: 144f., 2003: 57) quotes only two native words containing it, indyr, 'our' and biald3ar, 'mole:


There is one root-initial fricative which is different from the other fricatives in that it is prefixed by the allomorph ga- instead of forming an affricate with the allomorph [-cant, -voice]. This is the fricative [h], as in the example hupfan -7 gahupft. I will assume that the creation of an affricate is not an option in this case, since [kh] or [kx] is not a possible affricate in Mocheno. 24 Hence, the allomorph [-cant, -voice] cannot be selected before a root-initial [h] without creating an alignment violation and the allomorph ga- is chosen instead. Let us now consider the selection of the second allomorph, ga-, with root-initial sonorants, vowels and voiced stops. In the case of sonorants, ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L) emerges as the decisive constraint, as illustrated in the following tableau:

Tableau 6. ga- before root-initial sonorants: rearn ~ garwrt /{[-cont, -voice], ga}- rear-t I

MAX DEP

ALIGN (STEM,

L, SYLL, L)

*[+VOICE]

ONSET

a. [-cont, -voice] - r

I

t - b. ga.- reart

*!

I r

*!

Candidate a. realizes faithfully the allomorph [-cant, -voice]. We can imagine it to be realized by a consonant which is assimilated in place to the following sonorant (as was the case with root-initial fricatives and voiceless stops), thus not violating any constraint disfavoring insertion of material not present in the input. Since we have assumed the allomorph to contain a root-node, its projection of a C-slot will not violate DEP either. However, since a faithful realization of the [-cant, -voice] features is not possible any more through an affricate or through coalescence and [-cant, -voice] has to be realized as a segment of its own, the structure necessarily incurs a violation of the alignment constraint requiring coincidence of the left edge of the verbal root with a syllable boundary. Since ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L) cannot be fulfilled through faithful realization of [-cant, -voice], the other allomorph, ga- will be chosen. The presence of ga- will create a well-aligned structure, at the cost of violating the constraint *[+vOicE]. The behavior of sonorant-initial roots thus shows us that alignment of the left stem edge to a syllable boundary does play a role also in Mocheno: it drives the selection of ga- over the default allomorph [-cant, -voice].

24. There is a weakly contrastive aspirated velar stop /kh/ in Mocheno, which is sometimes pronounced as [kx] and often varies freely with [k]. Rowley (1986: 113f.) interprets it as a simple consonant, not as an affricate.

57

58

Birgit Alber

The role that alignment plays here in allomorph selection is a typical case of the Emergence of the Unmarked (TETU, McCarthy & Prince 1994) in the context of allomorph selection, a phenomenon observed in many analyses (see, among others, Kager 1996; Mascar6 1996, 2007; Rubach & Booij 2001; Bonet, Lloret & Mascar6 2007). TETU effects have been observed most clearly in reduplication or truncation, where, in the analysis of McCarthy & Prince 1994, 1995, the faithfulness constraint in a F-IO » M ranking is vacuously satisfied in reduplicants or truncation morphemes targeted by an M » F-R/TB ranking, since reduplicants or truncation morphemes are not subject to an input-output correspondence relation. 25 1he reason unmarked structures can emerge in allomorphy selection under an F >> M ranking is somewhat different: in the case of allomorphy, faithfulness constraints get two (or more) chances to be fulfilled, since they are satisfied by the realization of any of the underlying allomorphs. Since either of the allomorphs satisfies faithfulness, markedness can choose the most unmarked among them. For Mocheno this means that although in the overall language the faithfulness constraints MAx and DEP dominate the markedness constraint ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L), which therefore does not seem to have any effect, the constraint emerges in a context where MAx and DEP can be satisfied in more than one way, i.e. through the faithful realization of more than one allomorph. Since MAx and DEP cannot decide between the two allomorphs, the decision can be passed to a lower markedness constraint, in this case ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L). In the context of root-initial voiceless stops and fricatives, the alignment constraint will not make any decision, since both allomorphs would guarantee alignment of the stem to the syllable edge. The choice of the allomorph is decided by *[+voicE]. In the context of root-initial sonorants, though, only ga- fares well in terms of alignment, and hence is preferred over [-cont. -voice], even though it violates *[+vmcE]. Let us now consider the evaluation of the context of root-initial vowels: Tableau 7. ga- before root-initial vowels: o:tnan

I {[ -cont, -voice], ga}- o:tn-n I

a [-cont. -voice] - o:

I

.tn ~

b. ga.-o:tnt

I

o:

MAX

~

.. DBP . . .. I I

gao:tnt ONSET

..!

ALIGN

,.

..(+VOICE]

I I I I

.

,.

Candidate a. represents an attempt to realize the morpheme [-cont, -voice] in the most faithful way, by inserting a voiceless stop bearing an unmarked place feature,

25. F-10 = some faithfulness constraint relating input to output, F-R/TB = some faithfulness constraint relating a reduplicant or a truncation morpheme to its base, M = some markedness constraint.

Past participles in Mocheno i.e. a coronal [t] or a glottal [?]. 26 This insertion of a feature not present in the input leads to a violation of the constraint militating against insertion, DEP (or, probably more precisely, DEP-FEATURE, since only a place feature is inserted), excluding candidate (a) in favor of candidate (b) The constraint ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L) is not the constraint choosing between the allomorphs, here, since at the prefix-root boundary, as we know from Section 4, misalignment is in principle allowed in order to satisfy ONSET. However, epenthesis is not, and since [-cont, -voice] is a subsegment, which requires the insertion of a place feature to be realized, it is excluded. 27 Note that if we were to assume that the underlying form of the allomorph was /k-/, we would expect this segment to show up in at least this context. The last context in which we find the allomorph ga- is before voiced stops, as in the example bisn -7 gabist. The challenge here is to explain why coalescence is not a possbility in this context as it is before voiceless stops. Why do we have the pattern bisn -7 gabist but paizn -7 pisn? My proposal is that a hypothetical coalescence candidate, which in the case of root-initial voiced stops would be something like bisn -7 pist is ruled out by IDENT(VOICE)-STOP. This constraint, as we know from the analysis of obstruent distribution in Section 5, is ranked above *[+vOicE] and hence blocks *[+vOicE] from selecting the allomorph [ -cont, -voice]: Tableau 8. ga- before voiced consonants: bisn /{[-cont, -voice], ga}- bis -t/

MAX

~

gabist

ALIGN

IDENT(VOICE)-STOP

*[+VOICE]

DEP ONSET a. [-cont, -voice ] 1 -

""'

/ ·P1.2

b. [-cont, -voice] 1

I

.pi

*!

P2

-

p2

*!

I

- b2

- c. ga.-bist

26.

*

I am assuming here with de Lacy (2006) that glottal stops are not placeless.

27. The fact that DEP and not ALIGN chooses between the allomorphs in this case, points to another possible analysis of Mocheno past participle formation, which does not make use of alignment. If in fact we were to assume that the default allomorph consisted oftwo independent floating features, [-cont] and [-voice], not connected by a root node, we could assume that the allomorph ga- was chosen in all those cases where realizing [-cont] and [-voice] required the insertion of a root node. Thus the burden of the choice of the allomorph gawould lie entirely on the constraint DEP. I have not followed this line of analysis since I find it difficult to conceive the allomorph [-cont, -voice] as not linked by anything and I do not know of cases where two floating subsegments combine to a single morpheme.

59

6o

Birgit Alber

For a coalescence structure as in a. to be realized, the voice value of the first segment of the root (or, in another possible coalescence candidate bisn -7 bist, the voice value of the defaultallomorph) has to be changed. This change, however, leads to a violation of the constraint IDENT(voicE)-SToP, which is tatal, since lDENT(W.liCE)-Sn)p, difterently from lDE~'T(VOICE)--FRrc, is ranked above the constraint ~[+vOicE]. For this reason, changing the voice value of a stop is not an option, even if this means that *[+vOicE] has to be violated by selecting the allomorphga-. Candidate c.., which realizes the 'second-best' allomorph but rates well on alignment and faithfulness, emerges as the winner. The non-coalesdng candidate b., as above, is eliminated because of its violation of aligmuent (and of numerous other syllable-structure constraints). As in the case of root-initial sonorants, where the insertion ofga- is due to ALIGN (STEM, L, Sur., I..), also in this case the choice between the two allomorphs is determined by a partial hierarchy which has been determined independently to hold in the language, i.e. IDE~'T(vOic)-SToP >>*[+vOicE].

7·

Conclusions

Mocheno displays a variety of strategies in forming the past participle of verbs, which can be described as prefixing of an allomorp h [ -cont, -voice] to roots beginning with a voiceless stop (resulting in coalescence) and labial and coronal fricatives (resulting in affrication) and prefixing an allomorph ga- elsewhere. The distribution of the two allomorphs would seem puzzling, since the consonantal allomorph [ -cont, -voice] is found before obstruent~ while the CV allomorph ga· is found before sonorants. From the point of syllable wellformedness we might expect the contrary. However, it has been shown that an analysis in terms of optimization is possible, since allomorph selection can be interpreted as being driven by a well-defined set of markedness and fathfulness constraints which play a role in other parts of the Mocheno grammar. Thus, the constraint *[+VOICE] will favor the allomorph [ -cont, -voice] over ga-, because of its unmarked voicing feature, while ALIGN (STEM, L, SnL, L) will select ga- before sonorants, where the realization of [-cont. -voice] would lead to misalignment between the left edge of the verbal root and the syllable boundary. In addition, the taithfulness constraint DEP favors gain the context of vowel-initial roots and IDENT(vorcE)-STOP favors it before root-initial voiced stops. The overall hierarchy determining the distribution of allomorph selection consists of two partial hierarchies which are relevant for pieces of the grammar of the Ianguage independent of past participle allomorph selection. They determine on the one hand the phenomenon of(mis)alignmentat the left edge of stems and on the other the distribution of voiced and voiceless obstruents. We can therefore claim that an analysis in terms of optimization is not only possible, but also desirable, since (i) it makes use


of constraints which are either plausibly universal (*[ +vmcE], DEP, lDENT(VOICE)STOP) or active in other German varieties (ALIGN (STEM, L, SYLL, L); (ii) the grammar determining the distribution of allomorphs in Mocheno consists of constraint rankings which hold for the language in general. If on the other hand we were to subcategori7.e each allomorph for the phonological context it occurs in, the relationship between the distribution of past participle allomorphs and other pieces of the Mocheno grammar would remain completely opaque.

References Alber Birgit. 2001. Regional variation and edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard and southern varieties of German. Zeitsclzriftfiir Spraclzwissemchaft 20(1): 3-41. Alber, Birgit & Lanthale1~ Franz. 2005. Der Silbenonset in den Tiroler Dialekten. lnPer~pektiven Bin~~ Akten der 1. Tagtmg Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien (Rom, 2004), Claudio Di Meola, Antonie Hornung & Loren:l,a Rega (eds), 75-88, Roma: Istituto Italiano di Studi Germanici. Andreolli, Claudia. 2004-05. Sonoritat und Stimmhaftigkeit im Silbenanlaut. Bin Fa/lbebpiel aus dem Fersentalerischen, eir1er deutschen Minderheitenspmche des Trentirw, tesi di laurea triennale. Trento: Universita di Trento. Annuario Statistico, Provincia di Trento. . (5 August 2009). Bannert, Robert. 1976. Mittelbairische Phonologie auf akustisclzer tmd perzeptorisc/zer Grundlage. Lund: Libedi:iromedel. Bonet, Eulalia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascar6, Joan. 2007. Allomorph selecti.on and lexical preferences: Two case studies. Lingua 117: 903-927. Bye, Patrik. 2007. Allomorphy: Selection, not optimization. In Freedom (~Analysis, Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye & Martin Kraemer (eds), 63-91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Clements, Nick & Hmne, Elizabeth. 1995. Internal organization of speech sounds. In The Handbook of'Phonological Theory, John Goldsmith (ed.), 245-306. Oxf(n·d: Blackwell. Cognola, Federica. In press. Alcune considerazioni per tuianalisi unitaria del prefisso ge- del tedesco. In Quaderni patavini di linguistica, Elena Triantafillis (ed.). Drachman, Gaberell, Kager, Rene & Malikouti-D rachman, Angeliki. 1996. Greek allomorphy: An optimality theory account. In Papers }rom the First Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic Languages, Plovdiv, October 1995, [University ofTrondheim Working Papers in Linguistics 28], Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Lars Hellan (eels), 345-361. Trondheim: University ofTrondheim. Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2001. Cluster-dependent epenlhesis asymmetries. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Papers in Phonology 5, Adam Albright & Taehong Cho (eds), 71-116. Lpeakers (i.e. have different referential properties), which may in turn lead to different lexical choices. For example, a particular boat may be con· ceptualized in the mind of its owner as having the quality FEMALE and be expressed v.1th the words boat; Lucy, and site. Another person may think of the same boat as INANIMATE and use the words boc1t and it to denote it. 2. I posit that both grammatical and semantic gender are encoded in the grammar, and are in that sense "grammaticaL" Following Chomsky (1995), I distinguish between semantic features (features of linguistic expressio11s that provide information about the referent of these expressions) and properties of referents oflinguistic expressions., which may or may not map onto such features. Examples of referential properties that are not grammatical in English are SMART, or WEARS »OW TIES, or LOVES MATH. There is no morpheme meaning 'smart' on for example the English noun genius or on its associated words, nor docs SMART affect the syntactic computation of genius or associated words. PEMALE on the other hand is grammatical in English (e.g. the morpheme -ess in lioness).

3· Interesting work has been done by Boroditsk.y et aL (2003) that provides evidence for the influence of grammatical gender and its semantic underpinnings on thought. 4· I define LANGUAGE as a set of similar grammars,. and GRAMMAR as the linguistic system in the mind of a speaker. In other words,. I adopt the Chomskian concept of I - language in that I do not consider languages or grammars to exist outside of the minds of speakers. As such, this study does not aim to give a unified account of Plautdictsch, or of the variety of Plautdietsch presented, as much as it aims to be another data point in the search for possible mental grammars. Any reference to language "change" (in terms of gender "loss" or "gain") should be interpreted in this light 5· 'Ihe term~ Low Saxon and Low German are often used interchangeably to refer to the combined West Germanic grammars used in the northeastem provinces of The Netherlands

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German 69

High German, Russian, and colonial American languages (English in North American communities; Spanish and Portuguese in South America). My study of one variety of Plautdietsch6 - that spoken in Henderson, Nebraska - shows a mixed semantic-grammatical gender system similar to that of Standard Dutch in its semantic gender of pronouns, yet with stronger gram-matical gender in attributive targets and with semantic gender having spread to a wider range of targets in some speakers. In this paper, I describe this system and analyze it in terms of a gender and animacy feature geometry. Crucially, I analyze Plautdietsch hybrid nouns (nouns with different gender in some tar-get classes than in others). as nouns with conflicting referential information reflected in their form and the form of their targets. I show that grammatical gender loss in settlement dialects like Plautdietsch provide us with a unique view of hybrid gender: the fact that in some languages, indefinite articles are more likely to be assigned semantic gender than other attributive targets. Finally, I will compare the Plautdietsch gender system to that of its close relatives (English, Dutch, and High German) and argue that the loss of gender inflection in Henderson Plautdietsch and in language in general is in fact a gain in formal animacy features, and that children acquiring such "deflected" grammatical gender systems are in fact assigning more grammatically complex feature structures to expressions.

2.

2.1

(Socio-)linguistic history of Henderson Plautdietsch Introduction

Germanic languages are moving from three-way masculine-feminine--neuter gen-der systems, through intermediary stages, toward purely semantic gender systems.

and in northern Germany. Competing analyses exist of the relationship between Low Saxon/ Low German and other West Germanic languages. In one, the language is part of the Lm\' Sa.:mn-Low Franconian branch to which also belong Dutch and Flemish (e.g. Bthnologue. org). In another analysi'>, an additional relationship is drawn between the Low Saxon-Low Franconian branch and the Anglo-Frisian (e.g. Epp 1993). Related to the issue of classification are hotly debated questions of "language" and "dialect': Is Plautdietsch a dialect of Dutch, of German, or is it a language of its own? Because I do not believe these to be interesting questions in the sense that they would add to our ultimate understanding of gender in human language, l will not address them here. Where I refer to the Henderson Plautdietsch variety simply as "Plautdietsch", I do so realizing that the gender systems of speakers of other varieties of Plautdietsch may be different.

6.

70

Annemarie Toebosch

Weerman (2008) illustrates this for Standard German, Dutch and English with the example of definite articles as agreement targets:

(der, die, das) German: a three·- way system Dutch: a two-way system (de, het) English: a purely semantic. system (the) As a Germanic language, and with influences from all three of these languages, we expect Plautdietsch to be somewhere on this continuum. Weerman argues that the speed of grammatkal gender loss "runs parallel to the scale oflanguage contact that played a role in the history of the (standard) languages involved: from extensive contact for English,? to a relatively isolated position for High German:' Plautdietsch has a history of extensive language contact. It developed over the past four and a half centuries and moved around the world for the Henderson variety from modern--day Belgium, to The Netherlands and Germany, to Poland, Ukraine, and the US. 1he nature of the contact between Plautdietsch and other languages has not however been one that would have encouraged significant deflection, or gender loss specifically. Even though the contact has been extensive and the differ-ence in gender systems often significant (say, between Henderson Plautdietsch and English), Plautdietsch has not, on a large scale, been the target language of second language learners.8 I will nonetheless give a brief history of Henderson Plautdietsch, hoping this will inspire future research into the ways language contact influenced the development ofthis little-studied lanbruage. 2.2

The homelands

Plautdietsch has its roots in the minds of 16th century Mennonites 9 living in what is today Flanders (northern Belgium), The Netherlands, and northeastern Germany. During the Reformation period, these netherlandic10 Mennonites were persecuted for their religious beliefs, and many tled to what is called the Frisia Triplex: West Friesland

7· Extensive and prolonged contact between Old Norse and Old English, especially at the Danelaw border is seen as the reason for Middle English deflection. 8. Thomason and Kaufman (1988) and Van Coet'iem (1988) posit that second language learners indirectly cause deflection by spreading their nonnative, relatively inflectionally simpler grammars to new generations of LI learners.

9· Called "Waterlanders"then, Mennonites are now called '1Joopsgezinden" (lit: the baptismminded) in Duteb. Mennonites form a cultural and religious group practicing the teachings of Menno Simons and other Anabaptists. One of the tenets of Anabaptism is the voluntary baptism of adult'> rather than of babies (as done in for example Catholicism). 10. I follow Epp (1993) in using the term "netherlandic" to refer to these regions and "Netherlandic"to mean more narrowly"ofthe nation-state of'Ihe Netherlands."

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German (now called "Friesland") and Groningen in the north of 1he Netherlands, and East Friesland in northeastern Germany. (Unruh 1955). Ancestors of the Henderson Mennonites specifically came from Flanders, Belgium (Voth 1975), 11 among them those who became members of the Groningen Old Flemish Society, a branch of Dutch Mennonites. (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online at www.gameo.org). 2.2.1

Language in the homelands

Mennonites in the Frisia Triplex spoke Low Franconian dialects (Flemish or any number of Dutch varieties), Low Saxon dialects, or Frisian, with Frisian and the Low Saxon variety spoken in the Frisia Triplex being nearly indistinguishable at the time. Henderson ancestors would have spoken Flemish- which to this day has kept its three--way gender contrast 12 before coming in contact with the speech of other Mennonites (Dutch, Frisian, Low Saxon) in the Frisia Triplex. With a strong movement toward the standardization of Dutch at the time, and with contact with Flemish contributing heavily to this standard, (Burke 2005) they likely would have had some degree of fluency in Dutch. 16th century Dutch 13 and West Frisian had already lost their masculine-feminine distinction. 14 2.3

Prussia

In the 16th and 17th centuries, threatened by further persecution and encouraged by the promise of religious freedom and economic improvement, 15 netherlandic Mennonites moved from the Frisia Triplex to Prussia, 16 where they would stay for over two centuries. Others joined them fmm Belgium and other parts of'lhe Netherlands. 'lhey settled along the Vistula River, from the Baltic Sea coast to the tow-n of'Ihorn, 150 miles south. The ancestors of Henderson Mennonites settled in Przechovka ("Kleinsee" in German) near the towns of Schwetz and Kulm, just north of Thorn. (Voth). Buchheit

u. Banders counted about 2000 Mennonites in the middle of the 16th century. (van Leuvenstijn, 1997). 12.

De Vogelaer (2009) suggest'i that Flemish gender is becoming more semantic.

When I use the unqualified term "Dutch': I am referring to the standard variety spoken especially in the northwestern part of The Netherlands.

13.

'Ihe exception to this is the variety spoken on the island of Schiermonnikoog, which still has the traditional three-way gender contrast. (Versloot 2008)

14.

15. With their skill in land reclamation and farming, netherlandic Mennonites were invited to farm the wetlands in the Vistula Delta of Prussia. (Epp 1993)

In Prussia, they were first called "Dutch Anabaptists" and later "Mennonites': the term used for members of the more pacifist branch of Ana:baptism. (Epp 1993)

16.

71

72

Annemarie Toebosch

(1978) describes a sub-group that in 1765 moved westward from the Kulm lowlands to found the villages of Brenkenhoffswalde and Franzthal in the Netzebruch region between Kulm and Berlin. 2.:p

Language contact in Prussia

When the netherlandic Mennonites arrived in Prussia, the local population spoke a variety of Low GermanY Unruh (1955) and Epp (1993) state that the Mennonites adopted this West Prussian Low German as their spoken language. For many this would not have been a big jump from the Low Saxon they had alre-ady been using in the Frisia Triplex. Duerksen (1967) on the other hand states that the Mennonites in Prussia (and in particular those in Prechkovka) continued to speak Dutch for the majority of their time in Prussia, perhaps as late as 1800 in some homes. Since many moved to New Russia before 1800, this would mean that some would have spoken Dutch throughout their time in Prussia. Of relevance to the current study is what Duerksen meant by the term "Dutch": Flemish, Dutch, Low Saxon, or some mix form. It is unclear. Although the exact state of the gender system of Henderson ancestors in Prussia is unknown, we can assume that, with influences from Flemish, Dutch, Frisian, and Low Saxon, it was in flux. What we know is that during their years in Prussia, they continued contact with the homeland languages, came in contact with the local language, and were influenced by the language of church and writing.

Low Saxon/Low German: Mennonites in both Prechovka and Necr.ebruch stayed in dose contact with the Old Flemish in Groningen, continuing their contact with netherlandic Low Saxon. They were also in continuous contact with the local Low German-speaking population.

Low Fmrzconian: Voth further describes frequent contact between the homelands and Pr:1.echovka in the form of pastoral visits and financial aid from the home front. Though Mennonite visitors from the Frisia Triplex would at that time have spoken a Low Saxon variety, others still living in Belgium and other parts of the Netherlands spoke Low Franconian Flemish (with three grammatical genders) or Dutch (which had already lost the masculine-feminine distinction), so language contact between Prussian Low German and Low Franconian varieties continued.

Language ofchurch and writing: Dutch and High German Dutch was the written language and language of the church of netherlandic Men-· nonites for the majority of their time in Prussia. By law, High German became the

Merchants in the north-German Hanseatic League had left their Low German mark on the region, which. was now settled by many Low German farmers. (Epp 1993)

17.

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German 73 language of instruction from 1772 on. In church, the change to High German happened at different times in different Mennonite communities, earlier in the more progressive Frisian branch of the church and later in the more conservative Flemish church. Henderson ancestors in the Flemish Pr:z.echovka church would have changed their written and church language to High German in 1775, though they kept their most treasured Dutch texts 18 dose through the centuries, even after they moved to America. (Duerksen). 2.4

New Russia

After the death of King Frederick the Great of Prussia in 1786, and following intermittent challenges to their pacifist beliefs, renewed hardship fell on the Mennonites in the form of unaffordable taxes and land leases. In 1788, they started moving to areas of New Russia (now Ukraine) north of the Black Sea. There they were assured freedom of religion, exemption from military service, and land. 1he first wave of immigrants founded the Chortitza Colony (also called the "Old Colony"). After 1.800, a second wave of Mennonites formed the Molotschna Colony (or "New Colony"). Ancestors of Henderson Plautdietsch speakers belonged to the latter group. Voth describes how a significant amount of them moved in 1821 and settled in AlexanderwohLI 9 The Netzebruch Mennonites didn't move to the Molotschna Colony urrtil1834, and founded the village of Gnadenteld dose to Alexanderwoht2° 2.4.1 Language contact in New Russia Old Colony and New Colony Low Gennan are distinct varieties. A look at the literature suggests that differences between them, brought over from Prussia, are largely phonological in nature. Corbett (1.991.) describes how grammatical gender contrasts can be phonologically motivated. I have no evidence however to suggest that the sound differences between Old Colony and New Colony varieties would have resulted in divergent gender systems.

Russian: In New Russia, Henderson ancestors came in contact with local varieties of Russian/ Ukranian, though few seem to have learned it or used it. It is doubtful therefore that

Most notably the Biestkens-Bijbel byNicolaes Biestkens (printed from 1560 to 1723),and the writings of Menno Simons.

18.

19.

Instrumental in this move was Peter Wedel, elder ofthe Przechovka church.

'Ihe leader of this move was Wilhelm Lange, Lutheran-turned-Mennonite elder of the Brenkhoffswalde and Gnadenfeld churches. 20.

74

Annemarie Toebosch

the strongly grammatical gender system of Russian would have affected their speech. In addition, they were among the first to leave Russia for America. Those Mennonites who left Russia two or more generations later had much more extensive contact v.ith Russian, especially through the educational system.

High German: In Alexanderwohl and Gnadenfeld, Henderson ancestors were repeatedly exposed to High German. Gnadenfeld especially became a progressive stronghold and center of education, and much emphasis was placed on the learning oflanguages. Of particular relevance here is the fact that Henderson ancestors came in close contact with German Lutherans in the region. We know on the other hand that High German continued to be taught (both in New Russia and America), evidence that it was still a foreign language to the general population.

Karolswalde: Additional contact would have also been the norm with a Low German variety called Karolswalde (according to Epp 1993 not a variety of Plautdietsch). Epp states that Mennonites in the Kulm area in Prussia spoke the Kulmerland dialect of Low German. Though it is not explicitly stated in the literature on Henderson Mennonites, some Henderson ancestors may have spoken or at least have come in frequent contact with this dialect,21 both in Prussia and in New Russia. A sister group of Mennonite Kulmerland speakers, more isolated in their cultural history, developed a variety called Karolswalde (after their New Russian town) that underwent less change (Epp 1993), and would possibly have retained more of its netherlandic (Flemish, Dutch, Low Saxon) roots. It would be interesting to see how the gender system of Karolswalde compares to that of Henderson Plautdietsch and other Plautdietsch varieties. 22 2.5

United States of America

Initially, Low German was frequently the language of school and church in the New Russian colonies. From the 1820s on, there was a focus on teaching High German in schools, a foreign language to the children. Few people learned Russian. Then in the mid to late 19th century the freedoms of Mennonites threatened to be severely curtailed, most importantly by the threat of compulsory military service and change to Russian as tl1e language ofinstruction. Many decided to leave.

21. 'Ihe Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (gameo.org) mentions that there were family relations between the Karolswalde and Gnadenfeld Mennonites. 11.

There are today Karolswalde speakers lhtng in Kansas and South Dakota.


Among the first to leave were groups of Mennonites headed for Nebraska. Voth tells the story of delegates scoping out the land in the preceding years, among them representatives of both Molotschna and Chortitza Colonies. Molotschna Mennonites from the Alexanderwohl vicinity settled in and around Henderson, Nebraska, while others left tor Kansas (among them speakers of Karolswalde)_23 Close ties were main-tained between the Nebraska and Kansas Metmonites.

2.5.1 Language contact in America Identifying themselves predominantly as German, though not generally fluent in High German, Henderson Mennonites kept their language alive for many generations. AntiGerman sentiment during the war forced their language underground, according to many sealing its fate. English started to be used more and more in the home, though often side by side with Plautdietsch. Today, Henderson Plautdietsch, four and a half centuries in the making, is dying a relatively rapid death. In 1978, Buchheit describes the last generation of fluent speakers, mostly over 30 years of age. I interviewed several of the same people he did, now in their sixties, seventies and eighties. Many of the younger speakers among them no Ionger feel confident in the language, most of the older speakers do. All of them are proud of their language, and mourn the imminent loss of an expression of their culture.

2.6

Summary

In the past four and a half centuries, the language of Mennonites now living in Henderson, Nebraska was influenced by a variety oflanguages. The gender systems of these languages ranged from (relatively) strongly grammatical (like High German and Flemish) or mixed (like Dutch) to purely semantic (English). 'Ihe next section lays out the current gender system of Henderson Plautdietsch and compares it to those of its closely related languages.

3· 3.1

Gender contrasts in Plautdietsch Mixed gender systems

When the ancestors oftoday's Plautdietsch speakers left their homelands, Early Modern Dutch, the dominant language spoken in the netherlandic Mennonite homeland at

Voth identi.fi.es those as «the Dutch of Volhynia': Volhynia referring to their initial New Russian settlement.

23.

75

76

Annemarie Toebosch

the time, had lost the distinction between masculine and feminine gender in nouns as part of a general process of det1ection. Geerts 1966 shows that the rhetorician Hendrik Spieghel no longer made a regular masculine-feminine distinction when he wrote his 1584 Twe-spraack, particularly interesting since, as a language purist. he would have tried to speak and write in the traditional system.24 'Ihe common25--neuter distinction of Modern Dutch nouns as seen in certain agreement targets is the result of this gender loss. Consider for example the demonstratives in (la-b) and attributive adjectives in (le---d). (1)

NEUTER:

COM.'\.I:ON:

a.

dic-e klok-c 26 that clock

b.

dat-N huis-N that house

c.

een27 oude-c klok-c clock an old

d

een oud-N huis-N an old house

Dutch pronouns by comparison have not lost the masculine-feminine distinction (e.g. masculine hij 'he' versus feminine zij 'she'). 28 Audring (2006) posits that the solution to the mismatch between the two-way common-neuter contrast in Dutch nouns and the unchanged three-way contrast in pronouns is a reinterpretation of pronoun gender on semantic grounds (as proposed in Wurzel1986). One instance of semantic gender assignment can be seen for specific targets in Dutch nouns with animate referents.29 In (2) for the nouns jongen "boy" and jongetje "little bo~ attributives (in this case demonstrative) and relative pronouns are assigned

24. Twe-spmack vande Nederduitsche letterkunst by Hendrik LaurenS'.l. Spieghel is lhe lirst prescriptive grammar of Dutch, published in 1584-7. 25. The term "common" gender is used in the literature to refer to the common class of historically masculine and feminine gender. I adopt the term while realizing that the notion of "combining masculine and feminine" has no reality in the minds of Dutch speakers with this system. They simply have one class X (of non -neute:t; or, uter 'either' forms) and one classY (of neuter'not either' forms).

I use the feature terms like common (C), masculine (M),feminine (F), neuter (N), animate (A), inanimate (I), and female (FEM) purely descriptively in this section. In Section 4, I ~ill

26.

explain them in terms of tor mal features. 27.

Note in (le-d) that Dutch indefinite articles have no overt gender contrast.

Attributive targets are more susceptible to gender detlection than are pronouns. (Priestly 1983 & Corbett 1991)

28.

29. Recall from the introduction that even strongly grammatical gender systems have a basis in meaning. The semantic features associated with gender agreement are those of

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German grammatical gender: common in (a) versus neuter in (b). Personal pronouns on the other hand (or the demonstratives that stand in for them) have semantic gender, as evidenced by die in (2b ). The label A in (2) stands for animate. (2)

a.

Die-c jongen-c die-c in de hoek zit, that boy that in the corner sits

GRAMMATICAL

die-A huilt omdat 'ie-A bang is. that one cries because he scare is

SEMANTIC

"That boy who sits in the corner, he's crying because he's scared:' b.

Dat-N jongetje-N dat-e in de hoek zit, GRAMMATICAL that boy that in the corner sits die-A huilt omdat 'ie-A bang is. that one cries because he scare is

SEMANTIC

"That little boy who sits in the corner, he's crying because he's scared:' Mixedgendersystemssuchastheonein(3)areexplainedbyCorbett's(1979)Agreement Hierarchy, which posits that rightward targets (types of targets to the right of other types of targets) are more likely to be assigned semantic gender than are leftward targets: attributive< predicate< relative pronoun< personal pronoun

Figure 1. Agreement Hierarchy Tied in is the fact that rightward targets are more likely to have gender inflection. In diachronic terms, leftward targets are more likely to lose their gender inflection than are rightward targets. The idea is then that deflection on the one hand and semantic gender spread on the other are expected to occur in opposite directions across targets and that the spread of one is dependent on the spread of the other. DEFLECTION attributive< predicate< relative pronoun< personal pronoun

SEMANTIC GENDER

Figure 2. Deflection and Semantic Gender Spread

individuation and animacy, described as a feature continuum in Sasse (1993), and as a formal feature geometry in Harley and Ritter (2002) and (the latter) in Toebosch (2007).

77

78

Annemarie Toebosch

Dutch, with relatively deflected attributive targets has developed semantic gender assignment in pronouns, thus following a predictable pattern of language change. Plautdietsch has a mixed gender system similar to that of Dutch, though with less attributive deflection and with semantic gender having spread farther leftward in some of its varieties. 3.2

Grammatical gender 30

For this study, I interviewed 29 people living in Henderson, Nebraska, who identify themselves as speakers of Plautdietsch.31 I collected three types of data from each speaker: a questionnaire with background information (age, family history, education, linguistic history, language preferences and identity) a 5-to-10 minute taped conversation with 1 to 3 other Plautdietsch speakers a list of specific elicited forms (noun phrases consisting of nouns, articles, attributive adjectives, and possessive determiners, as well as sentences)-3 2 In terms of grammatical gender, we find a number of different systems. 31% of speakers have a consistent (as in, the same per noun for all speakers), three-way gender contrast33 The remaining speakers can be classified as those with varying degrees of gender attrition. I then identify two general gender systems: Strong Grammatical Gender (SGG): 9 speakers (31%) have a strong three··way masculine-feminine-neuter contrast, consistent across attributive agreement targets. Weak34 Grammatical Gender (WGG): 20 speakers (69%) have varying degrees of grammatical gender loss in attributive targets

30. For a detailed description of the ways in which gender and case interact in various varieties ofPlautdietsch, see Nieuweboer (1998).

31. I use the term Plautdietsch here, though many speakers in the Henderson comrrrunity use the term "Low German" or just "German" for their language. 32. Forms were taken from Rempel (1984) and Neufeld (2000) and were selected based on the gender listed in these works. 33· Spontaneous speech reveals that speakers in this group are generally the most fluent (never searching for words or hesitating about forms). Careful systematic analysis of taped conversations is needed to establish the effects of English-Plautdietsch bilingualism and proficiency on gender system of the speakers interviewed.

34· By "strong" and "weak" I mean relative to the other varieties of Plautdietsch studied. There are of course languages \-\i.th stronger and weaker grammatical gender systems than the ones described here.

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German 79 Evidence for a separate neuter gender comes from definite articles and attributive adjectives. For all Plautdietsch examples, I use the widely accepted orthography proposed in Epp (1996).35 (3)

NEUTER: a.

daut-N 36 kjlienet-N 37 Uag-N

the c.

MASCULINE/l'EMININE:

little

b.

eye

de-M k.jliena-M Baul-M

the

little

ball

de-·I' kjliena-·I' Niis··I'

the

little

nose

Evidence for the masculine-feminine distinction comes from indefinite articles, as in (4). (4)

NEUTER/ MASCULINE: a.

b.

CCil··N

Uag-N

an

eye

l'EMININE:

c.

'ne-·F

NiiS··l'

a

nose

een-M Baul-M a

ball

We find the same masculine--neuter versus feminine grouping for possessive deter·· miners, as shown in (5).

(5)

NEUTBR/MASCUUNE:

a.

sien/ii.ah-N Uag--N

his/her b.

c.

siene/iiahre--F 38

his/her

Nas-·l' nose

sien/ii.ah-M Baul-M

his/her

35·

eye

FEMININE:

ball

For more on proposed Plalttdiet'lch spelling systems, see Nieuweboer (1998, 1999).

Daut is also a demonstrative ('that'). Other definite article forms recorded are det and et, recorded in DPs like et Massa ('the knife') and det Schwien ('the pig').

,36.

In various descriptions of Plalttdietsch, the t1nal -tin neuter attributive adjectives only occltrs after indefinite articles. In Henderson Plautdietsch it occurs independent of definiteness.

37·

I believe the feminine Sltffix here to be -e, and -r to be part of the stem -ltahr, dropped in word-final position (hence the net.tter/masculine form -ltah and not -ltahr).

,38.

so Annemarie Toebosch 3.2.1

Grammatical gender loss

The target for which grammatical gender contrast is most commonly lost is the defi-nite article (as compared to the indefinite article and attributive adjective). In 30% (6/20) of the WGG group. the definite article contrast is fully lost (only one form is left: de).39 1he remaining 70% (14/20) ofWGG speakers has varying degrees of neuter gender loss in definite articles, using de with some nouns where SGG speakers use daut. No dear semantic patterns are found here. Compare this with indefinite articles, where only 16% of the WGG group (3/19)40 has lost all contrast (only een or an English-sounding a is left). A closer look at indefinite articles however reveals that their gender assignment is semantically determined for an additional42% (8/19) ofWGG speakers and one SGG speaker (11.%: l/9). For these speakers (9 in total- 32%), the group of feminine nouns has been augmented by nouns with female referents, so what seems like a grammatical gender contrast is in fact semantically determined. We'll look at this more in the Section 5. 15% of speakers in the WGG group (3/20) has lost all grammatical gender con-trast in attributive adjectives (only the -a suffix is left). 1he remaining WGG speakers have varying degrees of grammatical gender loss in attributive adjectives (using -a with certain nouns, where SGG speakers use --et), without clear semantic patterns. In total, only 2 speakers (7%) have lost all attributive gender contrast (as in English), and 4 (14%) have a two-way attributive gender contrast. The rest {79%) has maintained a three-way contrast. with 14 (48%) WGG speakers showing varying degrees of attrition as compared to SGG speakers. 3·3

Semantic gender

As in Dutch, the gender assignment of pronouns (or the demonstratives that stand in for them) is semantically determined in Plautdietsch. For all speakers, pronouns ~ith animate referents have semantic gender. 41 Examine the data in (6).

39· Although speakers in this group no longer have a definite article form daut ("the"), they do have a demonstrative form daut ('that'), which they can use to modify any noun. Recall that I consider grammars to exist only in the minds of speakers (Footnote 4). My synchronic data sample cannot then establish any actual "'oss" of gender features. A diachronic sample is needed to establish such a loss. In other words, I use the terms "loss" and "attrition" loosely here, to mean that I ass-ume that gender structure was present in earlier stages of the language or individual speakers' grammars. 40.

One speaker did not answer the indefinite article part.

41. For the remainder of this paper, I will talk about animates with the understanding that an additional human-nonhuman contrast needs to be drawn. I elicited only a few human versus nonhuman animate pronoun forms, from 21 speakers. Of those speakers, about a quarter

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German (6)

ANIMATES: a.

de-F/'ne-F Grootmutta the/a grandmother Dee·-A wea meed. SEMA..."''nc that one was tired "She was tired:'

b.

de-Mieen-M Voda the father Dee-A wea meed SEMANTIC that one was tired "He was tired."

c.

daut-Nieen-N l\1aakje the girl Dee-A wea meed SEMANTIC that one was tired "She was tired:'

As illustrated in (6 ), all nouns with animate referents, independent of their grarnmatical gender, are replaced by the same pronominal form dee.42 Inanimate nouns on the other hand are replaced by pronouns with matchinggnunmatical43 gender (with femi-nine and masl~uline grouping as one). Compare the data in (6) with those in (7), noting in particular the difference in pronoun use between (6c) and (7c).

groups all animates together, where-ds the rest groups nonhuman animates with inanimates. A larger number of contrasting forms need to be collected to get a dearer picture. .p.. Contrastive male and female subject forms exist (e.g. hee 'he' versus see 'she, as opposed to inanimate et'it'), but even upon frequent prompting, speakers seem hesitant to use them. When used upon prompting, speakers will quickly revert back to dee. Further data will have to uncover when exactly these sex-differentiated subject forms are used in spoken Henderson Plautdietsch. As we saw in example (5), we do find clear examples of female versus male in possessive adjectives, which (as in some varieties of High German) have two controller nouns: a 'possessor' noun such as Maakje 'girl' assigning semantic gender (female tiah 'hef, as opposed to non-female sien 'his') and a 'possessed' noun assigning grammatical gender (e.g. neuter tiah Uag versus feminine iiahre Ntis). We find further evidence for the male-female distinction in object pronouns (ahm 'him' versus aith 'her').

43· It is important to note that the classification of the gender of these forms as 'grammatical' is actually too simplistic since the gender assignment of these forms is dependent on referent animacy (in this case inanimate). In Section4, l will discuss this observation in light of the feature geometry proposed.

81

82

Annemarie Toebosch

INANIMATES:

(7) a.

de-F/'ne-F Niis

the

nose

Dee·-1' wea lank. that one was long "It was long." b.

GRAM...\fATICAL

de-Mieen-M Baul the ball Dee-M wea lUlld. GRAMMATICAl. that one was rotmd "It was round."

c.

daut-Nieen-N Uag the eye Daut-N44 wea too. GRAMMATICAL that one was closed "It was closed:'

Indefinite article targets

3.3.1

An interesting case of semantic gender is found in WGG Plautdietsch indefinite article targets (as opposed to other attributive agreement targets, which are assigned grammatical gender). 42% of WGG speakers group females with feminines for indefinite articles. 45 Remember that neuter normally pairs with masculine tor indefinite article targets (see Example (4)). We find distributions however like those in (8), where neuter nouns with female referents (like Diiwtje 'sweetheart' and Maakje 'girl') pair with feminine nouns. FEMININE (F)/FEMAI.B (FEM):

(8)

a.

'ne-F Niis

a

b.

(definite: de-F Niis)

GRAMMATICAL

nose

'ne-FEM Duwtje (definite: daut-N Duwtje) SEMANTIC a dove-little 'a (female) sweetheart'

44·

Recall that the form daut can be a definite artide and a pronounJdemonstrative.

45·

Feminine (F) is a grammatical gender feature and female (FEM) a semantic one.


In terms of semantic gender then, we can divide Plautdietsch speakers into the following two groups: Weak Semantic Gender (WSG): 19 speakers (68%) have semantic gender in personal pronouns only. Strong Semantic Gender (SSG): for 9 speakers (32%), semantic gender has spread to attributives (indefinite articles).

3·4 Conclusion In sum, all varieties of Plautdietsch studied have mL'!:ed gender systems: certain targets are assigned grammatical gender while other targets are assigned semantic gender (based on referent animacy). In one variety (SGG-WSG: 8i28), speakers have a strong, three-way contrast (consistently reflected across attributive targets), and semantic gen-der in pronouns only. In a second variety (WGG-WSG: 11/28), speakers have varying degrees of grammatical gender loss and semantic gender in pronouns only. In a third variety (WGG--SSG: 8i28), speakers have varying degrees of grammatical gender loss and semantic gender in attributives.46 Recall that change in gender systems is predicted to happen as follows: gender det1ection and semantic gender spread occur in opposite directions across targets and are dependent on each other. Audring proposes that, at least for Dutch, deflection has resulted in a mismatch between nouns (as reflected in attributives) and personal pronouns, which in turn has resulted in semantic gender assignment in these pronouns. A mismatch does not seem to have been the cause of semanticization in (especially SGG) Plautdietsch, where personal pronouns have semantic gender but attributives still exhibit a three-way grammatical gender contrast across target types.4·7 Semantic gender assignment in pronouns seems to have developed for other reasons, which I will discuss in Section 6.

46. A single SGG speaker had one instance of semantic gender in indefinite art ides. Because this was such a rare occurrence, I am ignoring this data point here. Future research may show that there is indeed a fourth variety of speakers with strong grammatical gender and semantic gender in attributives (SGG-SSG). "!his would be significant, as it would prove that semantic gender spread to attributives is not tied to gender attrition (see also Section 5.2.1). 47. It is unlikely that there would have been a development where attributive deflection and resulting mismatch resulted in pronoun semanticization at an earlier stage in the language after which attributive gender would have been gained back.

83

84

Annemarie Toebosch

4· 4.1

Gender-animacy Introduction

Toebosch (2007) proposes a unified analysis of grammatical and semantic gender in terms of hierarchically organized (rather than unorganized bundles of) features. Specifically, in an attempt to arrive at the smallest set of features able to account for gender contrasts in language, she proposes a geometry of the four features [C), [F], 48 [animate], and [female]. This is illustrated in Figure 3.49 [class)

[C]

GRAMMATICAL=======* GENDER

Figure 3. Gender-animacy geometry50

The sub-geometry of grammatical gender features (represented by the unshaded disc) and the sub-geometry of semantic gender features (represented by the shaded disc) together make up one geometry. This gender-animacy geometry5 1 constrains

48. The feature [F) is the grammatical gender feature previously referred to as feminine, [C) is common. 49· Toebosch (2007) gives detailed motivations for the 4 features and their hierarchical organization. 50. The image has been flipped horizontally from its original version in Toebosch (2007) in order to fit the representation in Corbett's Agreement Hierarchy of semantic gender assignment in rightward types of targets.

51. In the remainder of the paper, I will use the term 'gender' for grammatical gender and 'animacy' for the set of semantic features associated with gender. I will refer to the systematic relationship between gender and animacy proposed in Figure (3) as 'gender-animacY.


possible gender-animacy specifications in language, accounting, among other things, for the fact that pronouns with animate referents cannot be neuter in languages like Dutch and Plautdietsch. I adopt [class], proposed in Harley and Ritter's (2002) geometry of person and number, as the root node of gender-animacy. Possible other sub--geometries of [class] are those constraining numeral and verbal classification systems (see in this regard Unterbeck 1999). The features and geometry in Figure (3) have the same basic properties as those proposed by Harley and Ritter (2002). These properties are:

.M.onovalence Property 1: Formal notation: [Fj5 2 or [0 F], where [0 F] means 'unspecified for F: All features are monomlent. They are either present or absent for an Description:

Example:

expression X. Features do not have values (+or - ). A linguistic expression either has the feature [ C], or it does not have the feature [C].

Entailment Property 2: Formai notation: [F2] ~ [Fl], or, [F2] ~ [Fl], or, [Fl[F2]] 53 lfX is specified for a feature [F2], then it is specified for all features Description: [Fl]. In terms of a set hierarchy, [F2] is a subset of [Fl). In terms of a tree hierarchy, [Fl] dominates [F2]. In terms of markedness relations, [Fl] is unmarked with respect to [F2]. A linguistic expression specified for the feature [female] also has the Example: feature [animate]. Property (2) has the contrapositive in (2'):

Property 2': Formal notation: Description: Example:

Contraposition [OFl] ~ [OF2] IfX is unspecified for [Fl], then it is unspecified for all [F2]. A linguistic expression unspecified for [C] is also unspecified for [F] (feminine), [animate], and [female].

52.

By [F] here I mean ''a formal feature: not feminine.

53·

These three different notations represent the same basic relationship between elements.

85

86

Annemarie Toebosch

If feature geometries in general generate potential linguistic expressions (X), or, sets of potential feature specifications, the gender-animacy geometry generates the set of potential gender-animacy expressions illustrated in Figure 4.

X3

Figure 4. Potential gender-animacy expressions

Each area in Figure 4 represents a contrastive gender-animacy feature specification. The geometry thus allows for a six-way gender-animacy contrast in language. 54 Let's map this onto the traditional features of [masculine], [feminine], and [neuter]. As mentioned above, the unshaded sub-geometry analyzes the traditional notion of 'gender' in terms of the features [C] and [F]. Feminine forms are then specified for the feature [F] (and thus [C]) and masculine forms only for the feature [C]. The traditional gender feature [neuter] is analyzed as the lack of gender features. This analysis does not of course preclude neuter forms from having sound. Their phonological features map onto grammatical features higher in the structure.

Corbett (1991) describes much more elaborate gender contrasts in for example Bantu languages. He does not formalize these elaborate contrasts. To account for these levels of contrast, we would (i) need to add additional features to the geometry, or (li) follow Harley and Ritter (2002: 514) in analyzing these languages as having"an open-ended set oflexically determined classes" rather than "a closed set of grammatically determined classes" In the latter analysis, (some) gender expressions in these languages are analyzed as being unpredictable, or, not generated by a formal feature geometry.

54

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German 87 Let's say that neuter forms have the terminal feature [class], associated with a unique phonological string. Like gender, animacy (the sex and animacy of referents, to be precise) is encoded in the grammar in terms of the two f{)rmal semantic features [female] and [animate] . .P..xpressions with female referents have the specification [female], non-.female animate expressions (male/sex-uspecified animates) the specification [animate]. Inanimates are analyzed as lacking animacy features. I propose that inanimates have an additional referential property, call it ENTITY, encoded in the grammar as [entity]. I will discuss this in more detail in Section 5.3. To sum up. Table 1 lists and describes the feature specifications of potential expressions generated by the gender-animacy geometry. Note that feature specifications are given only in terms of terminal features, or, features not entailed by other features of an expression. 55 Expressions that have [C] (as a terminal fe-dture, or through entailment by [animate]) are traditionally called masculine in language with contrastive feminine gender, and common in languages without feminine. Expressions with terminal feature [animate] have either male or sex--unspecified (i.e. non--female) animate referents.

Table I. Potential gender-animacy expressions l'liATURE

TR.'I.DITIONAL DllSCRIPTION

SPECIFICATION

XI X2 X3 X4

xs X6

[C] [F] [animate] [F] [animate] [female]

ANU.IACY

GP.N.DER

inanimate inanimate inanimate non-female animate non-female animate female

masculine/common feminine neuter masculine/common feminine feminine

All gender assignment is then in a sense both grammatical and semantic. If an expression has semantic gender, then it has grammatical gender. Furthermore, the lack of formal semantic structure ([female] andior [animate]) is in itself 'meaningful': if you're not animate, then you're an inanimate entity.

55· I assume that entailed featlues are predictable (from UG) and as stLch not present in the derivation of an expression. Thus, only terminal feattLres are interpreted and pronotmced.

88

Annemarie Toebosch 4.2

Notes on explanatory adequacy

Several general observations made in the literature about gender in language can be explained by the gender-animacy geometry. Let's look at them in turn. 4.2.1 Animate--inanimate asymmetry Nouns with inanimate reference tend to have more flexible gender contrc:tst than nouns with animate reference. (e.g. Dahl2000a) The gender-animacy geometry explains this generalization as follows. Inanimate forms have more flexible gender because a lack of animacy features ([animate] and/or [female]) and the gender features entailed by those features allows for any gender specification (masculine, feminine, or neuter). Related to this observation is the fact that nouns with female referents tend toward feminine gender (i.e. group together in one gender traditionally called feminine), nouns with male or sex-unspecified animate referents to masculine gender. We can explain this as follows: animate forms have more fixed gender because their animacy features entail specific gender features. 4.2.2 Animacy and gender deflection Lexical categories more likely to have semantic gender (most notably personal pro-nouns) are more likely to have overt gender marking. (e.g. Corbett 1991: 260) The explanation for this provided by the gender-animacy geometry is as follows. Grammatical gender is morphologically overt (maps onto certain phonological strings). If a particular target has semantic gender (i.e. has [female] and/or [animate]), then it has gender marking by entailment (see Property 2).56 On the flipside, lexical categories more likely to be gender-deflected are less likely to have semantic gender (most notably attributives). In an analysis where semantic gender features (i.e. animacy) entail grammatical gender features, this is predicted: the absence of [F] and [C] implies the absence of [female] and [animate] (see Property 2'). 4.2.3 Defa.uit gendt-"'1" It is a well--known phenomenon that in languages with a feminine--masculine gram-· matical gender contrast, expressions will default to masculine as opposed to feminine. 5"7 This is predicted by the fact that the feature [F) (i.e. feminine) is marked compared to the feature [C] (common/masculine). I do not speak of the markedness of neuter, as

_56. Recall also that tb.is geometric analysis doesn't preclude neuter forms from having sound. Tb.eir phonological features map onto grammatical features that are higb.er in the structure. 57· Corbett's comprehensive (1991) study on gender describes no language where feminine is the default gender when compared to masculine.

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German 89 this is not a feature (rather, it is the absence of [C]) in the present analysis. If neuter is found to be the default gender with respect to masculine/common, I suggest this is due to [C] being marked with respect to some higher non-gender feature. Interestingly, Corbett and Fraser (2000) discuss the fact that "neuter" is the default gender of the type of Russian verbs that lack prototypical nouns as gender assigners, suggesting that what seems to be "neuter" gender agreement is in fact not gender agreement at all.

4.2.4 Gender deflection and the lack offominine--neutet· pa.it·ings In Germanic languages we find the following gender declension groupings: masculine-neuter (versus feminine): e.g. in New High German genitives (Duke 2005), and in Plautdietsch indefinite articles feminine-masculine (versus neuter): e.g. in Dutch (all targets except for personal pronouns), and in Plautdietsch definite articles But not: feminine- neuter versus masculine 'Ihe gender--animacy geometry predicts this as follows. Masculines are structurally between feminines (with the most structure) and neuters (with the least structure). We can see this in Table 2.

Table 2. Structural distance between neuter and feminine FEMININE

[C]

MASCUUNJ!

[C]

I

[F]

In other words, in cases of gender loss, feminines have more structure to lose to be (pronounced as) neuters than they do to be (pronounced as) masculines. 59

58. In Section 5.3, I reanaly:1~ neuter in term'> of an additional formal semantic feature.lhis does not change the explanation of Observation 3. 59· Gender-animacy does not of course rule out that feminines deflect to join the group of neuters or that neuter gain in structure to join feminines (the latter found in for example Russian), and phonological factors play a role here; it just predicts a higher likelihood of masculine-feminine and masculine-neuter collapse. Pu.rther study needs to determine exactly how unlikely feminine-neuter pairings are as compared to feminine-masculine and masculineneuter pairings.

90

Annemarie Toebosch

In conclusion, I have shown how a relatively simple feature-geometric analysis is able to explain the tendency of inanimate expressions to have a relatively wide range of genders, the negative correlation between the likelihood of being gender-deflection and having grammatical gender, the tendency of masculine and not feminine to be the default gender in language, and the incidence of feminine--masculine and masculine--neuter, but not feminine-neuter pairings in Germanic and other languages. In the next section, I examine how gender-animacy accounts for gender contrasts in Plautdietsch and show that it explains different types of hybrid gender assignment in this language.

5·

Gender-animacy in Plautdietsch

Recall that we can divide Plautdietsch speakers into the following groups, depending on their extent of grammatical gender assignment (gender) on the one hand and semantic gender assignment (animacy) on the other. 'Ihe varieties are: SGG-WSG: speakers with strong grammatical gender (reflected in attributives)+ semantic gender in pronouns only WGG-WSG: speakers with (varying degrees of) grammatical gender loss + semantic gender in pronouns only WGG-SSG: speakers with (varying degrees of) grammatical gender loss + semantic gender in attributives

I will examine the feature specifications of Plautdietsch gender and animacy expressions in the next the remainder of this section.

5.1

Gender

Recall that in one variety of Plautdietsch (SGG ), speakers have a three-way masculinefeminine--neuter contrast in nouns, reflected consistently across attributive agree-ment targets. I suggest that we find the SGG feature specitkations of nouns in


Figure 5 and their attributive modifiers in Figure 6. Each specification is given with an example word.

Uag

Figure 5. SGG Plautdietsch nouns

a.

DEFINITE ARTICLES

daut

c.

INDEFINITE ARTICLES

een

Figure 6. SGG Plautdietsch attributive targets

b.

ADJECTIVES

kj/fenet

91

92

Annemarie Toebosch

Remember thatindividual attributive target types have only a two-way contrast in Plautdietsch: e.g. definite article de versus daut. We know from looking across target types that Plautdietsch has a three-way contrast. I adopt a theory of Separation, which assumes that a single phonological string (like Plautdietsch de) can correspond to two (or more) morpho-syntactic feature specifications. Separation is described in theories like Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, 1994) and Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (Beard 1995). An alternative analysis would have one and the same feature specification, say [C], for de and kjliena. This would simplify the grammar in one way but create agreement problems in another.

5.1.1 Gender attrition In the most extreme case of gender attrition, Plautdietsch speakers (2 in total) have full gender deflection in attributives. Their system, which generates no expressions with terminal gender features, looks like that of English. I will discuss this in the next section. Another group of speakers (4 in total) have two-way gender contrast. An example of such a system is one where the masculine/feminine, but not the common-neuter contrast has been fully lost (as in Dutch). This grammar would generate the following types of gender expressions:

a.

NOUNS

b.

daut

Uag

c.

DEFINITE ARTICLES

INDEFINITE ARTICLES

d.

een

Figure 7. WGG Plautdietsch: common-neuter system

ADJECTIVES

kPiena


The remaining WGG speakers have gender-animacy systems that show attrition for particular nouns (when we compare them to those of SGG speakers), yet have still retained a three-way contrast. They would therefore generate the same types of gender-animacy expressions as SGG speakers (seen in Figures 5 and 6, though perhaps not for those specific nouns).

5.2

Animacy

Recall that gender assignment ofPlautdietsch pronouns is semantically determined. Evidence comes from neuter nouns, where we find animate-inanimate contrasts as in (9). (9)

IN ANIMATES:

ANIMATES: a.

daut-Nieen-N Maakje girl the Dee-A we a meed. that one was tired "She was tired:'

b.

c.

daut-N/een-N Uag eye the Daut-·N we a to. that one was closed "It was dosed."

daut-N/een-N Kjind child the Dee-A wea meed. that one was tired "He/she was tired:'

I suggest that targets like dee in (9a) and (9b) are specified for [animate]. This is a terminal feature for all non--female animates, such as sex--unspecified dee in (9b) and male subject he "he" and object ahm "him" described in Footnote (42 ). I suggest that dee in (9a), like dee in (6a), has the additional feature [female] and thus groups with female forms like subjectse "she'' and object iiah "her".60 Inanimates like in daut in (9c) form the third contrasting group: expressions with no animacy features. I will leave for the next section the thorny issue of the feature specification of neuter controller nouns like 1VIiia~ie and Kjirzd, which seem to have one feature specification reflected in attributive targets and another reflected in personal pronouns. 'The contrasting animacy specifications are then given in Figure 8.

6o. The homophones dee in (9a) and dee in (9b) are thus analyzed as having different feature specifications.

93

94

Annemarie Toebosch

daut

et

Figure 8. Plautdietsch pronouns

Possessive determiners deserve some special attention. Recall from Footnote (42) that these forms have two controller nouns: the 'possessor' noun which assigns semantic gender to the stem (Example (5)- male sien 'his' versus female iiah 'her') and the 'possessed' noun assigning grammatical gender to the suffix (masculine null suffix versus feminine -e). What we have then are two morphemes (stem and suffix), each with their own controller noun, that are merged at some point in the derivation. Figure 9 shows the various specifications of each morpheme as they are controlled by different nouns. Specifically, (12a) shows all specifications when the stem controller noun is male (i.e. has a male referent), (12b) when it is female. Note that the null suffixes are represented by 0, and specifications are given only in terms of terminal features of stem and of suffix. Examples are given below each specification, with arrows indicating agreement relationships.

1. MALEstem a. MASCULINE suffix

b. NEUTER suffix

Ex: sien (A/ber(s) Bau/

Ex: sien (A/berfs) Uag

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German c. FEMININE suffix

Ex: slen (Albert's) NCis 2. FEMALE stem a. MASCULINE suffix

b. NEUTER suffix

Ex: iJah (Elsie's) Baul

Ex: iJah (Elsie's) Uag

c. FEMININE suffix

Ex: iJahre(Eisie's) NCis

Figure 9. Plautdietsch possessive determiners

95

96

Annemarie Toebosch

5-3

Hybrid nouns

Perhaps the most difficult part of this gender-animacy discussion is the analysis of what Corbett refers to as hybrid nouns: nouns that seemingly have evidence of one specification in one type of target and of another specification in another type of target. We have seen two types of hybrid gender assignment in Plautdietsch: all varieties: nouns like 1'1Makje and Diiwtje assign grammatical gender to attributives and semantic gender to pronouns. (review Example 6c) WGG--SSG: nouns like Jrfiiakje and Diiwtje assign semantic gender to pronotms and indefinite articies and grammatical gender to other targets. (review Example 8b) 5·3·•

Pronouns versus attributives

A rare formalization of hybrid gender agreement is proposed by Wechsler & Zlatic (2000). They explain such gender assignment as a mismatch between the specification of index gender features and concord gender features. They stipulate that DP-internal gender agreement (gender agreement between a head noun and its dependents- e.g. daut-l•vfiiakje) is restricted to the sharing of concord gender features (which are head features), whereas gender agreement between noun and coreferring pronoun (e.g. Miiakje-dee) does not have this restriction (i.e. it is a sharing of all, including crucially index, gender fealures). 61 Wechsler and Zlatic furthem10re explain Corbett's Agreement Hierarchy by stating that index teatures have a direct link to semantics (whereas concord features do not - they are directly linked to declension), 62 and that gender assignment of pronouns is therefore more likely to be semantically determined. One way to align Wechsler and Zlatifs analysis with the one proposed here is to suggest that gender features are concord features and animacy features index teatures. This mapping is represented in Figure 10 by the dotted lines.63

Plautdietsch has no gender agreement on verbs, so I do not discuss in this paper how my analysis deals with verb target agreement. 61.

62.

Not relevant to my analysis of gender-animacy in Plautdietsch, I omit declension from

my representations. 63. 'Ihe arrows represent mere correspondence relationships. I do not formalize in this paper specific e,1tailment relationships between referential information and formal animacy features (though MALE -7 [animate] and PEMALF. -7 [female] seems intuitive), or between concord and declensioiL Data giving e"idence of the latter are presented in for example Corbett & Fraser (2000).

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German [class)

[C]

FEMALE

concord

1-1

index

1-e:l==se=rna=n=ti=cs=/r=e~=e=re=nt=ia=l=pr=o=pe=rt=ie=s=:=!

Figure 10. Gender-animacy relationships

For this combined analysis to be explanatory, several questions need to be answered. First, how does an analysis that stipulates that index gender(= animacy) is not shared DP-intemally explain the semantic gender agreement in WGG Plautdietsch indefinite article targets? Second, why are the DP-intemal targets of Miiakje neuter, and not feminine (or masculine for that matter)? Why pronoun targets of Miiakje have specification [female] is clear. Pronoun targets are not restricted to concord features, so they will share the noun's animacy information (in this case [female]). DP-intemal targets on the other hand cannot have the index feature [female], but why do they not have specification [F] (in my analysis entailed by [female])? And in fact, DP-intemal targets of some hybrid nouns are feminine (e.g. the Spanish title Majestad "majesty': a hybrid noun, has male-masculine pronouns, and feminine DP-intemal targets). Wechsler and Zlatifs analysis merely states that there is a mismatch between the concord and index feature information of hybrid nouns, but because they do not encode specific entailments between features, they have no way of predicting why we find the specific types of mismatches we do (for example, neuter vs. feminine in Miiakje). What's more, Wechsler and Zlatifs analysis fails to capture an important generalization about the meaning of hybrid nouns: many of them are diminutives, augmentatives, honorifics, pejoratives, in short, expressions of speaker point of view.

97

98

Annemarie Toebosch

I suggest we look at things a different way. Consider the noun Mii.akje again. This noun has (among other things) the referential properties FEMALE, ANIMATE, YOUNG, and ENTITY. ANIMATE is grammaticalized64 as [animate], FEMALE as [female]. Let's say furthermore that an entity in the world, conceptualized as the property ENTITY/THING/ OBJECT assigned to the referent of an expression, is encoded in the grammar as a formal semantic feature [entity]. Let's furthermore propose the following entailments: [female[animate [entity]]]. This is represented in Figure (11). [class) [entity)

'

ENTITY

[F)

FEMALE

Figure I I. Gender-animacy Agreement Network

Now all female animate expressions have specification [female] (that is, the terminal feature [female] entailing [animate] and [entity]); nonjemale animates (males and sex-unspecified animates) have specification [animate]. Inanimate expressions lack sex/animacy features and have the specification [entity]. Plautdietsch nouns like Grootmutta have specification [female], Voda specification [animate], and Uag specification [entity].6S I in fact suggest all nominal expressions (animate or inanimate) have

64. I use the term "grammaticalized" synchronically here (as in "meaning made grammatical" by a speaker) rather than diachronically (i.e. "language adding formal structure over time"). 65. Since [entity] does not entail any gender features, it can have any gender: Uagwith specification [entity] is neuter (has no gender); Baul with specification [C][entity] is masculine; Niis with specification [F] [entity] is feminine.

Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German 99

a feature [entity] .66 We now have a combined class of neuter-inanimates67 linked to one set of referential properties ENTITY/YOUNG/THING/OBJECT. Speakers often group the concepts YOUNG, PRE-PUBESCENT, SEX-LESS with INANIMATE, thus assigning expressions with PRE-PUBESCENT/SEX-LESS/YOUNG referents the terminal feature [entity] and not [animate]. A noun like Miiakje "girf' thus has conflicting referential information: FEMALE + YOUNG. This results in conflicting feature information: specification [female] (which entails [animate]) and specification [entity] (which excludes [animate]). I suggest that the entailed feature [entity] and not just the terminal feature [female] is expressed (both through agreement and on the noun itself). Specifically, I suggest that the diminutive suffix -je of Miiakje is a Plautdietsch expression of the specification [entity], and the stem Miiad 68 of the specification [female]. This is represented in Figure 12.

ENTITY

FEMALE

index

semantics

Figure 12. Hybrid nouns: Miiakje

66. The feature [entity] is then equivalent of Chomsky's (1995) feature [N] of nouns and adjectives (in Chomsky's analysis nouns are [+N] [-V] and adjectives [+N] [+V]). 67. In their preliminary analysis of gender and animacy, Harley & Ritter (2002) also propose a neuter-inanimate category, though they do not suggest specific corresponding semantic properties. 68. Mitadje is an alternative pronunciation for Mitakje and since [d] is present in many of Mitakje's cognates (Dutch rneid, English maid, German Mitdel), I am selecting /d/ as the underlying sound. Note that Mitad of course has features (such as number features) in addition to gender-animacy features.

too Annemarie Toebosch

If agreement between expressions is a sharing of feature structure, then all targets of Miiakje would have the specification [female] (the most marked of the index features) and be feminine. We know however that attributive targets are neuter (daut Miiakje, where daut is used with inanimates like Uag as well). I propose that the noun Miiakje has in fact only one specification, [entity], the specification corresponding which the referential property YOUNG/ENTITY/THING and expressed as the diminutive suffix -je. Maakje shares its specification with its DP-internal targets (by entering into a syntactic relationship with them). Since [entity] does not entail [F) or [C), and since the diminutive suffix -je that Maakje gets its specification from does not have any additional feature [F) or [C), these DP-internal agreement targets are neuter. Pronoun agreement targets on the other hand have feature information corresponding to all referential information of Miiakje. With [female] being the most marked of these features, pronouns have specification [female]. I have now done away with Wechsler and Zlatit's stipulation that index features are not shared DP-internally. I have shown that we can explain the Plautdietsch hybrid gender without it: pronoun targets of Maakje have specification [female] (which entails [animate] and [entity]) corresponding to all referential information. Furthermore, the geometry in Figure 11 generates two morphemes with distinct genderanimacy specifications (feminine Maad[ female] and neuter -je[entity]) that correspond to conflicting referential information (MALE/ ANIMATE VS. YOUNG/INANIMATE/ENTITY, respectively). The noun Miiakje upon being formed receives the specification [entity] ofits diminutive morpheme -je, 69 which it shares with its DP-internal targets. The specifications of Miiakje's different types of gender agreement targets are given in Figure 13, and contrasted with those of non-hybrid nouns. Note that the co-reference relationship between noun and pronoun is indicated with subscript i. a. MiJak}e1 PRONOUNS

ATTRIBUTIVES

ENTITY

FEMALE

69. In work in progress, inspired by Wiltschk.o and Steriopolo's (2007) morphological analysis of diminutives, I am exploring the possibility of a morpho-syntactic explanation for the fact that the noun Mttakje has the feature information of -je and not of Mttad, thereby adding further explanatory power to my analysis of hybrid gender.


b. GrootmuttaJ PRONOUNS

ATTRIBUTIVES

FEMALE

FEMALE

c. Uagk PRONOUNS

ATTRIBUTIVES

ENTITY

ENTITY

Figure 13. Hybrid noun versus non-hybrid noun targets

A remaining question is this: does the proposed analysis explain that pronoun targets of hybrid nouns are more likely to have semantic gender assignment than do attributive targets of these nouns (i.e. Corbetfs Agreement Hierarchy)? The answer is that the gender Agreement Hierarchy is now understood in a different way: targets in a syntactic configuration with the gender assigning noun (DP-internal targets) have the semantic information of only one noun morpheme, targets not syntactically related to the noun (i.e. pronouns) have the semantic information of both noun morphemes. In this sense, we correctly predict that pronouns typically have more semantic information. This is an important reframing of the Agreement Hierarchy: all targets have semantic gender (eliminating Wechsler & ZlatiC's stipulation), syntactic targets (i.e. DP-internal targets) just have "less ofif' (as in, they encode the semantic information of only one noun morpheme). An important question is how this analysis works for nouns without overt diminutive morphology. A perhaps radical proposal is that nouns like Plautdietsch Kjind "child" (with animate co-referring pronouns and neuter attributives) have the same analysis as nouns like Miiakje: Kjind has two conflicting referential properties ANIMATE and YOUNG, encoded in the grammar as the distinct feature specifications [animate] and [entity], respectively, where the latter is a null morpheme (as opposed to an overt morpheme like -je).

101

102

Annemarie Toebosch

Careful cross-linguistic study of hybrid nouns needs to be done to see what the connection is between these nouns and what in Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM) singles out as "expressive L-derivations': that is, morpheme categories that retlect speaker attitude: e.g. diminutives, augmentatives, pejoratives, and honorifics (Beard 1995). A quick examination of Corbett's (1.991.) discussion of hybrid nouns reveals that many of the examples given indeed have diminutive, pejorative, and honorific meanings (e.g. Spanish Majestad "majesty': Polish lajdak "scoundrel")/0 It could be the case that these expressive morphemes are all encoded as THING··[entity], but I leave this for future study. In addition to a cross-linguistic comparison of the meaning of hybrid nouns, not so trivial details need to be explained of how exactly a specification [female] or [animate] is derived as a pronoun (as opposed to for example a DP--internal modifier). Finally, we haven't yet explained the peculiar case of noun "hybridity" we find in certain varieties of Plautdietsch: semantic gender assignment in some types of attributives and not in others. I propose an analysis of this in the next section. 5.3.2

Indefinite articles versus other attributive targets

Recall that in WGG-SSG, indefinite article targets of neuter nouns with female referents are assigned to the feminine gender class. Review Example (8), repeated here as (10). (10)

FEMININE (P)/FBMALE (FBM):

a.

'ne-P Nas a

b.

(definite: raphy. Hillsboro KS: The Reader's Press. Geerts, Guido. 1966. Genus en geslacht in de Gouden Eeuw. Een bi_jdrage tot de studie van de

nominale klass~tikatie en daarmee samenhangende adnominale j7exievormen et! pronominale verschijnselen in Hollands taalgebruik van de zeventiende eeuw. Bmssel: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflectiorL In The View from Building 20. R~says ir1 Linguisti£~~ in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111-176. Cambridge MA: TI1e MIT Press.

109

no Annemarie Toebosch Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of d.istrlbuted morphology. In MITWPL 21: Papers on Phonology and Aforp1:ology, Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds), 275-288. Cambridge MA: MITWPL Harley, Heidi & Ritter. Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. L.anguage 78: 482-526. Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Li,lgui.~tic.~ New York NY: MacmlllaiL van I.euvenstei)n. Arjan. Ruljssendaal. Els, Mooljaart, Marijke, Gelrnaert, Dirk & Tempelaars, Rob. 1997. Vroegnieuwnederlands. In Geschiedenls van de Nederlandse Taal, Maa.tten van den Toorn, Willie Pijnenburg. Arjan van Leuvensteijn & Johannes van der Horst (eds). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Neufeld. Eldo. 2000. Plautdietsch Grammar: An aid to speaking, reading. and writing Netherlandic-· Mennonite Plaudietsch [Lincom Studies in Germanic Linguistics 8]. Munich: Lincom. Nieuweboer, Rogier. 1998. The Altai Dialect of Plautdiitsch (West--Siberian Mennonite Low German). Ph.D. dissertation. University of GroningeiL (Republished in the Lincom Studies in Germanic Linguistics series in 1999 by Lincom, Munich). Priestly, Tom. 1983. On 'drift' in Indo-European gender systems. Journal ofIndo-European Studies 11: 339-363. Rempel, HermaniL 1984. Kjenn fie Nodl Plautdietsch?: A Mennonite Low German Dictionary. rev. edn 1995. Winnipeg: Mennonite Literary Society. Sasse. Hans-Ji.irgeiL 1993. Syntactic categories and subcategories. In Syntax. An International Handbook of Contemporay Researdl, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow. Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Venneman (eds), 6. (18 June, 2007). De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2009. Changing pronominal gender ln Dutch: Transmlssl.on or diffusion? In Language Variation, European Perspectives IJ [Studies ln Language Variation 5], 'Isiplakou, Stavroula, Marilena Karyolemou & Pav'los Pavlou (eds), 71-80. Amsterdam: John Benjarnins. Voth. Stanley E. (ed). 1975. Henderson l\.1ennonites: Prom Holland to Henderson. Henderson NB: Service Press. Unruh, BenjamiiL 1955. Die niederlandisch-niederdeutschen Hintergriinde der mennonitischen Ostwanderungen im 16., 18., und 19. .Tahrhundert. Karlsruhe: Selbstverlag. Versloot, ArjeiL 2008. Mechanisms of Language Change: Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West FrisiaiL Ph.D. dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Unterbeck, Barbara 1999. Gender: New light on an old category. In Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen (eds),xvi-xlvi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatic, Larisa 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to SerboCroatiaiL Language 76: 799-832. Wechsler, Stephen & Hahm, Hyun-Jong. 'Ib appear. Number markedness and polite plurals. In a speciallssue of Morphology, Jonathan Bobaljik. Andrew Nevin~, Hazel Pearson & Uli Sauerland (eds). Weerman. Fred 2008. Deflection and age of OIL~et. Paper presented at Jransmi.~sion and Diffusion. Nijmegen: Max Planck IIL~titute for Psycholingulstlcs. Wurzel, Wolfgang. 1986. Die wiederholte Klassl.fi.kation von Substantiven. Zeltsd1r!{t for Phonetfk, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikatlon~forsdlung 39: 76···96.

Anaphors in contact The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana Gern1an* Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University

This paper presents a novel sketch of a research program into the morpho-syntactic/semantic. characteristics of intensifiers and reflexives in a moribund Sprachinsellanguage, Amana German. As demonstrated in this pilot study, Amana German has (apparently) tmdergone a shift in the syntactic distributional properties of its intensifier and reflexive inventory. As a result, Amana German in this regard more strongly resembles Dutch and modern English rather than German. Following Gast (2006), I interpret this as a shift involving the morpho-syntactic/semantic realization of recognizing two distributional types of transitive predicates; namely, typically 'other-directed' (e.g. [t·Oo]) and typically 'self-directed' predicates (e.g. [···Oo]).

1.

Introduction

Recent scholarship in the field of contact linguistics has witnessed a (significant) increase in the application of theoreticaV generative frameworks to this field of inquiry. Since the application of established formalisms in language contact situations is in many regards still gaining ground, there are certain areas of lanbruage contact that remain sorely under-researched from a generative perspective. Although the morphosyntax of languages that exist in (sometimes extreme) contact situations has been heavily researched, the morpho-semantic level of language has thus far to the best of my knowledge received extremely short shrift. in the contact linguistics literature. In this chapter, my goal is to pursue and develop a line of research that I believe shows

*I am deeply indebted to my friends and informants in the Amana Colonies for providing me with preliminary data and discussion of these iss-ues. I also owe a great deal of thanks to Werner Abraham, Volker Gast, Elly van Gelderen, and Jon Coffee for lengthy discussions of these matters. The us-ual disclaimers apply.

111

MiChael ~1: Putnam much promise. The chief aim of this study is to sketch out the beginnings of a research program into the morpho- semantics ofa moribund Sprachinsellanguage on the verge of extinction; namely, Amana German. Amana German, also known as Koionie-Deutsch, is a middle-Hessian dialect spoken in the 7 Amana Colonies in East Centraliowa. 1 This study engages in a brief (yet succinct) analysis of the inventory and properties of reflexives in Amana German. As will be discussed in Section 2, there are clear distinctions concerning the distribution of retle.xives in Gennan, Dutch, and English (with stronger similarities existing between the latter two languages). Since Amana German (hereafter AG) hails from a Hessian dialect, it stands to reason that the original dia·· lect was similar - if not identical - to the distribution of intensifiers and reflexives found in modem German. The data presented in Section 3 from three AG speakers (by means of dosed questionnaire) reveal. however, that noted differences do in fact exist between modern German and AG with regard to the distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in particular contexts. It is especially noteworthy to acknowledge that AG seems to have adopted a reflexive system that is more similar to modern Dutch and English than what is found in modern German, in particular with AG's sensitivity to the two distributional classes of transitive verbs that are 'other-directed' and 'selfdirected' predicates. Section 4 concludes this paper and offers a brief discussion and outline of related research that could unveil even more promising results in tl1e area of morpho-semantics in contact linguistic/attrition studies. Onc.e again, I acknowledge from the beginning that the purpose ofthis paper is to provide an outline for fruitful research in the near future and not to provide a comprehensive analysis of the topic at hand in this chapter. Such a detailed study, in my opinion, is simply an undertaking that is too grand in scope and content for a mere volume chapter. This caveat notwith ·· standing, I feel that the initial findings brought to our attention here merit further serious query.

z. Intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic Languages: Dutch, English, and German 'Ihe purpose of this section is to familiarize ourselves with the lexical inventories and distributional properties of intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic lanbruages. In particular for this study, we will restrict ourselves to a detailed sketch of the three most relevant (and closely-related) languages involved in this study; namely, Dutch, English, and German. The analysis adopted here is in most respects an exegesis of the work of

1. For a more detailed history and depiction of the sociolinguistic landscape of the Amana Colonies, the reader is referred to Rettig (1976) and Webber (1993).

Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifi.ers and reflexives l.n Amana German 113

Kiparsky (2002) and Gast (2006) (with more reliance on the latter) and is cast within an Optimality-Theoretic (OT) framework that employs violable (soft) constraints in its explanation of the facts concerning the distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in these at{)rementioned languages. Actually, it is worth mentioning that the choice of formalism is somewhat arbitrary at this stage of this research program; however, to maintain reciprocity with the already established studies by Kiparsky and Gast, it makes sense to work within the framework of these prior studies. Furthermore, agreeing with Gasfs observation that when one looks at a wider array of cross--linguistic data concerning reflexivity, a theoretical analysis that proposes that certain principles in the domain of reflexivity based on the distribution of grammatical alternatives concerning elsewhere-phenomena, pronominals, and anaphors is well-motivatecJ.2 Before taking a closer look at these three individual languages with respect to their reflexive inventories and their distributions, it is necessary to establish the pri-mary violable constraints that will surface through the analysis and discussions that follow. However, even before introducing the constraints, the semantics of certain transitive verbs must be brietly introduced and discussed. Follmving original observations made by Everaert (1986), Koster (1997), Reinhart & Reuland (1993), Konig & Siemund (2000), and Donaldson (for Dutch) (1997) and implemented in analyses by Kiparsky (2002) and Gast (2006), transitive verbs can be classified into (among others) two classes with regard to the intended direction (not in a spatial sense) of activities. According to this line of reasoning, transitive verbs can be classified as 'typically otherdirected' verbs (e.g. -t-On-VERBs) and 'typically self-directed' verbs (e.g. ---On-VERBs). Following Konig & Siemund (2000) and Gast (2006 ), I, too, concede that the two types of predicates form distributional classes, rather than purely semantic ones (taken from Gast (2006: 189; from Donaldson (1997: 203ff) ). (1)

+0D-VERBS

aangrijpen 'to attack; afmnselen 'to beat: haten 'to hate: lachen in 'to laugh about; praten met 'to talk to' (2)

-On-VERBS

aankleden 'to dresS, overeten 'to overeat: scheren 'to shave: verbergen 'to hide; wassen 'to wash' As we shall see immediately below, the [±Oo] distinction will play a decisive role in our analysis of not only Dutch, English, and German that follow in this section, but also in the inventory and distribution of intensifiers and retlexives of AG.

2.

See also Burzio (1991, 1996, and 1998) for seminal research in this area.

114 MiChael ~!: Putnam

Concerning the constraints employed here, Gast (2006; Sec..tion 7.7.3) expands and improves upon the system originally developed by Kiparsky (2002) with the following constraints to model the distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic languages (and beyond): (3)

"0THER·-DIRECTED BINDINGi*0DBIND

'Ihe complements of an [+0D] -predicate P may not be botmd by the subject of P. (4)

BINDING DoMAINiBINDoM

A pronotm has a compatible antecedent in a designated domain D. (5)

fEATURAL EcoNOMY/fEe

Avoid Pronominals (6)

MoRPHOLOGICAL EcoNOMY/Mnc

Avoid morphologically complex pronouns (7)

PARSE

The output is not empty

'Ihese c.onstrc:rints act upon the inherent semantic characteristics of pronominals and anaphors. Following previous work by Chomsky (1981, 1986), Reinhart & Reuland (1991, 1993), and Burzio (1991, 1996, 1998), Kiparsky (2002) combines these notions in the development of a comprehensive typology of pronominals, which admits wide cross-linbruistic applkability. Although for our limited study we can for the time being forego a lengthy discussion of Kiparsky's comprehensive typology, there are a few details that are paramount for our discussion at hand. First, both Dutch and German have [+LocAL] (weak) anaphors in their pronominal/anaphor inventories- zich and sich respectively. Although (modern) English lacks an overt (weak) [+LocAl.] ana·· phor, Gast postulates that a null operator (0) does exist and functions as a enclitic that must be adjacent to the predicate: ( [+LocAL], [+CLy]). Second, following Eckardt (2001), Hole (2002), and Gast (2006), I employ the identity function In in contexts of intensification to derive forms such as himself in English and sich selbst" in German. 'Ihe identity tl.mction Io takes a nominal denoting an individual x as its arbrument and maps it onto itself: Io(x) == x. 3 For example, the DP in (Sa) can be interpreted as (8b ): 4

3· For a detailed exposition on the ID function, see Gast (2006; Chapter 3). As pointed out by Gast (2006: 4-5), although the operation illustrated in (8b) above does not appear to be truth-conditionally meaningful, the ID function becomes highly significant when it interacts with focus; the crucial detail that Gast wishes to convey here with regard to this analysis is the ass-umption that the intensifier is the only component of a sentence in focus. A...'l a result, "the effect of such focusing is the evoking of a set of alternative functions 4·

Anaphors in contact: 1he di~tribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German 115 (8)

a. b.

[DP the farmer himself] Io(the farmer) =the farmer

The In function plays a significant role in Gasfs (2006) study as well as mine here (which, of course, is fundamentally based on the former). When functioning as a marker of reflexivity, a syntactic--morpho--semantic interaction takes place. 'Io see this, ids return to the [±OD] distinction that is argued to exist between tr"c:lilsitive predicates. Here we observe a widely-held claim regarding -t-Oo-verbs: typically otherdirected predicates do not allow any of their internal arguments to be bound by the local subjects. In other words, the binding of an object pronoun by a co-argument is prohibited. Gast demonstrates that the In function lexically represented by the SELF-morpheme - is used here to prevent a violation of this syntactic distributional constraint. Consider the following examples in Dutch (take from Gast 2006: 5; (13)): (9)

a. "'Jar1 haat zich. Jan hates

b.

ANPH

fan haat [zich--zelf]. Jan haat [ANPH--SBLF]

1he distribution of antecedent and anaphor in (9a) is ungrammatical; the predicate haten 'to hate' belongs to the class of +On-verbs that are typically regarded to be 'other directed' and as such prohibit the appearance of the 'simple' reflexive zich. The 'solution' to this problem is delivered by means of the application of the ID func-tion in (9b); the anaphor zich does not occupy the traditional 'object position, but is rather embedded under a SELF-morpheme, which is interpreted by the In function. As explained by Gast (2006: 5), "as a consequence, binding of zich by the local subject Jan becomes possible, since zich is no longer in the object position of the predicate haat. Rather, it takes the position of the detenniner his in a sentence like John; loves [his; wife] (cf. Safir 1996 for a similar argument):' The structure of zichzelfis provided in Fibrure 1 below (from Gast (2006: 193)): DP 1

ID(x)

~ DP2

I

zich

J:l..'"T '

zelf

~ X

I

zich

Ay[ID(y)] I

''

I

zelf

Figure 1.

which are of the same semantic type as the identity function, that is, a sent of alternative

functions from individual'i to individuals."

116

MiChael "[ Putnam

As we will discuss below in the following sections, the proposed alterc:ttion in the structure of D P1 qua the Io function has the advantage of avoiding violations of the *OoBIND constraint. which requires the complements of an [-1-0o]-predicate P to not be bound by the subject of P, as illustrated in Figure 2 (from Gast (2006: 1.93)):

Jan;

wherei '-~

Figure 2.

In the configuration Figure 2 (DP 1), the reflexive zich occupies the equivalence of a determiner position (i.e. a specifier position), hence not crucially violating the *ODBIND constraint Although the anaphor zich inherits (syntactically) its referen-tial index from ]ani, the object of the verb haat (DP 1j) has a lexkal intention of its own (j), and is, as a result, not bound by ]anr As we shall see below, although Dutch, English, and German make use of the Io function to construction intensifiers (~ith a SELF--morpheme), they crucially differ with regard to the ranking of the *OoBIND constraint; Dutch and .English rank this constraint relatively higher than German. As could be expected, AG also employs the Io function in creating reflexive intensifiers; however, what remains to be seen can be summarized in the following guiding research questions: Ql: Does AG, which exhibits an anaphor/pronominal inventory very similar (if not identical) to modern middle Hessian dialects of German, also have a relatively low ranking of the *OoBIND constraint as similarly argued to exist in modern German? Q2: If the answer to Q1 is negative, does AG have a morpho-syntactic/ semantic reaction to the [±Oo] predicate distinction as evidenced in Dutch and English? Q3: If the answer to Q2 is in the affirmative, what is the cause/motivation for such a change (again, assuming that the original AG inventory and constraint rc:tnking (strongly) resemble those assumed to exist tor modern German)? We will return to these questions in Section 4 once a working analysis within the aTframework employed here has been established for AG (in Section 3), Dutch, English, and German.

Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German 117

2.1

Dutch

The following three subsections will offer insight into the distribution of anaphors in Dutch, English, and German. The choice to include Dutch is that it sits "in between" Dutch and German; i.e. although it does have a weak [+LocAL] anaphor zich (which modern English lacks), its zich+SELF-Morpheme reflexive intensifiers (e.g. zichzelf) surface in more environments than its German counterpart (e.g. sich selbst). In a framework that employs violable constraints this, of course, boils down to the crucial ranking of a small number of constraints to arrive at this distinction. The data and tableaux in these three subsections are taken directly from Gast (2006; Chapters 7 & 8) unless otherwise noted. Concerning Dutch, Gast (2006: 192) arrives at the following ranking for the constraints introduced in the previous section (i.e. (3)-(7)): (1O)

Constraint ranking for Dutch: BINDoM >>*On BIND>> PARSE>> FEe>> MEc

Here we can motivate the ranking for these constraints. Consider (11) below and the competition in Tableau 1 that follows: (11)

Jan; haat PRON(i)" Jan hates __

Tableau 1.

Jan; haat PRONm·

BINDOM

*ODBIND

Jan. haat zichr;l·

"!

Jan; haat hem(;)·

"!

F.Ec

,.

~Jan. haat zichr;1zelf

Jan; haat hem(ilzelf

M.Ec

"!

,."

The winning candidate [Jan; haat zich(i)zelf] of this competition is the ANPH+SELFMorpheme. This is due to the *OoBIND constraint outranking the economy constraints FEe and MEc. As mentioned in the previous section, the predicate haten 'to hate' is generally regarded to be a +On-predicate, thus the first candidate displaying zich cannot win. The final candidate exhibits the form hem(iJzelf ultimately loses due to a fatal violation of the economy constraint FEe. Let's now move to datum (12) and its corresponding tableau, Tableau 2: (12)

Jan; wast PRON(i)" John washes

us Michael T. Putnam Tableau2. Jan. wastPRONm· ~Jan; wast

*ODBIND

BINDOM

F.Ec

M.Ec

zichCil.

Jan; wast hemr;l· Jan. wast zichmzelf

*!

Jan; wast hemr;lzelf

*!

*!

,.

Once again, the ranking of*OoBIND above the economy constraints FEe and MEe calls the shots; since wassen 'to wash' is classified as a -On-predicate, it does not violate *On BIND. The other losing candidates eventually fall prey to the economy constraints FEe and MEe. Lastly, let us consider Example (13) and its corresponding competition represented in Tableau 3: (13)

Jan; zette de vaas voor John sets the vase before

PRON(iJ

neer. down

Tableau3. Jan; zette de vaas voor PRONm neer. ~Jan;

BINDoM

*ODBIND

F.Ec

M.Ec

zette de vaas voor zichr;l neer.

Jan; zette de vaas voor hemr;l neer. Jan. zette de vaas voor zichCilzelf neer.

*!

Jan; zette de vaas voor hemr;lzelf neer.

*!

*!

,.

As suggested by (13), sentences involving exceptional case marking (ECM) and raising-constructions will also deliver zich. Gast (2006: 194) makes the following observation: "Zich is optimal simply because there is nothing which prevents it from being used, and since it should be used whenever this is possible because of its economic nature. There are only two reasons justifying the use of a pronoun other than zich: (i) the input requires a pronoun that functions as a direct object of a [+Oo]-verb, or (ii) zich cannot be used because it is too distant from its antecedent, thus violating BINDoM:' In Tableau 3 Jan and zich are not co-arguments, therefore *On BIND is not relevant.

2.2

German

Although German shows a similar anaphor/pronoun inventory to Dutch, the complex ANPH+SELF-Morpheme rarely surfaces except in context involving contrastive focus.

Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German 119

As a result, the markedness constraint banning complements of an [+Oo]-predicate P may not be bound by the subject of P (e.g. *OoBIND). In German *OoBIND is ranked very low with respect to other economy constraints, as demonstrated by the constraint ranking for German in (14) (Gast 2006: 203). (14)

Constraint ranking for German: BINDoM >> FEe>> MEe >> *OoBIND

This key difference in constraint ranking between Dutch and German can be seen in the following examples. (15)

Hans; betrachtet John considers

PRON(i)"

Tableau4. Hans; betrachtet PRONw

BINDOM

FEe

MEe

*On BIND

~Hans. betrachtet sic~il'

Hans. betrachtet ihnr;J·

*

*

*!

Hans; betrachtet sich(i)selbst. Hans; betrachtet ihnr;lselbst.

*! *!

Example (15) represents a co-argument reflexive, which is naturally violated by the winning candidate (i.e. a violation of*OoBIND has been marked). The losing candidates, however, all receive fatal violations at the hands of higher-ranked economy constraints, namely, FEe and MEc. The same situation applies to Example (16) below; sich appears in the winning candidate because it is the most economic candidate. (16)

Hans; sah eine Schlange neben John saw a snake next to

PRON(i)"

TableauS. Hans; sah eine Schlange neben PRONw·

BINDOM

FEe

MEC

*OnBIND

~Hans. sah eine Schlange neben sic~n·

Hans; sah eine Schlange neben ihmw.

*!

Hans; sah eine Schlange neben sichrilselbst. Hans; sah eine Schlange neben ihmwselbst.

*! *!

*

120

Michael T. Putnam

(17)

Hans; bat

John

Maria, PRON(j) nicht zu beliigen.

asked Mary

not

to

lie

Tableau6. Hans1 bat Maria, PRONm nicht zu beliigen. Hans. bat Maria, sichm nicht zu beliigen.

BINDOM

Hans1 bat Maria, lh~~cilselbst nicht zu beli.igen.

MEc

*OnBIND

*!

*

..-Hans1 bat Maria, ~ 11 nicht zu beli.igen. Hans. bat Maria, sichc1lselbst nicht zu beli.igen.

FI!C

*!

*

*!

Example (17) denotes a situation where sich is not the winner; the first (loser) candidate that exhibits sich violates BINDoM (i.e. due to the [+LocAL] nature of sich, both sich and sich selbst must be bound in a locaL minimal domain). The pronoun ihn 'himAcc' is the optimal choice due to the fact that it only violates one economy constraint FEe whereas ihn selbst would violate two (e.g. FEe and MEc). As a result of *On BIND being ranked below FEe and MEc, the [±On]-distinction is not morphosyntactically attested or relevant in German.

2.3

English

Finally, before moving onto our discussion and analysis of AG, we must consider modern English. Modern English, which lacks a weak [+LocAL] anaphor altogether, now exhibits two series of pronouns: (i) simple pronouns such as him, her, etc. and (ii) the complex pronouns himself, herself, etc. 5 The simple pronouns are referentially independent, whereas the complex pronouns can be regarded as expressions denoting the identity function, applied to simple pronouns. 6 In addition to the constraints mentioned in Section 2 (e.g. (3)-(7)), Gast maintains that we need an additional constraint

5· The development of the reflexive and pronominal paradigms of modern English is extremely complex and cannot be done justice in this chapter. For more detail on the matter see van Gelderen (2000). 6. Therefore, as suggested by Gast (2006: 216; (34)), reflexive SELF-forms are interpreted as if they occupy OP-positions: (i) (ii)

[[himself0 p]] = In([[him]]) [[herselfnp]] = In([[her]])

As such, Gast assumes that 'full' (intensifying) SELF-forms are also used as expressions of an In function, and that In exhibits allomorphic variation; it can be realized as a fully fledged SELF-form in some contexts and as an affix -self in others.

Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German in order to properly analyze the English data, a constraint which he calls *CATEGORY MISMATCH/*CM: (18) *CATEGORY MISMATCH/*CM Elements of a given class C can only occur in syntactic positions allowing elements of category C (e.g. a verb cannot be inserted in a OP-position). The purpose for introducing (18) is due to the complex pronominal system for modern English mentioned above; *CM ensures that pronouns will only appear in contexts where pronouns are properly licensed. Relatedly, the *CM constraint insures that the clitic weak reflexive in English cannot surface as the object of a preposition (cf. (22) and Tableau 9. As we see below in (19) (Gast 2006: 216), *CM occupies the highest ranking among the other constraints in modern English. (19)

Constraint ranking for English: *CM >> BINDoM >> *OoBIND >> FEC >> MEc

We can see these constraints in action in Tableau 7, which analyzes Example (20): (20)

John; hates PRON(i)"

Tableau 7. John; hates PRON1.,. John; hates himr;l· .,..John; hates himc;lself. John; hates 0w·

*CM

BINDOM

*0DBIND *!

Fl!c * *

Ml!c *

*!

Given that the predicate hate is a [+Oo]-predicate, this would eliminate the losing candidates that have a simple pronominal him and the final candidate that exhibits only a null enclitic reflexive. Simply put, Io(him) does not violate *OoBIND. The constraint *OoBIND also plays a critical role in evaluating (21) below: (21)

John; washes PRON(i)"

TableauS. John. washesPRON111 • John; washes hiffitn· John; washes hiffit;lself. .,..John; washes 0cn·

*CM

BINDoM

*OnBIND

Fl!c *! *!

Ml!c *

Since the null-reflexive in English is still regarded to be [+LocAL], it does not violate *OoBIND. The other candidates exhibiting more complex morphological units,

121

12.2 Michael T. Putnam

i.e. simple and complex pronouns, are eliminated by the economy constraints (e.g. FEe and MEe). Finally, let's consider Example (22): (22)

John; saw a snake near PRON(i)"

Tableau 9. John 1 saw a snake near PRONiil.

*CM

BINDOM

...,John1 saw a snake near himul· John1 saw a snake near h~ilself. John. saw a snake near 0ril"

*OnBIND

FEe

MEc

* *

!*

*!

The final candidates bearing the null-reflexive violates *CM, because this enclitic cannot be licensed in this position (recall, the enclitic must be immediately adjacent to the verb; here it would be the object of the preposition). The simple pronoun him is seen in most dialects of English to be 'more economical' that himself. In summary, the typology of two general types oflanguages emerge with regard to their treatment of the economy constraints such as FEe and MEe and *OoBIND. Languages such as Dutch and English recognize the [±Oo]-predicate distinction morpho-syntactic/semantically and rank *OoBIND higher (e.g. *OoBIND » {FEe, MEe}). In German, we witness the exact opposite effect; namely, where economy constraints outrank *OoBIND and thus suppress this effect (e.g. {FEe, MEe} » *OoBIND ).

3·

Reflexives in Amana German

At this juncture, it should be relatively clear what is at stake with regard to any discussion of AG's treatment of reflexives and their syntactic distribution; namely, does AG exhibit a constraint ranking system that is 'faithfuf to its German-roots and rank *OoBIND lower than the economy constraints, or has this dialect in its moribund state undergone an internal or external change that finds the economy constraints ranked below *OoBIND? From the outset, it is worth noting that at this stage in the research, a clear-cut answer cannot be derived; however, with this (temporary) shortcoming being stated, there does appear to be are-ranking of the constraints slowly taking place. From a preliminary standpoint, let us adopt the following constraint ranking for AG: (23)

Constraint ranking for AG: BINDoM >> *OoBIND >> FEC >> MEC

(24)

Hans(l) wascht PRON(I)"

Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German 123 Tableau 10.

Hansm wiischtPRONrw

BINDOM

*ODBIND

F.Ec

M.Ec

~Hansm wiischt sichm.

*!

Hansm wlischt sichmselbst

*!

Hansm wlischt ihn,il. *!

Hansm wlischt ihn,;Jselbst

,.

The observant reader will note that the proposed constraint ranking for AG in (23) is identical to the constraint ranking posited for Dutch in Section 2.1 (cf. (10)). In (24), the fact that wasche 'to wash' is generally regarded to be a -Go-predicate avoids a *Oo BIND violation. The other losing candidates exhibit pronominal forms that violate the economy constraints. The data presented in (25) and (26) below, however, pose a significant challenge to the purported constraint ranking in (23). (25)

Hans(JJ gleicht PRON(i)'

Tableau 11.

Hans(i) gleicht PRONay

BINDOM

*ODBIND

Hansm gleicht sichm.

*!

Hansm gleicht ihnm.

*!

F.Ec

,. *

~Hansm gleicht sichwselbst.

Hansm gleicht ihn,;Jselbst (26)

M.Ec

*!

,.

F.Ec

M.Ec

Hans(JJ hasst PRON(;J·

Tableau 12.

Hansw hasst PRONm· ~Hansm

hasst sichr;r

~Hansm hasst

BINDOM

*0D8IND *!

*

sichmselbst.

Hansm hasst ihnm.

*!

Hansm hasst ihnr;;;elbst.

*!

*

Clearly, both gleiche 'to like' and hasse 'to hate' should be predicates generally classified as +Oo-verbs; however, as we see in Tableau 11, this constraint ranking excludes a grammatical candidate (based on the observation in Figure 3 below that both sich and sich selbst are possible for AG speakers with this predicate). To probe further whether the [±Oo]-predicate distinction is (overtly) recognized in the AG grammar, I returned to my informants with a list (based on Donaldson's (1997) list for Dutch

124 Michael T. Putnam

predicates (of which an abbreviated form appears in (1) and (2) in the introduction of this chapter)) generally regarded to be +Go- and -Go-verbs respectively. The informants' task was to identify whether sich (weak reflexive), sich selbst (intensifier), both, or neither of these elements are preferred to appear with these predicates. The results are presented below in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

+OD-predicates 'to attack' 'to beat' 'to hate' 'to know/be familiar with'

AG-1

AG-2

AG-3

both both both both

both both both sichselbst

sich selbst both both both

'to laugh about' 'to talk to' 'to care for/to take care of 'to amuse'

sichselbst sichselbst sichselbst

both sichselbst sichselbst

sich selbst sich selbst sich selbst

both

sichselbst

both

Figure 3. +Oo-predicates As illustrated in Figure 3, the tokens (N = 8) of typical +Go-predicates could be optionally marked with the status of both (i.e. indicating that either sich or sich selbst could suffice as a grammatical element) or only with the intensifier (sich selbst). As could be expected, the presence of sich selbst with predicates that were classified as ambiguous (i.e. with the status of both) were also judged to be focused for discourse purposes.? In this evaluation task, almost half (N = 11/24 = 45.8%) of these +Go-predicates in AG, however, can only appear with the intensifier sich selbst. This percentage represents a substantial increase based on the following observations: First, considering that standard German only allows for sich selbst to appear in focus positions - as appears to be the case in AG when these +Go-predicates were judged to be grammatical with both sich or sich selbst - the fact that some (i.e. almost half) of these verbs can only occur with the intensifier sich selbst clearly demonstrates that the morpho-syntactic/semantic recognition of the [±Go]-predicate distinction is underway in AG. Second, as demonstrated in Figure 4 below, -Go-predicates are overwhelmingly marked with only the weak reflexive sich.

7· Anecdotally, two of the informants pointed out that "sich selbst would be used in these instances only to emphasize that the action involved the subject and not someone else" (from informant AG-1).

Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German

+OD-predicates 'to get dressed' 'to move' 'to turn around' 'to overeat' 'to shave' 'to hide' 'to defend' 'to disguise' 'to wash'

AG-1

AG-2

AG-3

both sich sich neither both sich sich sich sich

sich sich sich neither sich sich sich sich both (but with a strong preference for sich)

sich sich sich neither sich sich sich sich sich

Figure 4. -Oo-predicates

Based on the same number of tokens (N = 8),8 AG speakers only marked these predicates as grammatical with either the intensifier or the reflexive 3 times (N = 3/24 = 12.5%). What these figures demonstrates is that a trend towards recognizing the [±On]-predicate distinction in AG is taking place and not that some form of flippant sich/sich selbst usage is underway. These figures clarifY this fact. Returning to the failed tableau (Tableau 11), the harmonic ranking of these constraints should therefore not be consider as rigid, but overlapping and stochastic. Therefore the result of this 'failed' competition is the result of two scenarios: (i) due to its moribund status, it is not possible (at this time) to achieve a completely consistent/harmonious ranking in AG, and (ii) perhaps hasse 'to hate' is ambiguous on the [±On] -predicate scale.9 In light of the evaluation task and data provided in Figures 3 and 4, I view the latter (i.e. option (ii)) to be the more likely scenario, although more detailed research in the future will bear this out. Finally, consider the AG translation of (27) in (28): (27)

John has many friends around him/*himself.

(28)

Der Johann(iJ hat viel Freunde urn PRON(iJ rum.

8. Due to the fact that AG lacks a reflexive 'to overeat' predicate, I removed this apparent lexical gap from further consideration in this study. 9· Volker Gast (p.c.) alludes to the possibility that rather than a static, polar binary distinction between +Oo- and -Oo-predicates perhaps it would be more appropriate to interpret the self vs. other-directedness of predicates along a scale with numerical values. In a situation of observable grammatical change (such as this one with AG), the re-ranking of the *OoBIND and the economy constraints could interact with the degree of ±Oo-predicates in a stochastic rather than an absolute OT-model. At this point in time, however, research into the gradient ranking of self vs. other-directedness of predicates is lacking.

125


Tableau 13. Der Johann,11 hat viel Freunde urn PRONm rum. ~oer Johannm

BINDOM

*ODBIND

F.Ec

MEC

hat viel Freunde urn sichm rum.

Der Johannm hat viel Freunde urn sichmselbst rum.

"! "!

Der Johannm hat viel Freunde urn ihn,il rum. Der Johannm hat viel Freunde urn ihn,ilselbst rum.

"!

*

The PRON-element, which functions as the object of the preposition um 'around: is clearly not affected by the *OoBIND constraint, while the rest of the candidates once again fall prey to the economy constraints. Taking these observations together, it appears- at least from a very preliminary view- that AG has undergone some form of morpho-syntactic/semantic change with regard to rules that regulate the distributional properties of its intensifiers and reflexives.

4·

Conclusions &: directions for future research

In conclusion, let us return to the three guiding research questions that we mentioned at the end of Section 2:

Ql: Does AG, which exhibits an anaphor/pronominal inventory very similar (if not identical) to modern middle Hessian dialects of German, also have a relatively low ranking of the *OoBIND constraint as similarly argued to exist in modern German? Q2: If the answer to Ql is negative, does AG have a morpho-syntactic/semantic reaction to the [±Oo] predicate distinction as evidenced in Dutch and English? Q3: If the answer to Q2 is in the affirmative, what is the cause/motivation for such a change (again, assuming that the original AG inventory and constraint ranking (strongly) resemble those assumed to exist for modern German)? Regarding Ql, data from our AG informants seem to indicate (e.g. (25), Tableau 11) that "OoBIND is ranked higher (in most cases at least) than the economy constraints in AG. This, of course, stands in contrast to what one finds in modern German (cf. Section 2.2) where the exact opposite effect can be observed. As a result of this change (qua Q2), we do witness a morpho-syntactic/semantic reaction to the [±Oo] predicate distinction as evidenced in Dutch and English. 10 Regarding the answer to

10. Although it is generally assumed in the OT -literature that learning algorithms take place via markedness constraint demotion (see Kager 1999: Chapter 7), it is unclear if a similar process is involved in language contact.

Anaphors in contact: Tb.e di.~tribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German

the internal vs. external cause debate (qua Q3), at this point only mere speculation can be offered here. In other words, it is impossible to ascertain whether continued (sociolinguistic) pressure exerted by the dominant culture/language (i.e. English) has functioned as the cause or catalyst f{)r this change. A~ a matter of fact, perhaps a word of caution should be issued before advancing any sort of ad hoc assumptions that external influence must be at play here. This theory can easily be dismissed when one looks at Dutch (cf. Section 2.1); here exists a language with an almost identical anaphoripronominal inventory as AG with a similar constraint ranking regulating its syntactic distribution of these elements. Therefore, at this stage it is not productive to engage in such a 'windmill' argument. What is needed at this time are more studies of a similar nature focusing on more Gennan(ic) Sprachinsellanguages throughout the world. Lastly, looking forward, studies into the morpho--syntactic/semantic properties of these Sprachinsellanbruages also have the potential to provide informative perspec·· tives into the argument structure of inherent and non-inherent reflexive predicates (see Reinhart & Siloni 2004, 2005; Dobrovie-Sorin 2005; and Schafer 2008) in attrition environments. 11 As for the study at hand, more detailed data are also necessary from a more diverse pool of AG informants in order to obtain a more accurate depiction of this apparent linguistic change that is underway. Through this study, as well as future related ones, we could learn a great deal more about the interaction of these sorts of morpho-syntactic/semantic shifts in attrition environments.

References Burzio, Luigi 1991. Tb.e morpb.ological ba.~l~ of anaphora. ]ourr1al of Llr1guistics 27: 81-105. Burzio, Luigi 1996. Tb.e role of the antecedent in anaphoric relations. In Current Issues in Comparative G-rammar, Robert Freidin (ed), 1-45. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Burzio, Luigi. 1998. Anaphora and soft constraints. Inls tl:e Best Good Bnougl:? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Ma.1tha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (ed~). 93-113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chom.~ky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Govemment ar1d Blr1dlr1g. Dordrecht: Foris. Chom.~ky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: 'Ihe MIT Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2005. 'Ihe SE-anaphor and its role in argument reali7ation. In 7fte Biack14--ell Companion ro Syntax, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 118-179. Oxford: Blackwell. Donaldson, Bruce. 1997. Dutch. London: Routledge. Eckb.ardt, Regine. 2001. Reanalyzing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9(4): 371-412. Everaert, Martin. 1986. 111e Syntax of Refle.xivlzation. Dordrecht: Foris.

n. For example, SE/weak-anaphors are generally assumed to be able to appear in the fol-· lo\Ving en\'ironments: reciprocal readings, anticausative, middle, and passive voice uses; see Kemmer (1993).

127


Gast, Volker. 2006. The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Refkxives in Germanic Languages [Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics]. London: Routledge. van Gelderen, Elly. 2000. A History of f:nglish Reflexive Pronouns- Persotl, Self; and Interpretability [Linguistik AktuelliLinguistics 1bday 39]. Amsterdam: John Ben)amins. Hole, DanieL 2002. Agentive seibstin German. In Sinn und Bedeutung VI- Proceedings of the 6th Ant1ual Meeting of the Gesellschaft fur SemanNk, Graham Katz, Sabine Reinhard & Philip Reuter (eds), 133-150. Osnabriick: Institute of Cognitive Science. Kage1; Rene. 1999. Optlmailty Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. Tile Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns In More than Words A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderilc.h [Studia Grammatica], Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (eds), 179··226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Koster, Jan 1997. Anaphora and the uniformity of grammar. In Atomism and Binding, Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 235-250. Dordrecht: Foris. Konig, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives A typological perspective. In Reflexives Fortns and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajz.. yngier & Tract Walker-Curl (eds), 41-74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657-720. Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2004. Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In Tile unaccusativity puzzle, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 159··180. Oxford: OUP. Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389···436. Rettig, Lawrence. 1976. Amana Today: A History of the Amana Colonies from 1932 to the Presetlt. Amana IA: Amana Historical Society. Safl.r, Ken. 1996. Semantic atoms of anaphora. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 545-589.

Schafer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-ofState Contexts [Lingulst!k Aktuell/L!nguist!cs ~lbday 126]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Webber, Philip. 1993. Kolonie-Deutsch: Life and Language in Amana. Ames IA: Iowa State Press.

Lexical developments in Texas German* Hans C. Boas & Marc Pierce University of Texas at Austin

This paper offers new insights into on -going research on lexical borrowing in language contact situations by presenting a typology oflexical borrowings in Texas German (TxG), a critically endangered dialect that will go extinct within the next 30 years. We show that the lexicon ofTxG has not undergone any dramatic changes over the past four decades and that the dialectal origins of words that were still apparent when Gilbert collected his data in the 1960s can still be found today. We also argue that TxG should be classified as "stage 2" in Thomason and Kaufman's (1988) 5-stage borrowing scale ("slightly more intense contact"), which is characterized by lexical borrowing and slight structural borrowing in combination with conjunctions and adverbial particles.

1.

Introduction

One of the most prominent features of contact languages is the borrowing of lexical material. In casual contact situations, languages exhibit relatively slight lexical borrow-· ing, while in long·· tem1 intensive contact situations extreme structural borrowing may occur (Thomason & Kaufman1988: 74-76). Thus, in the case of (American) English contact with Finnish, tor instance, only one or two words have been borrowed from Finnish into English (sauna and possibly sisu 'guts'), while the much more intensive contact with French during the Norman period fundamentally altered the structure of English (the stress system of Old English differs radically from the stress system of Modern English, for instance, which is traditionally attributed to contact with French). In communities with high levels of bilingualism that are subject to socioeconomic and/or political pressures, one speaker group may eventually shift to the more prestigious language. As the language with the lower prestige is used less over time, its lexicon erodes.

""An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference 15 (Hanft: Alberta, Canada, May 2009). We are grateful to the conference participants for helpful comments and discussion; to an anonymou.'i referee for comments on an earli.er draft; and to Mike Putnam for his assistance in his role as editor.

130

Hans C. Boas & Marc Pierce

This paper investigates lexical borrowings in Texas German (hereafter TxG) to establish how far lexical change has progressed over the past century. 1 We first outline the status and history of TxG. Next, we present an overview of the literature on lexical borrowing in TxG and apply it to earli.er studies ofTxG. 'Ihe summary of previous accounts of lexi.cal erosion serves as the basis for our analysis of the present--day data in Section 4. We focus on a select number of phenomena to illustrate the types of changes taking place in the lexicon ofTxG. Section 5 discusses the question oflexic.al erosion in present-day TxG, and Section 6 presents our conclusions.

2.

The history of Texas German

The German language has a long history in Texas. Promises of land grants and transportation to Texas attracted a significant number of immigrants, mainly from northern and central Germany, beginning in the 1840s.2 By 1850 there were 8,266 German-born immigrants living in Texas (Jordan 1975: 48), and by 1860 there were approximately 30,000 Texas Germans, both immigrants and their American-born children (Jordan 1975: 54). German immigration to Texas eventually slackened, but the number of Texas Germans continued to increase: Eichhoff (1986) estimates that there were approximately 7 5,000-100,000 Texas Gennans in 1907, Kloss ( 1977) states that in 1940 there were approximately l. 59,000 Texas Germans, and Nicolini (2004: 42) suggests that at the beginning of the twentieth century approximately 1/3 of all Texans were of German anc.estry. For the first several decades of German settlement in 'H!xas, the 'Iexas Germans were relatively isolated, thanks to a number of political and social factors, ranging from the anti-slavery views held by most German settlers to deliberate attempts at self-sufficiency (see Salmons 1983 and Benjamin1909, respectively, on these points). This isolation, coupled with serious attempts at language maintenance, allowed for the development and spread of TxG: there were 145 church congregations offering German-language church services as of 1917 (Salmons & Lucht 2006: 168); there were numerous German-language newspapers and periodicals, some with very healthy circulation numbers (Texas Vorwiirts, published in Austin, had a circulation of approximately 6100 in 1900, according to Salmons & Lucht 2006: 174); there was

There is a long history of research into TxG, ranging from the pioneering studies ofEikel (1954) and Gilbert (1972) to more re'~ent works like Fttller and Gilbett (2003), Nicolini (2004), Salmons and Lucht (2006), Boas (2009), and Boas et al, (2010).

1.

See Biesele (1928), Moore (1980), Salmons (1983), Augspurg--Hacker (1984), Nicolini (2004), Boas (2005a, 2009), Salmons and Lucht (2006), and Boas et al. (2010) for additional overviews of German immigration to Texas and the changing status of German in Texas. 2.

Lexical developments in Texas German

a wide range of German literature written in Texas; there were German-language schools and numerous social organizations, including choirs, shooting clubs, and so on (see Nicolini 2004: 46-49 for further discussion of such groups). 'lhis situation eventually changed dramatically, starting with the passing of an :English--only law tor 'Iexas public schools in 1.909 (Salmons 1983: 188). World War I, especially following America's entry into the war in 1917 and the resulting increase in anti-German sentiment, along with the passage of another English-only law for public schools in 1918 (Salmons 1.983: 188), led to the stigmatization of German and the beginning of its decline. 3 World War II reinforced the stigmas attached to Germany, Texas Germans, and the German language. Institutional support for the widespread maintenance and use of German was largely abandoned, with devastating consequences for TxG. German--language newspapers and periodicals stopped publishing (Das Wochenblatt, published in Austin, stopped publishing in 1940) or switched to English as the language of publication (the Neu-BraunfeL~e1' Zeitung was the last to switch to English, in December 1957);4 some German-language schools closed and German instruction was dropped in others; and German--speaking churches replaced German-language services with English-lanbruage ones.5 After World War II, the increasing migration of non-German speakers to the traditional German enclaves and the general refusal of these newcomers to learn German led to the large-scale abandonment of German in the public sphere. The increased use of :English in the public domain pushed German even further into the private domain. At the same time, younger Texas Germans left the traditional Gennanspeaking areas for employment, education, or military service (Jordan 1977; Wilson 1977), and consequently switched to English as their primary language, which in turn weakened their command ofTxG. Also, Texas Germans increasingly married partners who could not speak German, and in such linguistically mil!:ed marriages, English typically became the language of the household. Children raised in such households are typically monolingual in English, or have only a very limited command of TxG, normally a few stock phrc:tses like prayers or profanities (Nicolini 2004; Boas 2005b). Finally, the development of the American interstate highway system starting in 1956 made the once-isolated TxG communities much more accessible. This new accessibility cut both ways, as it was now easier both tor non--German speakers to visit or live in the

3· This situation was not unique to Texas; similar situations arose in various other states \Vith a strong German presence. 4· See Salmons and Lud1t (2006: 17 3--·1 78) for further discussion of the Germa.Il--laiJ!,>uage press in Texas. 5· Some German-la.Ilgllage services were retained, especially on holidays like Good Friday and Christmas (Nicolini 2004: 101), and at least one church still offers a German-language service on 'fifth Sundays' (Roesch 2009).

131

132 Hans C. Boas & Marc Pierce

originally German-speaking communities, and for German-speakers to accept employment in more urban areas. Both of these possibilities led to the spread of English at the expense of German. Despite these factors, in the 1960s approximately 70,000 speakers of TxG remained in the "German belt:' which encompasses the area between Gillespie and Medina Counties in the west. Bell and \Villiamson Counties in the north, Burleson, \Vashington, Austin, and Fort Bend Counties in the east, and DeWitt. Karnes, and Wilson Counties in the south. Today, however, only an estimated 8---1.0,000 Texas Germans, primarily in their sixties or older, still speak TxG fluently (Boas 2003, 2005b, 2009), and English has become the primary language for most Texas Germans in both private and public domains. With no signs of this language shift being halted or reversed and fluent speakers almost exclusively above the age of 60, TxG is now critically endangered and is expected to become extinct within the next 30 years. 6

3·

The Texas German Dialect Project

In 2001 Hans C. Boas founded the Texas German Dialect Project (TGDP) in order to record, document, and analyze the remnants of TxG; preserving TxG is seen as a less crucial (and probably impossible) task. 7 Over the past eight years, members of the TGDP have recorded three different types of data. The first type of data consists of English word lists and sentences taken from the Linguistic Atlas of Texas German (Gilbert 1972) and from Eikel (1954). An interview begins by eliciting personal information (date and place of birth, level of education, language spoken at home when growing up, etc.) from the interviewee. Interviewers read the English words and sen-tences to the informants who are then asked to translate these words and sentences into TxG. The interviews last about 20-60 minutes, are recorded using various devices, and normally take place at the informants' homes, nursing homes, museums, or local churches. The use of word lists and sentences enables the comparison of the current recordings with data collected over four decades ago, and also provides well-focused and well-controlled data sets giving information about the distribution of specific phonological, morphological, and syntactic features in present--day TxG.

6. Our assessment of the current situation therefore differs sharply from the claim of Nicolini (2004: 165) that "Interviews mit alten Texanem lassen den Schluss zu, dass die deutsche Sprad1e amEnde des 20. Jahrlmnderts lebendiger ist, als es in der gerrnanbtischen Forschung gemeinhin gesehen wircl." 7· See Boas et al (201 0) for more extensive discussion of the TGDP, including technical details.

Lexical developments in Texa~ German 133

The second type of data seeks to capture the informants' daily use of TxG. An eight page questionnaire serves as the basis for sociolinguistic interviews conducted in German. At the beginning of an interview, interviewers speak (standard) German to the informants to begin eliciting personal information about the informants in TxG (date and place of birth, place of origin of informants' ancestors, languages spoken with the parents at home, etc.). During this first phase of the interview, informants are typically aware of the recording device and pay attention to their speech. However, they soon become more relaxed, forget about the recorder, and begin to respond to questions in TxG. Th.e second section of the interview consists of about 140 questions in German about a wide range of topics, including childhood activities, the community, religion, education, living conditions, tourism, government, language, and current activities. These questions are designed to produce casual, relaxed conversation in which informants are given the chance to respond freely in TxG without being asked to produce specific linguistic structures. Allowing informants to speak freely also makes it possible to examine linguistic features of TxG that were not noticed by previous studies that did not include such elicitation methods. 'Ihese interviews typically last 40 to 60 minutes. The third type of data seeks to capture the informants' use ofTxG when participating in activities with other Texas Germans. In order to record this type of data, we chose card-playing activities, dinner preparation, and farm chores. After filling out the consent torms, informants are given wireless microphones which are linked to a recorder. Interviewers leave the area and do not get involved in the 60-100 minute long recording activities. The three scenarios enable the collection of data in a variety of environments that involve different usages of TxG. The three types of spoken data are augmented by a written biographical question-naire. This questionnaire elicits information about age, date ofbirth, level of education, domains of language use (TxG and English), and language attitudes, among others. The biographical data are used to create the metadata records for each informant and each interview to be included in the digital on-line archive. Since the beginning of the project, members of the TGDP have interviewed more than 350 speakers, totaling more than 650 hours of data, available in the on-line Texas German Dialect Archive (TGDA), available at <www.tgdp.org>. We rely heavily on this data in the following sec-tions, and turn now to an analysis of the evidence involving recent lexical borrowings.

4· 4.1

Lexical borrowing

Social contexts supporting borrowing

Thomason and Kaufman (1988) maintain that borrowing can be classified according to the types of settings in which it takes place, and propose a borrowing scale of different levels, each representing an increasing intensity of contact as well as an increasing


typological distance. Perhaps the two most important social features of their borrowing scale are intensity of contact and cultural pressure. Winford (2003: 30) presents the following abridged version of Thomason and Kaufman's scale:8

Table l. Thomason & Kaufman's (1988) borrowing scale (Winford 2003: 30) Features

Stage 1

Casual contact

Lexical borrowing only

2

Slightly more inteiJSe contad

3

More intense contact

4

Strong cultural pressure

5

Very strong cultural pressure

Slight strudurdl. borrowing; conjunctions and adverbial particles Slightly more structural borrowing; adpositions, derivational affJXes Moderate structural borrowing (major structural features that cause relatively little typological change) Heavy structural borrowing (major structural features that cause significant typological disruption)

Winford notes that stage 1 is the most typical scenario, where there is only marginal contact with other languages. Individual words are borrowed, but speakers of the recipient language typically do not achieve fluency in the donor language. Examples include native American words such as skunk or teepee borrowed into American English during the English colonization of North America or the intro-duction of English loanwords such as bat and song into Japanese (with phonological adaptation) beginning in the mid-nineteenth century (Winford 2003: 30-31). Stage 2 usually involves some degree of bilingualism in the recipient language community. Winford (2003: 33) makes particular reference to the languages of immi-grant groups and ethnic minorities in this context, which are often absorbed into a larger host community. According to Winford, the languages of such groups are particularly open to lexical borwwing from the dominant language. During the first half of the 20th century TxG speakers were at this second stage, first becoming bilingual while at the same time borrowing more and more words from English into TxG, and eventually shifting entirely to the donor language, i.e. English. This process can be promoted by social factors such as the asymmetry in power and prestige of the languages involved. In the case of TxG, Boas (2009) argues that its massive loss of prestige following World War I was one of the main factors that curbed the use of German in the public domain and even among some TxG families who decided to raise their children in English. Over time, English crept into more and

8. See 'Ihomason and Kaufman (1988: 74-76) for a significantly more detailed version of this scale. For a detailed critique of this borro\o\oing scale, see Wolsemuth (2009).

Lexical developments in Texas German 135 more private domains, eventually replacing TxG as the main means of communication in families. As one New Braunfels informant states: "As the oldest kid in the family, I was raised in German, but my four younger siblings were all raised in English. Once my brothers and sisters were old enough to carry on conversations, I talked to them in English, because they did not understand any German. Soon after that, I also switched to English when talking to my parents:' We return to this point below and show that by the mid-twentieth century TxG had already adopted a substantial amount ofloans from English and was on its way towards stage 3 of Thomason and Kaufman's model. Stage 3 is typical of more intense contact situations (more bilinguals, attitudes favoring borrowing, etc.). At this stage, both basic and non-basic vocabulary is borrowed. Some structural features are also borrowed at stage 3, but typically without significant typological change in the recipient language (Thomason 2001: 70). Below we arbrue that in the middle of the 20th century TxG exhibited features characteristic of Thomason & Kaufinan's stages 2 and 3. Stage 4 is characterized by intense language contact where very heavy bilingualism is the norm among speakers of the borrowing language. Strong cultural pressures pro·· mote the borrowing process, leading to lexical borrowing in all sections of the lexicon, as well as moderate structural borrowing, leading to minor typological changes in the recipient language (e.g. the beginning of word order changes). Finally, stage 5 takes place under very strong cultural pressure, which promotes heavy structural borrowing that eventually leads to typological disruptions in the recipient language (Winford 2003: 30). Factors like "need" and "prestige" also promote lexical borrowing.9 Speakers often need new words when they are exposed to new areas of cultural knowledge or technical innovation. Such needs clearly motivated the borrowing of words such as armadillo, electricity, and county commissioner from English into TxG: armadillos are not native to Germany, electricity was not yet used by the time the majority of Gennan immigrants left for Texas, and German immigrants were not familiar with the concept of county commissioner and consequently lacked a native word for it. Borrowing words from English into TxG thus allowed its speakers to fill gaps in their lexicon easily without having to invent new words. Vve now turn to the question of how loanwords are integrated into the redpient language and whether there are any constraints on borrowing. 4.2

Structural constraints on borrowing

A number of structural factors restrict the degree and type of lexical borrowing. Following earlier accounts by Whitney (1881) and Haugen (1950), Muysken (1981)

9· See Poplack et al. (1988) and Treffers-Daller (1994) for discussion of other factors influencing the degree of borrowing.


proposes a hierc:rrchy of borrowability which captures the general observation that open-class items such as nouns and verbs are more easily borrowed than dosed-class items such as pronouns and subordinating conjunctions (see also Poplack et al. 1988 and Poplack & Meechan 1.998 on this point). Nouns> adjectives> verbs> prepositions> coordinating conjunctions> quantifiNs > deterrniners > det.:>rminers >free pronouns> clitic pronouns> subordinating conjunctions

F4,JUie I. Hierarchy ofborrowabUity

Syntagmatic constraints between lexical items also determine whether lexical items are borrowed. For example, Winford (2003: 51-52) observes that categories like verbs or prepositions are not as easily borrowed as nouns and adjectives because they govern other categories and assign case to them. Similarly, lexical categories with greater morphological complexity in their paradigms are borrowed less frequently than those without such complexity (Winford 2003: 52-53). Before determining tl1e make-up of tl1e lexicon in present-day TxG, we discuss the relevant literature on English borrowings into TxG from the 1960s and 1970s to establish what types of words were borrowed earlier and to what degree. 4·3

Earlier accounts of borrowings into TxG

Gilbert (1965) provides the first in--depth study ofloanwords in TxG, based on data he had collected himself as well as data from other published sources. According to Gilbert ( 1965: 104), early written sources ofTxG (letters and diaries starting in the 1840s) show the "enthusiasm with which newcomers absorbed the English language and culture during the first few years or months after their arrival" in 1exas, along with the fre-quent use of English terms f{)r a number of plants and animals, utensils, and particular types of activities such as cam pen 'to camp'.l0 Gilbert (1965) further notes that more and more words from the semantic domains of higher culture, government, technology, and contact with the world in genercil were eventually borrowed into TxG, especially after the decline in prestige of German. A handful of conjunctions such as because, but, and except were borrowed into TxG, and have replaced the corresponding German forms (Gilbert 1965: 110). Gilbert's inventory of borrowings includes loan translations such as der .Feuerpiatz 'the fireplace'; loan extensions such as die Kann 'the buckef, 'the can of food'; and hybrid compounds such as die peach pie, among others. These loan words were integrated to different degrees into the TxG phonological system. In Gilbert's view, the oldest loanwords such as der Norder 'northerly wind'

10. This particular example is now also frequently used in standard German, alongside the older term zelten 'to camp' (from da..~ Zeit 'tent').

Lexical developments in Texas German 137 were totally assimilated phonologically, while later loanwords like der Blcmket or der Television were only partially assimilated or were left unas similated (Gilbert 196 5: 110 ). Age clearly influenced the degree of integration, as fewer younger people attempted to integrate borrowed words phonologically into TxG. 1hey instead tended to aim for ''a more or less faithful reproduction of the English model, even if the process entails the injection of a gross foreign element into nearly every utterance, thereby endangering the integrity of the language as a system" (Gilbert 1965: 110). Finally, despite the apparent ease with which Texas Germans borrowed words from English, Gilbert (1.965: 110) observes that the actual number of .English words in Tx:G as spoken at the time of writing "remains small, probably less than 5 percent~ In a slightly later study, Meister (1969) offers an analysis of English loanwords in TxG that includes more detailed information about pronunciation. Based on the data collected tor Gilbert ( 1972 ), Meister documents extensive dialectal variation across the German-belt. which he treats as a refle.lC of the vocabulary brought to Texas by Gennan immigrants. For instance, based on Gilbert's sentence The animal died out in the pasture (later published in Gilbert 1972, Map 10), Meister (1969: 8---9) investigates the different lexical variants of to die and their dialectal origins. In addition to the more common form gestorben, Meister discusses the distribution of krepiert and verreckt (both denoting quite miserable ways of dying), and concludes that the distribution of these three forms in TxG largely reflects their distribution in the donor dialects of TxG. On the other hand, the most common way to express 'to die' in TxG was tofgega.ngen, which does not appear in all traditional German dialects, according to Meister (1969: 9). Meister further shows that Gilbert's TxG data contain both native German words and their (borrowed) English counterparts. He indicates that there is a con-tinuum of borrowing English words and replacing native German words with them: at one end of the continuum we find large numbers of English loanword variants and few Gennan counterparts for a given word or phrase, e.g. the creek (Gilbert 1972, Map 137), which is used by almost all of Gilbert's informants, and which is pho·· nologically integrated into German. Other English variants borrowed into Tx:G include branch and gully, which are used to a lesser degree (particularly in the eastern part of the German-belt). German words occasionally used for creek include Bach, Bruch, Wtlssergang, Graben, Strom, and Fluss, all of which refer to different types and sizes of flowing water (Meister 1969: 44). 11 On the other end of the continuum we find a strong use of German words, with English loanwords replacing German words only occasionally, e.g. drawer (Meister 1969: 27-28), where ninety percent of

n. Other examples where T:li.-G speakers predominantly prefer to use English loanwords include icicles, pumpki11, candy, and tank. among others (Meister 1969). For the most part, these loanwords are phonetically integrated into TxG, which suggests that they were bor-· rowed into TxG comparatively early on.


Gilbert's informants preferred German Schubiade (or some lexical variant thereof) to the English loanword drawer. Wilson (1977) emphasizes the strong regional differences in the TxG lexicon. Focusing on the area around Giddings and La Grange (about 60 miles east of Austin) he observes that the local variety of Tx:G is influenced by Wendish (e.g. der Bobbak 'boogeyman'), Saxon (e.g. schmoochen 'to smoke'), and English (e.g. der Belt 'the belt: among many others). With respect to English borrowings, Wilson (1977) maintains that the most common type of English loan words in 'TxG are words tor new concepts with which the settlers were not familiar (die Roach, der Airplane, etc.). In Wilson's view, the settlers maintained their German vocabulary to a large degree and therefore did not feel a need to replace more words. In tact, he points out that some German words such as Luftschiff'airship' (although meaning 'airplane' in TxG), Auto 'car' and Ka.ugummi 'chewing gum' existed alongside English words. As for phonology, the phonological integration of English loanwords is not always complete. Wilson (1977: 53) views the use of [v] for [w] ('it was vunderful') as one of the defining characteristics of the "German accenf' of the area surrounding Giddings and La Grange. At the same time, Wilson reports considerable phonological interference from English in the speech of younger speakers without much knowledge of German. Wilson (1977: 57) concludes that "Texas German is essentially good standard German." 12 Jordan ( 1977) offers a more general account of TxG spoken in the western Hill Country, i.e. to the west of New Braunfels. With respect to lexical changes, he point~ out that the time between 1845 and 1945 was a century of tremendous change. Along the lines of earlier observations made by Gilbert and Wilson, he identifies technological developments like trucks, road graders, telephones, phonographs, radio, television, and so on, as the impetus for many English borrowings into TxG. In describing the differences between Standard German and TxG Jordan (1977: 61) notes that "while German built up its new vocabulary in Europe, the German Texans borrowed the needed terms from English, and hundreds of English words slipped in by default~ Besides words describing unknown objects or processes, TxG also borrowed words for which there were already German words available, such as das Rope (Standard German das Seil) and die Fence (Standard Germander Zaun). Jordan also reports the borrowing of nouns such as car and cotton, as well as compound nouns made up of English and German words such as Stacheldrahtfence

12. Compare here the statement by Gilbert (1965: 102) that TxG "deviates in certain characteristic ways from Contemporary Standard German as described by Si.ebs and Duden. Nevertheless it is sufficiently intelligible to the speaker of Standard German to be classed as a colonial variety of the standard language and not as a separate entity. Mutual intelligibility is still very goo d."

Lexical developments in Texas German 139 'barbed wire fence' and Schweinepenne 'pig pen: Besides nouns, Jordan notes the borrowing of multi word expressions such as Vieh aufrmmden 'round up cattle: die Kuh dehornen 'dehom the cow: and den Draht stretchen 'stretch the wire: among many others. Verbs such as cra.nken 'to crank' were also borrowed (and are normally weak). Many borrowings were apparently phonologically integrated, or at least exhibit what Jordan (1977: 63) calls "a distinct Gennan flavor and a strong German intonation:' At the end of his paper Jordan (1977: 68-71) provides an extensive list of almost 300 English loanwords from various semantic domains such as administration, tech-· nology, agriculture, nature, transportation, and education, albeit without any exact indications of pronunciation, stating only that "the pronunciation is a somewhat Germanized fonn of the local Texas English norm" (Jordan 1977: 68).

4·4

Evaluation of earlier accounts

One of the challenges in evaluating earlier accounts of borrowings into TxG is that they only offer anecdotal evidence. For instance, Jordan's (1977) impressive list of borrowings fmm various semantic domains lacks detailed infi.)rmation on the degree of phonological integration, while Meister (1969) offers phonetic transcriptions, but only covers a small set of English borrowings. Ideally, we would like to have an exhaustive corpus ofborrowings into TxG accompanied by precise phonetic transcriptions. Despite the absence of such a c.orpus, it is obvious that borrowings from English into TxG have been somewhat limited in size and type. ru noted above, Gilbert (1965: 110) estimates the amount of English lexical material at the time of writing at about 5%, and all the analyses discussed above seem to agree that borrowings affect almost exclusively the semantic domains of administration, education, technology, agriculture, telecommunication, and tnmsporta·· tion. among others. The degree of phonological integration suggests that the majority ofborrmvings were readily integrated into TxG, with some variation between speakers. Returning to Thomason and Kaufman's (1988) borrowing scale discussed above, the question arises as to how we should classify the TxG lexicon at this stage. Besides lexical borrowings, which are indicative of stage 1, previous analyses also mention slight structural borrowings. f-or example, Gilbert ( 196 5: 109-110) reports that "English verbal constructions of the forms 'he goes; 'Does he go?' and 'He is going"' have exact coun-terparts in German. Similarly, the function and syntactic position of English for seems to have influenced its use in sentences such as Was solln mir fighten for? What should we fight for?' (Gilbert 1965: 110). Besides slight structural borrowings, Gilbert also reports borrowing of conjunctions such as because, but, and except, but only to a limited degree (see above). His claim that these conjunctions "have been incorporated into vari-ous syntactic constructions" (Gilbert 1965: 1.10) suggests that they did not replace their German counterparts across the board. Instead, they appear to be only tied to specific syntactic constructions and multi-word expressions, indicating tl1at tl1e borrmving of

140

Hans C. Boas & Marc Pierce

these closed-class elements presumably took place not as individual words, but instead occurred when specific multi-word expressions (idiomatic phrases, particular syntactic constructions, etc.) were borrowed into TxG and were later reanalyzed. In sum, the historical data indicate that the TxG lexicon of the mid-twentieth century exhibited characteristics of Thomason and Kaufman's second stage, which includes slight structural borrowing as well as borrowing of conjunctions and adverbial particles (besides, of course other lexical borrowing at stage 1). None of the previous analyses up to the 1970s offers any evidence for more intense structural borro-wing characteristic of the higher stages of Thomason and Kaufman's model. 13

5·

lexical borrowings in present-day TxG

To compare the historical TxG data with more recent data, we now tum to the interview data recorded by the TGDP "'ith 52 speakers in New Braunfels between 20012006. A full- fledged comparison and analysis of all of the relevant data would go far beyond the scope of this work, so we focus on a few illustrative examples representative of the overall trends. All New Braunfels speakers exhibited fluent speech during open-ended interviews, and were typically at ease with a wide range of topics. The only types of words that were problematic were trom the semantic domains in which heavy borrowing from English was already described by earlier research (education, administration, nature, technical innovation, etc.). Consider the following data from open-ended sociolinguistic interviews where a question or a short hesitation signals that the speaker does not know the appropriate Gem1an word. 14 (I)

a.

Aber die habn zusammengr,pielt in ihr ihre but they have together-played in their their uh Schulyard. (1-27-1-11) uh school-yard 'But they played together in their schoolyard~

b.

. .. da war ein - ein uh Highway Patrolman da. (1-32-1-2) there was a a uh highway patrolman there 'There was a highway patrolman:

c.

Ich hab uh business studiert. (1-45-1-4) I have uh business studied 'I studied business:

1here is also some very minor bonowi.ng from Spanish into TxG (largely in Medina County), whidt we do not address here.

13.

14. The numbers following each example are the unique file numbers referencing the files in the on--line TGDA. See Boas (2006) for details.

Lexical developments in Texa~ German

d.

Wie sagt man

naturalized:? (1-51-1-1)

naturalized how says one 'How do you say naturalized?'

We now discuss some specific examples from the translation task. The first n.vo examples, Beerdigung 'funeral' in 'Table 2 and Fussboden 'tloor' in Table 3, come from the relatively basic semantic fields "life and death" and "areas in the house". Gilbert's (1972) data for the two words show very little dialectal variation, and no English loanwords. The TGDP data are almost identical with Gilbert's data, except for t'iz Kaufmann (p.c.) has doctLmented the phenomenon in the (originally Rhenish-Palatine) HunsrUckisch spoken in southern Brazil. Pennsylvania Dutch, however, is not directly descended from input dialects from any of these areas, which suggests that these similarities are due to parallel development.

174 Mark L. Louden

examine what Frey documents for verb clusters in earlier Pennsylvania Dutch and compare his data ~ith parallel structures in the modem language. The data are divided into four groups, according to verb type: (i) modals; (ii) causatives; (iii) auxiliaries; and (iv) verbs of perception.

3.1

Verb clusters with modals

In IPP verb clusters containing a form of hawwe +modal infinitive+ lexical infinitive, the J-1··2 order attested in the modern language (MPD) is also what we find in earlier Pennsylvania Dutch (EPD). (19)

EPD/MPD: kh wees I as er net kumme hot kenne I 3 l 2 'I know that he could not c.ome'

(Frey 1941: 234)

Frey also documents the same structure for the verb brauche 'need' in the "2" slot, which differs fi·om what we find in modem Pennsylvania Dutch. (20)

EPD: Ich wees, as er net kumme hot brauche 3 1 2 MPD: Ich wees I as er net gebraucht hot I kumme 3 1 2 'I know that he did not need to come'

(Frey 1941: 234)

What has happened here is that bra.uche is no longer regarded as a modal verb in modem Pennsylvania Dutch, henc.e the need tor its complement (here, kumme) to be located outside the clause. In his dissertation, Frey also lists 3-1-2 structures in which the finite verb ("1") is a modal, "2" is hawwe, and in the "3" position is a lexical verb. Cf. (21). (21)

EPD: Ich wees, as er en gfa:nge soll hawwe 3 1 2 'I know that he should have caught him'

(Frey 1941: 234)

No such inversion is possible in the modem lanbruage, which arranges the elements in a straightforward J. 2··1 way. (21 ')

MPD: Ich wees I as er en gfimge hawwe solll 3 2 I

Clearly, the modern structure is again obeying the verb cluster rule formulated above: after the modal soll, both hawwe and gfange 'caught' may remain within the clause since only gfange is lexical, thus the maximum of one lexical verb in the right bracket is not exceeded.

Synchrony and diaduony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch 175

One final comment about verb clusters containing modals in earlier Pennsylvania Dutch is in order here. Frey (1941: 233) notes that when modals occur without a complement and in the perfect tense in subordinate clauses, the order is always 1-2, as is still the case in the modern language. (22)

3.2

EPD/MPD: Sie hot ihre Kinner griege misse I de bescht Weg I as sie hot kenne I 1 2 'She had to get her children the best way (that) she could'

Verb clusters ""ith causatives

In earlier and modern Pennsylvania Dutch, the verbs losse 'lef and mache 'make' may function as causative verbs and take infinitival complements. In earlier Pennsylvania Dutch, these two verbs behaved identically to modals, participating in IPP construe·· tions and occurring in 3-1-2 structures. (23)

EPD: Ich wees, as er ihn geh hot losse 3

1

(Frey 1941: 234)

2

'I know that he let him go' (24)

EPD: Ich wees, was ihn schreiwe hot mache 3 1 2 'I know what made him write.

(Frey 1941: 234)

In modern Pennsylvania Dutch, losse and mache, like bra.uche above, no longer behave as modal verbs (i.e. they do not show the IPP effect), but the order of the elements in the verb clusters in which they appear depends on whether they are interpreted as lexical verbs or not. Ct~ (23') and (23"), and (24') and (24"). (23')

MPD: Ich wees I as er ihn geh glosst hot I 3

2

1

'I know that he (ju'>l:) let him go' (23")

MPD: Ich wees I as er ihn glosst hot I geh 2 1 3 'I know that he gave him permission to go

(24')

MPD: kh wees I was ihn schreiwe gmadrt hot I 3

2

1

'I know what moved him to ~Tite' (24'')

MPD: Ich wees I wer ihn gmadrt hot I schreiwe 2 1 3 'I know who compelled him to ~•ite'

176 Mark L. Louden

In clauses in which there is clear agency behind the action expressed by the verb, as in (23'') and (24"), the causative verb is regarded as lexical and its complement is postposed. Where agency is deemphasized, the causative is not lexical, therefore its complement is allowed to remain adjacent to it within the right bracket of the clause, as in (23') and (24').

3·3

Verb clusters with auxiliaries

Frey (1941) identifies a number of auxiliary verbs in three--verb clusters of the form 3-1-2, including ha·wwe 'have' and sei 'be' in the past perfect tense. Cf. Examples (25)

and (26). (25)

EPD: Ich wees, as er sell geduh hot ghatt 3 1 2 'I know that he had done that'

(Frey 1941: 234)

(26)

EPD: Ich wees, as er heem gange is gwest 3 1 2 'I know that he had gone home'

(Frey 1941: 234)

Not surprisingly, in modern Pennsylvania Dutch these clusters have the order 3-2--1, since the participles ghatt and gwest are not le.xical forms. Cf. (25') and (26'). (25')

MPD: Ich wees I as er sell geduh ghadde hot I 3 2 I

(26')

MPD: Ich wees I as er heem gange gwest is I 3 2 1

Frey mentions that some of the speakers he interviewed also inverted the finite and participial forms of hamt-e in two-verb clusters, as in (27). (27)

EPD: Wie waer sell, wammer noch Schpuke do rum hedde, wie sie als fer alders hen ghatt? (Frey 1941: 232) 1 2 'How would that be if we still had ghosts around here as they used to have in the old days?'

Frey (1941: 233) does comment, however, that such 1-2 orders are less common than the 2-1 order (ghatt hen), which is the norm in modern Pennsylvania Dutch. Aside from perfect auxiliaries, Frey (1941: 236) mentions another auxiliary verb that participated in 3-1-2 structures in earlier Pennsylvania Dutch, namely griege 'get,

Synchrony and diaduony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch 177 receive'. Although this is a native (Palatine German-derived) construction, its semantics parallels that of the English construction get + direct object + past participle (e.g. to get something done). Cf. example (28). (28)

EPD: Un wie sie alles ausgepaeckt: hot grigt, (Frey 1941: 236) 3 1 2 hot sie die Hensching net finne kenne. ~nd when she had gotten everything unpacked she could not find the gloves'

Since griege in this construction is not interpreted as a lexical verb in modern Pennsylvania Dutch, its participle remains in the right bracket with its complement (here, the participle a.usgepaeckt), as in (28'). (28')

MPD: Un wie sie alles ausgepaeckt grigt hot I ... 3 2 1

'!here is one final verbal auxiliary in earlier Pennsylvania Dutch that occurred in 3-1-2 structures, namely the passive auxiliary wan-e (ct: German werden ). Frey (1941) points out, however, that there was variation with this verb, as Examples (29) and (30) show. (29)

EPD: Ich wees, as er doot gmacht is warre 3 1 2 'I know that he was killed'

(Frey 1941: 234)

(30)

EPD: kh wees, as en Faecktri gschtaert warre is 3 2 1 'I know that a factory has been sta1ted'

(Frey 1941: 235)

Speaking of frequency, Frey (1941: 235) comments that the inverted (3-1-2) order fi.)r warre in three-verb clusters is (was) more common than the non--inverted order (3-·2··1, as in Example [30]). But wa.rre also used to invert on occasion in two--verb clusters, when used as the lexical verb meaning 'to become'. In this case, though, Frey (1941: 233) states that the 2-1 order was the more frequent of the two. C£ Example (31). (31)

EPD: Ich hab net gwisst, as er grank is warre/warre is 1 2 2 1 'I did not know that he became ill'

(Frey 1941: 233)

In modem Pennsylvania Dutch, there is still more variation between (3- )1-2 and (3··)2··1 orders with warre than with any other verb cluster type, though younger speakers especially favor the latter. The likely reason for this variation has to do with the phonetic shape of the verb. The infinitival and past participial forms of wan-e are

178 Mark L. Louden

homophonous, and unlike in standard German, which has two different participles for werden depending on whether the verb is lexical or a passive auxiliary (i.e. geworden vs. worden), Pennsylvania Dutch has never distinguished the two phonetically. Because of this identity between infinitive and past participle, some speakers may unconsciously assign warre to the lPP (modal) class of verbs, which invert (i.e. take 1·· 2 orders) in both two- and three-verb clusters.

3·4

Verb clusters with verbs of perception

Finally, the verbs of perception sehne 'see and heere 'hear: both in earlier and mod·· ern Pennsylvania Dutch, participate in 2··1 I 3 structures, though in the older variety, according to Frey (1941: 235-236) these verbs could either appear as infinitives in the perfect (i.e. IPP) or as past participles. Examples are given in (32) and (33). Frey documents the same variation for the verb heife 'help' (cf. [34]). (32)

EPD: Ich wees, as er mich heere/gheert hot I singe 2 1 3 'I know that he heard me singing'

(33)

EPD: Ich wees, as er mich sehne/gsehne hot I kumme 2 1 3 'I know that he saw me c.oming'

(ibid)

(34)

EPD: Ich wees, as er ihm net helfe/gholfe hot I schaffe 2 1 3 'I know that he did not help him work'

(ibid)

(Frey 1941: 235)

In the modern language. only the participial forms occur with sehne, heere, and heljewhen they take an infinitival complement. This suggests that today only true modal verbs, as opposed to other non-lexical and lexical verbs, may participate in I PP structures.

3·5

Summary: Change from earlier to modern Pennsylvania Dutch

Taking stock of what we have just observed, the following general observation can be made about the difference between earlier and modern Pennsylvania Dutch regarding verb dusters. In the earlier language, 3--1··2 structures included a more diverse range of verb types and verb forms; in today's Pennsylvania Dutch, by contrast, only IPP modal constructions take the order 3-1-2 in subordinate dauses. Other, formerly 3-1-2 clusters have been reanalyzed as either 2·1 13 or 3--2··1 structures. This is summari7..ed in the table below.

Synchrony and dlachrony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch 179

Table I. Three-verb clw.ters in earlier and modem Pennsylvania Dutch ModernPD

EarlierPD Modals: 3-1-2 (INF- V- IPP)

3-1-2 (INF- V- IPP)

kumme hot kenne

kumme hot kenne

I 3 (PTC - v I INF)

3-1-2 (INF- V- IPP)

2--1

kumme hot brauche

gebraucht hot kumme

3-1-2 (PTC- VMOD- IPP)

gfange soli hawwe

>

3-2-1 (PTC- INF- VMOD)

gfange hawwe soli

_Q_\\JJ.s.a.U'!:~_s_:

3-1-2 (INF- V- IPP)

3-2-1 (INF- PTC- V)

geh hot losse sd:reiwe hot mad:e

geh glo~t hot schreiwe gmad:t hot 2-1 I 3 (PTC -

v I INF)

glosst hot geh gmacht hot schreiwe Ay;xJ!ia.ri.~:

3-1-2 (PTC- V- PTC)

3-2-1 (PTC- PTC- V)

geduh hot ghatt gange isgwest ausgepaeckt hot grigt gmacht is warre9

geduh ghadde hot gange gJ-Vest is ausgepaeckt grigt hot gmacht warre is

Recalling the verb cluster rule formulated in Section 2, no more than one lexical verb may be located in the right bracket of a clause in modern Pennsylvania Dutch: additional verbal complements must be postposed, yielding 2-1 I 3 structures. We also note that the formerly modal verb brauche has been reanalyzed as a lexical verb, hence its participation in the 2-1 I 3 pattern. Finall}; it is dear that 1-2 inversion in subordinate clauses in the modern language of the hab welle type is limited exclusively to modals (the only class of non-lexical verbs that may appear in IPP constructions): non-modal auxiliaries in both their historical IPP (e.g. hawwe, losse, and mache) and participial forms (e.g. ghatt, gwest, grigt, and warre) may no longer occur in 1--2 inverted structures. Finally, we note that the historical 2-1 I 3 pattern with verbs of perception and helfe is maintained in modern Pennsylvania Dutch, the only difference being that causatives, as non-modals, may no longer take an IPP form in the perfect.

9· We recall here that Frey (1941: 235; see Ex. [30] above) mentions that a minority of his consultants also produced 3-2-1 clusters with warre, suggesting that the change to the modern pattern was already underway at the time of his study.

t8o Mark L. Louden

Table 2. 2-1 I 3 structures in earlier and modern Pennsylvania Dutch

ModemPD

EarlierPD

sehne. heere. he{te 2-1 I 3 (INF/PTC - v I INF) heerelgheert hot singe

sehne/gseh,le hot kumme helfe/gholfe hot schaffe

4·

>

2--113 (PTC-

v IINF)

gheert hot singe gsehne hot kumme gho(fe hot schaffe

Discussion

The major observation that emerges from a consideration of the synchrony and diachrony of three-verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch subordinate clauses is that the number of verbs that occur in 3-1-2 clusters has decreased since the 1930s and 1940s, when]. William Frey conducted his fieldwork. Whereas non-finite forms (both infinitives and past participles) of apparently all non-lexical verbs (modals, auxiliaries, and perception verbs) could invert with the finite verbs that dominated them (finite forms of the perfect auxiliaries ha1+we and sei, as well as finite modals, e.g. as in Ex. [21]), today only modal verbs may do so (with a finite form of hawwe). Further, these modal verbs only ever appear as infinitives in the perfect tense, even when used lexically, and are today the only verbs that show the IPP effect The reanalysis of formerly 3-l-2 clusters under the constraint of the modem verb cluster rule formulated in Section 2 has led to the expansion of 3-2-1 and 2-1 I 3 structures. We recall, however, that in order to account for apparent 3-1-2-4 structures such as (15), we need to assume that the finite form of hawwe and its modal IPP comple-ment form a structural unit [hawweFIN + IPP]. Following this assumption, there are in essence no "four-verb clusters" in Pennsylvania Dutch; 3-1-2-4 orders are in fact 2-1 I 3 structures. (15)

Sie hen gv.'i.sst, as ich gehe hab welle I schwimme 3 [1 2] 4 3 2

That means, then, that 3-1-2 clusters (e.g. gehe hab welle) are themselves really just 2-1 structures, as discussed earlier. The system that reveals itself is thus a simple one for modern Pennsylvania Dutch verb clusters in subordinate clauses: the underlying 2--1 order is preserved in all surface orders, and if the number of lexical verbs within the clause exceeds one, then the most deeply embedded infinitive ("3") is extraposed.

Synchrony and diaduony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch Table 3. Two- and three-verb dUl>iers and 2-113 structures in modern Penru.ylvania Dutd1 2-1

PTC + VAUX INF + VMOD INF + [VAUX + IPP]

3-2-1

2--113

PTC INF INF PTC PTC PTC

PTC -

VAUX

VMOD VAU'.!:

VAUX

I INF

... gange bin ... gheerthab ... gehewill ... gehe hab welie ... gfange r.awwe soil ... geh glosst hot ... geduh ghadde hot ... gebraucht hot kumme ... glosst hot geh ... gheert hot singe

As mentioned at the outset of this paper, the main goal here has been a documentary one, that is, to give a thorough description of the Pennsylvania Dutch data from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. A future task is to consider the theoretical implications of these data in the context of the larger discussion about verb clusters in Continental West Germanic. In particular, the most radical claim here is that the finite form of ha.-w'l+-e and its modal IPP complement form a syntactic, if not a morphological unit of structure. While it may be possible to derive 3--1--2 orders via movement or reanalysis (cf. the theoretical discussion going back at least to Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986), 3-1-2-4 structures remain a problem. The elegance of a solution based on a unit [hawweFIN + IPP], which is supported by the fact that these two lexical items only ever occur in "inverted" (apparent 1--2) order in subordi-nate clauses, as well as by the behavioral phenomenon related to subjunctive inflection, is compelling. It remains to be seen, however, whether there are parallels in closely related European German dialects. 10 In any case, the analysis here should be evaluated against the backdrop of the larger generative theoretical discussion on verb clusters. Additional tasks for future work include a closer look at both the historical record of Pennsylvania Dutch, as well as at what is perhaps a change in progress in verb clusters among younger sectarian speakers. Regarding older data, it will be important to compare Frey's data from adult speakers who were living in the 1930s and 1940s with evidence from speakers from earlier generations. Quite fortunately, we have hundreds of Pennsylvania Dutch prose and poetic texts produced by native speakers as far back

10. My own suspicion is that the micro-level phenomena described here are probablyuniqtLe to Pennsylvania DtLtch, or at the very least not the result of inheritance from Palatine German source dialects. It seems unlikely that the many 1-2 structures in eadier Pennsylvania Dutch, which almost certainly wotLld have also been found in Palatine dialects, all took the syntactic form [1 + 2].

181

182

Mark L. Louden as the middle of the nineteenth century and earlier. Owing to the vernacular, oral character of the language, most Pennsylvania Dutch texts were produced without regard for prescriptive norms either coming from within the Pennsylvania Dutch community or from without (e.g. from standard German). These texts therefi.)re hew quite closely to the naturally spoken language. My preliminary comparison of Frey's data with data from older speakers has yielded relatively few differences thus far, but those I have found are quite interesting. 'Ib take one example, we can consider the idiolect of Edward H. Rauch, a native Pennsylvania Dutchman who was born in Lancaster County; PA, in 1820 and died in Carbon County; PA, in 1902. Over the course of his long career as a political activist, newspaper editor, and language advocate, Rauch produced a number oflengthy prose texb in Pennsylvania Dutch that comprise a rich corpus for syntactic analysis, one collection of which is Rauch 1868. In terms of verb clusters, the data from this collection are generally in line with what Frey found among speakers who would have been born two or three generations after Rauch. That is, Rauch's data, like those in Frey 1941, include more types of (3- )1-2 clusters than what we find in the modern language. There is at least one inversion construction in Rauch, however, that Frey did not document, namely with the verbs geh 'to go and kumme 'to come: See Examples (35) and (36). (35)

un

alli

Mol getriet hot er, wann mer anne

is gange 2

(Rauch 1868: 3) and every time treated had he when one to--there is gone 'and he treated every time one went there' (36)

wie

(Rauch 1868: 4)

mer awwer an sei Haus

sin kumme ... 2 as/how we but at his house are come 'but when we came to his house .. .'

Compare these examples to (37) and (38). (37)

wie

es am

Readinger Singerpescht 11

gange is

(Rauch 1868: 15)

2

as/how it at-the Reading Singers--Festival gone 'how it (things) went at the Reading Singers Festival'

is

u. Rauch is engaging in wordplay here, substituting the noun Pescht )Jiague' for Fescht 'festival:

Synchrony and diachrony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch 183 (38)

sidder der Johnson frei kumme is

(Rauch 1868: 12)

2

since the Johnson free come 'sinc.e Johnson was set free'

is

In Rauch's idiolect, the participles gange and kumme invert with the auxiliary sei (here, is), but only when the verbs geh and kumme are used non--figuratively, that is, meaning literally 'to go' and 'to come: as in (35) and (36). In (37) and (38), where geh and kumme have figurative meanings, 1-2 inversion does not occur. This is an intriguing fact suggesting semantic restrictions on inversion in earlier Pennsylvania Dutch that should be investigated in further research. Just as important as adding to our understanding of the historical record of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch is noting possible changes in progress among today's youngest speakers. To date, I have not observed any variation in contemporary Pennsylvania Dutch in the order of elements in three-verb clusters in subordinate clauses, the primary focus of the present paper, however there is variation with main clauses. See Examples (39) and (40) from VellaDeitsh 1997, pp. 61 and 63, respectively. (39)

laafe hot kenne, 3 1 2 who never not properly walk has can

Der laahm M.ann, wo the

lame

man

nie

net recht

hot nau laafe un schpringe kenne 1 3 3 2 has now walk and run can

"Ihe lame man, who never was able to walk properly, was now able to walk and run: (40)

duh kenne fer ihre Sache reclrt mache, 3 2 they have nothing more do can to their things right make Sie

hen

nix

meh

1

kenne sehne, was Blatz gnumme hat 2 3 see what place taken has the other people have can

awwer die annri Leit

hen 1

but

'They could do nothing more to make amends, but the other people could see what had happened: In three-verb dusters in main clauses, in earlier and modern Pennsylvania Dutch, the normal order is 1 3-2, as in (39) and in the first main clause in (40). Some younger speakers, however, produce 1 2-3 orders (cf. the second clause in [40]). Pending further investigation, it seems likely that pragmatic factors are at work here. That is, in a focused or othenvise discourse-prominent clause, the main (lexical) verb is extraposed

184 Mark L. Louden

for emphasis. This would mean that the 1 ... 2-3 order in such sentences would be represented more accurately as 1 ... 213. To be sure, this extraposition of the lexical verb is not mandatory according to the modern verb cluster rule, since there is only one lexical verb in the clause ("3~ in [40] sehne 'to see'), yet it may well be that the grammar allows for optional extraposition for pragmatic reasons. Likewise, since the main clause 1 2 I 3 order is analogous to the 2-1 I 3 order in subordinate clauses (albeit with non- IPP constructions), the diachronic trend toward increasing produc.ti.vity of the latter structure might suggest an eventual reanalysis of 3-·1· 2 clusters in subordinate clauses. Such a reanalysis is purely speculative at this point, in the absence of further data.

References Abraham, Werner. 2009. Methodological considerations on grammar variation. The right periphery as an OV /VO deciding parameter more so than the left periphery: Gradience in the verb cluster. In Describing ar1d Modelling Variation in Grammar, Andreas Dufter, Jtirg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds ), 21-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. den Besten, Hans & Edmondson, Jerrold A. 1983. The verbal complex in continental West Germanic. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania: Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Ialks [Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abral1am (ed.), 154-216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dubenion-Smith, Shannon A. 2008. Verbal Complex Phenomena in the West Central German Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of \l\-1sconsin-Madison. Dubenion-Smith, Shannon A. 2010. Verbal complex phenomena In West Central German: Empirical domain and multi-causal account Journal of Germanic. Unguistics 22: 99-191. Frey, John Wllll.am. 1941. The German Dialect of Eastern York County, Pennsylvania. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois. Haegeman, Liliane & van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1986. Verb projection .raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 417-466. Kaufmann, Go1. 2007. 'Ihe verb duster in Mennonite Low German: A new approach to an old topic. Lingulstische Beridtte 210: 147-207. Kroch, Anthony S. & Santorini, Beatrice. 1991. 1he derived structure of the West Germanic verb-raising construction. In Principles and Parameters in Comparatiw Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed.), 269-338. Cambrtdge MA: The MIT Press. Labouvie, Erich. 1938. Studien zur Syntax der Mundart von Dillingen an der Saar. Marburg: Elwert. Lotscher, Andreas. 1978. Zur Verbstellung im Zi.irichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift fUr Dlalektologie und Linguistik 45: 1-29. Louden. Mark L. 2006. Pennsylvania German in the twenty-first century. In Sprachlnselwelten. The World of Language Islamis, Nina Berend & Elisabeth Knipf-Koml6si (eds), 89-107. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Noth, Harald. 1993. Alemannlsches Dlalekthandbuch vom Kaiserstuhl und seiner Umgebr.mg. Freiburg: Schillinger Vedag. Patocka, Franz. 1997. Satzgliedstellung In den balrischen Dialekten Osterreichs. Frankfi.ut: Peter Lang.

Synchrony and diachrony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch Rauch, Edward H. 1868. Pennsylvanis1: Deitsh. De Campa in Breefa fum Pit Schwefflebrenner un de Bevry, si Alty. Lancaster PA: Rauch and Cochran. Robbers, Karin. 1997. Non-finite Verbal Complements in Afrikaans: A Comparative Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Rutten, Jean. 1991. Infinitival Complements and Auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Sapp, Christopher. 2006. Verb Order in Subordinate Clauses: From Early New High German to Modern German. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Schmid, Tanja & Vogel, Ralf. 2004. Dialectal variation in German 3--verb dusters: A surfuce-· oriented optimality theoretic account Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 235--274.

Schonenberger, Manuela. 1995. Constituent order in the VP: Verb raising and verb projection raising. In Topics in Swiss German Syt1ta.x, Zv1 Penner (ed), 3·17···41 1. Bern: Peter Lang. Vella Deitsh. 1997. Velia Laysa: Biwwel Shtoahrisja Kinnah (Let's Read: Bible Stories for Children). Sugarcreek OH: Schlabach Printers. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In The Biackweil Companion to Syntax, VoL 5, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 229-343. Oxford: BlackwelL Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1996. Verb dusters in continental West Germanic dialects. In Mlcroparametric Syntax and Dialect Variatlotl [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 139], James Black & Virginia Motapanyane (eds), 229-258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

185

Looking for order in chaos Standard convergence and divergence in Mennonite Low German* Goz Kaufmann Freiburg, Germany

In this paper I analyze the ongoing converging and diverging processes between Mennonite Low German (MLG) and Standard German in six Mennonite colonies in the Americas. 'Ihe statistically detectable differences in the informants' behavior with regard to five linguistic phenomena and the comparison between all colonies and different age -gender--subgroups in three of these colonies offer new and promising insights into the stru Kaufmann 1997: Chapters 6.3.1.1). With regard to use, most questions referred to domains and interlocutors within the ethnic group, especially within the informant's family. If only one language was named for one type of domain or interlocutor, this language received 5 points; if two languages were named without further qualification, 2.5 points were allotted (cf. for more detail'i Kaufmann 1997: 6. 3.1. 3). 14.

Looking for order in chaos exists a big difference between the two colonies which has to do with the fact that the US-American Mennonites belong to the conservative Russian-Canadian and notlike the Brazilian Mennonites - to the more progressive, exclusively Russian group. 1he ancestors of the BrciZilian Mennonites reached America with a more elaborate idea of schooling and higher cultural aspirations. Mennonite schooling in Brazil is, there-fore, still of a much higher standard and lasts longer than in the USA. The fact that this high quality of schooling in Brazil has not led to better results in Standard German has to do with the aftermath of ousting Standard German from all schools in Brazil during the time of the F..stado Novo (1.937---1.945). 15 Only in the 1970s did German re-enter Brazilian schools and it has never gained the importance it used to have. The linguistic consequence of the banning of Standard German from Mennonite schools in BrciZil can be clearly seen when one compares these Mennonites with their brethren in Fernheim. There, German was not banned during World War II (cf. Warkentin 2007: 44-45), and consequently Standard German plays a much more important role (cf. Kaufmann 2004). As for the five linbruistic phenomena, it was neither possible nor necessary to consider the factor church in Mexico and the USA. 16 Otherwise, a similar procedure was applied, i.e. the tokens of five informants for each age-gender-subgroup and each clause were selected; in Bolivia, again, all tokens available were selected. Because of the fact that random sampling was carried out for each clause separately, the tokens selected were not from the same speakers for all clauses (different from Table l where all data came from the same informants), i.e. we are analyzing tokens rather than informants. As we are comparing six colonies in Table 2 and not just the ones in Brazil and Paraguay, the number of eligible clauses for each phenomenon had to be reduced. For TWo VERBS seven clauses could be compared (ideally 210 tokens per colony [6 age-gender-subgroups/5 informants!? clauses]), for RELATIVE markers six clauses (ideally 180 tokens), for the definite masculine ARTICLE five clauses (150 tokens) and for THREE VERBS and Do--suPPORT four clauses (120 tokens).

Portuguese was declared the sole language of instruction in 1937; teachers who were not able to teach in this language lost their jobs. In 1942, eventually, the use of German in the public sphere was also forbidden (cf. Doll2002: 22-23).

15.

'Ihis distinction is no longer necessary because only two of the five phenomena (Doand TWO VF.RBS) show anything close to a s-ubstantial amount of variation in Mexico and the USA. It is not possible because due to the low level of proficiency in the majority language many of the most conservative Mennonites in these two countries (especially older and middle-aged women in Mexico) were not able to do the (complete) translation of the stimulus sentences.

16.

SUPPORT

203

204

GOz Kaufmann Table 2. Results for five linguistic phenomena in six Mennonite colonies USA

Mexico

Bolivia

Brazil

Menno

TWO VERBS (n)

208

210

53

210

159

163

Standard(%)

25.5

THJU!J! VERBS (n)

116

110

22

101

82

80

3.

0

RELATIVE (n)

180

180

46

2.2

2.2

Do-suPPORT (n)

120

120

30

Standard(%)

61.7

ARTICLE(n)

148

134

39

138

11.5

3

5.1

5.1

0

0

10.3

26.8

dem (%)

511 p = 0***

180

170

180

117

114

117

936 p = 0***

618 p = 0***

Standard den(%) de/daut(%)

1003 p = 0***

Standard(%) Standard(%)

Fernheim Chi-Square

127

128

714

67.7

52.3

p = 0***

4.7

6.3

27.6

41.4

Table 2 shows us that not only the role of the contact languages in these six colonies is far from identical, but also that the variety of MLG spoken differs greatly. All five phenomena analyzed show extremely significant differences. Four of the five phenomena behave in a similar way; the only exception being ARTICLE. Femheim leads in the use of the standard variant(s) in three of the four phenomena (the exception being THREE VERBS where it comes second). On three counts Menno comes in second and once in first place. The Mennonites in the United States are on three counts furthest away from the standard variant(s) (the exception being RELATIVE markers where Bolivia and Mexico show marginally lower percentages). Brazil is in third place three times and once in fifth (Do-sUPPORT), while Mexico comes fifth twice, once fourth and once last Bolivia comes in fourth place twice, once third and once last. If one compares these results with the indices for competence in and use of Standard German in Table 1 one will undoubtedly see linguistic convergence at work. For both competence in and use of Standard German, Fernheim comes first, Menno second, Brazil third, and Mexico fourth . Only Bolivia and the USA change places at the bottom end of these indices. The coincidence with the sequences of the four linguistic phenomena is almost perfect. Also with regard to the fact that Menno shares its conservative Russian-Canadian origin with the colonies in the USA, Mexico, and Bolivia and Fernheim shares its more progressive, exclusively Russian origin with Brazil, these results show an influence of Standard German on MLG. The Brazilian colony lost its Standard German roofing during the time of the Estado Novo and, consequently, its

Looking for order in chaos

dialect variety has lost many Standard German characteristics. Menno, on the other side, gained Standard German roofing via the intluence from Fernheim, and its dialect variety shows strong Standard German traits. The exception to this otherwise clear-cut picture is ARTICLE (cf. also Kaufmann 2004: 292---296). Here, surprisingly, it is the most Standard-German--like colonies in Paraguay which show the highest frequency of non-standard dem. This does not mean, however, that the colonies in Mexico, the USA, and Bolivia are converging to Standard German with regard to this phenomenon. On the one hand, we can see that there is some deviation from den in the USA. The difference to the situation in Paraguay is that this deviation does not lead to dem, but to daut and especially to de. In the USA seems to exist more of a "gender" than of a "case problem'' (but cf for a more detailed analysis Kaufmann2008: 93---96). On the other hand, if we take a closer look at indirect objects, we would get a completely different picture. In this case, the Paraguayan colonies are closer to Standard German. 1his has to do with the tact that the colonies in Mexico and the USA have generalized den as the masculine object article. In Paraguay, therefore, we are either seeing a generalization of dem or a transition period on the way to a more standard-like distribution of den and dem. Dem would then be a more or less recent innovation leading to insecurities in its correct application. Another interesting point is that with regard to the other four linguistic phenomena we may claim that the fact that Menno is more standard-like than its sister colonies in the USA, Mexico, and Bolivia is the consequence of Standard German int1uence. With regard to the mascu-line definite ARTICLE, however, one is tempted to say that it is not so much Standard German, which has influenced the dialect variety in Menno, but the MLG variety spoken in Fernheim. After all, by using dem the Mennonites in Menno are diverging from Standard German and converging to Fernheim MLG (cf. for a comparable triple-con-stellation the situation in Lake Constance Alemannic in Auer & Hinskens [1996: 14]). Granted, one could also think that dem was introduced into Menno MLG via Standard German and that the informants in Menno also show a kind of hypercorrection. A counter-argument to this hypothesis can, however, be found in Bolivia. The ancestors of the Bolivian informants left Menno precisely at the time when the Mennonites in Menno decided to improve schooling (cf. Footnote 3). This means that the Bolivian Mennonites did not have any contact with more modern ways of learning Standard German, but they had had more than twenty years of contact with Fernheim. And this still shows in their low, but nevertheless existing use of dem (as opposed to the Mennonites in the USA and Mexico). Interestingly, loosing Standard German as the Brazilian Mennonites did seems to be equivalent to loosing dem. A possible reason for this might be due to the fact that den marks the more frequent case accusative or that n is by far the most frequent, thus unmarked nasal in German varieties (cf. for Standard German Kohler 1995: 222).

205

206

Goz Kaufmann Some more comments need to be made in order to understand the nature of variation with regard to the five linguistic phenomena. The highest degree of variation between the colonies is found with regard to TWO VERBS (70.2% between the highest and the lowest value f{)r the standard variant), the lowest with regard to DO-SUPPORT (30.6%) and REI..ATIVE markers (26.1 %). But whereas DO·· SUPPORT or rather the lack of it shows little variation at a high level, RELATIVE markers show little variation at a low level; relative pronouns are virtually nonexistent in the USA, Mexico, and Bolivia. The same is true for the standard variants with regard to THREE VERBS. Likewise in Mexico and the USA, the use of dem is nonexistent. One may, therefore, conclude that relative pronouns, only partially raised variants with regard to THREE VERBS and dem in direct objects are not native to MLG. Where they occur, they were probably borrowed from Standard German. For DO··SUPPORT and Two VERBS, on the other hand, one may conclude that all variants already existed in MLG before contact with Standard German. In this case, the variant(s) coinciding with tl1e Standard German variant(s) may just have increased its/their prestige after contact (cf. Mattheier 1996: 34). As tor complexity and markedness, a look at the Paraguayan colonies is enlightening. The informants in these cdonies almost succeeded in suppressing the non-standard variants with regard to TWO VERBS and DO-SUPPORT (less than 10%), but they use the standard variants in THREE VERBS less than half of the time and RELATIVE pronouns in less than 30% of the cases. 'Ihis hierarchy fits the expected scale of comple.xity involved in each of these phenomena. While there are only three extant variants with regard to TWO VERBS and just one of them is allowed in Standard German, there are sil!: possible variants with regard to THREE VERBS and Standard German allows some variation in this respect, i.e. two of the six variants are considered standard; a fact, which besides the higher number of verbal elements, may complicate the identification of the stan·· dard variants. The lower occurrence of standard variants with three verbal elements is tl1en the consequence of a higher complexity. The introduction of relative pronouns into a variety featuring a single relative particle seems to be even more complex (if not tor listeners, certainly for speakers), because the form of the relative pronoun depends both on elements in the same clause (case) and on an element in the matrix clause (gender, number). In comparison, the suppression of dun(e) does not create any processing problem, because firstly, an element is dropped and not added, and secondly, in spite of the fact that this suppression causes head-movement of the main verb, this movement is nothing new for MLG speakers. The values for the standard ARTICLE form den lie in the middle of this hierarchy. This intennediate position can be explained by two opposing factors: on the one hand, the use of dem instead of den does not change anything with regard to the syntactic processing complexity, because itis a kind of par·· adigmatic morphological exchange with no syntagmatic consequences; on the other hand, with regard to dem and den the speaker has to be aware of the correct context in which to use either form, because both fonns exist in Standard German.


6.

Specific analyses of the three colonies in Brazil and Paraguay

Many of the Mennonite informants in Paraguay have spent part of their life outside of the colonies investigated, mostly in Canada, Germany, or the Paraguayan capital Asuncit'in. 'lhe average percentage of the informants' life-time spent outside the colony is 14.3% for the informants in Menno and 13.9% for the informants in Fernheim. The reasons for this temporary emigration are in the case of Canada the frequent economical crises in Paraguay and the fact that many Mennonites especially in Menno still possess a Canadian passport In the case of Germany and Asuncion the reasons are studying and ,.vorking in Mennonite-related businesses, respectively. A look at the results of these partly non-local informants shows that their more complex biographies have had an influence on their linguistic behavior. With regard to the general sum of all five phenomena (cf_ for this sum the explanations in Section 6.1), the infor-mants from Menno who have spent more than 10% of their life in Canada rank on places 3, 12, 24, 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40, i.e. five of the eight most non-standard informants (among them the three most reluctant users of standard variants) belong to the "Canadian" subgroup. 17 In Fernheim the result is similar: the ranks of the seven "Canadian" Mennonites among the 37 informants are 5, 7, 24, 25, 30, 36, 37, i.e. three of the seven most non- standard informants (among them the two most reluctant users of standard variants) belong to this subgroup. In Menno the ranks of the "German:' and "Asunci6n"-Mennonites are 6, 8, 10, 12, 21, 30, 32; in Fernheim l, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 31, 34. Although this distribution is less one-sided than the one of the "Canadiali'' group, these informants were likewise not considered because they definitely had much more contact with Standard German than the other informants (but cf. the results in Table 6). As the Brazilian informants for which we have the necessary information (cf. Footnote 13) have spent on average only 5.8% of their life outside the colony, i.e. much less than the Paraguayan informants, and as there is no clear pattern for the place of stay outside the colony, all Brazilian informants were included in the f{)llowing analyses. 6.1

Menno, Paraguay

Since the role of Standard German in the colonies in Menno and Brazil started changing roughly sixty years ago, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the consequences of these changes should still be visible in the MLG varieties spoken there today. Table 3 shows the results for the six age-gender-subgroups in Menno. As we compare subgroups of the same colony in the follovnng analyses, we will include the data of all informants

"l\¥o of the 42 informants in Menno had less than fifteen tokens for the five phenomena and were, therefore, excluded from this analysis.

17.

207

208 GOz Kaufmann Table 3. Language constellation and results for five linguistic phenomena and their sum for six age-gender-subgroups oflong term residents in Menno (inform.= informants; Stand. = Standard) young men

young women

middle men

middle women

older men

older One-Way women ANOVA

4

4

4

23

13,3

13,8

12,3

ns

12.5 10.5 7.5

13.5 10.2 8.2

13.5 9.8 9.1

ns ns ns

22.1 3.3 4.6

25.8 2.7

24.6 1.9 2.7

ns ns ns

INFORMANTS n-informants

4

4

3

SCHOOL in years

12,3

11,8

12,7

COMPETENCE Low German Stand German Spanish

12.1 11.5 7.8

13 11.6 8.5

13 9.9 7.6

USE Low German Stand German Spanish

21.6 6.6 1.8

23.5 4.8 1.7

21.9 5.3 2.8

LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA TWO VERBS (n) interval scale THREE VERBS (n) interval scale RELATIVE (n) interval scale Do-suPPORT (n) interval scale ARTICLE(n) interval scale

31 +0.016

36 +0.021

24 +0.028

34 -0.049

30 +0.068

34 +0.074

189

12

16

9

12

8

12

69

- 0.238

p= 0.034"

+0.034 36

36

24

- 0.148 23

24

16

15

16

10

35

27

- 0.088

+0.069

23

19

19

124

- 0.33

+0.006

p=O"""

14

17

17

35

ns

193

p=O"""

- 0. 361

89

p=O"""

Total n-tokens Standard(%) interval scale

83

121

98

50

55.4

54.6

63.3

61.1

- 0.074

- 0.041

- 0.047

+0.017

p=O"""

Total n-inform. interval scale

4 - O.Q75

Ranking

118

127

4

10

3

13

4

3

- 0.046

+0.02

12

4

17

3

15

14

11

21

5

16

18

20

22

1-

7

19

I

117

4

664

22

p= 0.007""

I

8 9


and not just the ones from the balanced data set in 1ables 1 and 2. Due the exclusion of informants with more complex biographies we, nevertheless, end up with just 23 long term Menno residents. Although this leads to rather low numbers of three to four informants per subgroup, 18 we are contl.dent that the analyses are valid, because if we take the concept of more or less homogeneous social (age--gender-) subgroups seriously, tokens are as characteristic for these subgroups as informants. And tokens, we do have enough. Before we start analyzing, however, we will have to introduce the new indexing method mentioned in Section 1. Simply adding up frequency data for standard and non-standard variants in a non-balanced data set can result in skewed analyses, because not all informants translated every sentence. That such incomplete data constitute a real problem can be easily demonstrated. The probability of using dun(e), for example, depends among other things on the type of the main verb present in the clause. Likewise, the probability of using the standard variant(s) with nvo VERBS and THREE VERBS depends on the finite verb and the type of embedded clause (cf. for two verbal elements Kaufmann 2003b: 184, 'Iable 2 and 187, Table 3). 'Iherefore, the probability for the occurrences of (non- )standard variants depends on the clauses translated and these clauses are not identical for all informants. In order to solve this problem, the mean probability for the occurrence of the standard variant( s) for each clause in each of the colonies in Brazil and Paraguay was calculated. 'Jhis was done with the help of the balanced data sets. 19 For the translation of the clause }u.an no cree que conozcas bien a tus amigos (=John doesn't think that you know your friends well), for example, most informants of the balanced sample in Menno (86%) used the standard variant without dun(e). For the clause No esta aqui porque esta ayudando a tu padre(= He:~ not here, because he is helping your father out), on the other hand, this share dropped to 52%. In order to integrate this difference in our analyses, an informant using the standard variant in the first clause obtains for this clause a positive value of -t-0,14 (1-0,86).

18. Due to the now low number of informants in the Paraguayan colonies, we had to change the cut-off points for age a little bit in order to maintain an even distribution. The young Mennonites in the two Paraguayan colonies are between 17 and 20 years old (Brazil: 14 and 25), tl1e middle--aged ones between 21 and 33 years (Brazil: 26 and 40), and the older ones between 38 and 64 years (Brazil: 42 and 75).

In the balanced data set all informants had a chance to be selected, i.e. even the ones who have spent some time outside the colony. This might have caused some slight skewi.ng of the results. If we had taken out the partly non-local informants from the balanced set of Table 1 and 2, we would, however, have been left with only 23 informants in Menno and 21 in Fernheim, i.e. the highest possible number for the six age-gender-subgroups would have been 3 or 4 (i.e. a total need of 18 and 24 informants, respectively) instead of 5. The decision, therefore, was between a more solid basis with a certain risk oi skewing or a less solid basis v.ith no risk of skewing.

19.

209

210

Goz Kaufmann This value represents the difference between the observed value ( l for the use of the standard variant) and the expected value (the mean probability of the balanced sample). In the second clause, an informant using the standard variant obtains a higher value of +0,48 (1-0,52), because this informant uses the standard variant in a clause where its usage is less common. For using the non--standard variant with drm(e), the informant receives a negative value of ···0,86 (0-0,86) in the first and of ···0,52 (0-0,52) in the second clause; the first value being more strongly negative because the use of the non-- standard variant is rarer in this clause. This method has two advantages: from an analytical point of view, we can now compare all translations by all informants regardless of the linguistic phenomenon involved and regardless of the precise linguistic context in which a certain variant occurs. The value (between 1 and +1) ·will always correctly mark the token as more or less standard--like. From a statistical point of view, we are no longer dealing with frequency data, but with interval-scaled data and can, therefore, use parametric tests; a much stronger way of detecting significant differences between subgroups. A look at the sociolinguistic background information provides a very homoge-neous pattern f{)r long term residents in Menno; no significant difference exists with regard to length of schooling, use of, and competence in the contact languages. Because of this, differences in the linguistic behavior between the subgroups cannot be connected to differences in the language constellation as in Tables 1 and 2. 'Ihey are rather the result of differences in the socio--psychological dispositions of the informants. We will start our analyses by looking at the five phenomena individually. With regard to young informants, young women show a markedly higher use of Standard German variants in three of the five linguistic phenomena (THREE VERBS, REI.ATIVE, and ARTICLE). \Vith regard to the other two phenomena the results of the two young subgroups are comparable. These striking differences can be interpreted in three different ways: firstly, one could simply argue that young men exaggerate their competence in and use of Standard German (cf. Auer & Hinskens 1.996: 22). In this case one could connect the low frequem:y of standard variants with young men's interior Standard German competence and use values. However, our observations in Menno support such a conclusion only partly. Although it is not clear whether young men really speak Standard German as well and as often as young women, there is no doubt that they do not speak it worse or less often than older Mennonites. Secondly, one might consider the possibility that young men are generally fluent in Standard German and use it quite frequently, but that their standard variety is more MLG-like, i.e. has more MLG borrowings than the standard variety of young women. If this were correct, young men would not be able to borrow many standard variants into MLG (cf. tor a possible mixture of downgrade convergence and upward convergence the situation in Switzerland in Auer and Hinskens [1996: 12]). Since we did not collect Standard German data, we cannot analyze this hypotl1esis empirically. Besides these two points, a

Looking for order in chaos third possible explanation comes to mind, namely different sociolinguistic dispositions towards accepting Standard German variants in MLG. From this point of view, the results would coincide with Labov's (2001: 274) claim: "In linguistic change fmm abfwe, women adopt prestige forms at rt higher mte them men~ That the contact with prestigious Standard German is a change from above is clear. Interestingly, the two phenomena which show a significant difference as for gender (collapsing the three age groups) were considered linguistically complex: RELATIVE (p = 0***/Value F 13.2/total df 192; women use more standard variants) and ARTICLE (p = 0.001~·"/Value F 1.2.8/ total df 88; women use more standard variants). 20 The high complexity means that a conscious effort is required to converge to these standard variants, a linguistic effort we would rather e.xpect from women than from men. Lefs look further into the linguistic behavior of men. In four of the five phenomena analyzed, we see a steady reduction ofthe Standard German variant(s) from older men to younger men (TWo VERBS (non-significant for the sb:: subgroups), THREE VERBS, RELATIVE, and ARTICLE). For these four phenomena, then, we are again faced with the same seemingly contradictory result: young men do not show a lower competence in and use of Standard German but refrain from using the prestigious Standard German variants in MLG. This looks much like Labov's (2001: 297) "retreat of lower wvrking class males fmm a female-dominated change:' Granted, the young Mennonite men hardly belong to the working class, but in relation to the traditional roles of men and women, they share many characteristics of this class (ct~ Kaufmann 2004: 290···291). However, one phenomenon defies this interpretation. Contrary to the other phenomena, young men lead the usage of the standard variant with regard to Do-suPPORT and there is a steady rise in the use of this standard variant between older men and younger men. As the retreat from a female···dominated change must be a conscious process and as the insertion or non-insertion of dun(e) is a rather superficial, at least partly lexical process, one would expect that young men insert the non-standard auxiliary dun(e) more often. The answer to this riddle may lie in the subgroup of older men. 'Ihey show a marked "rejection" ofthe standard variant in this case, although tl1ey are the most frequent users of tl1e standard variant(s) with regard to complex THREE VERBS. Excluding older men from the analysis, the difference between the oilier five age--gender--subgroups is no longer significant. The result for DO··SUPPORT, then, has to be explained with regard to older men and not with regard to younger men. The older men investigated were born between 1946 and 1959, i.e. tlley belong to the first generation which enjoyed better schooling in Menno, and perhaps no-suPPORT

20. Do-suPPORT shows a statistical tendency, aL'io with women using more standard variants (p o.osi•ltvalue P 3.1/total df (123); TWO VERBS and THREE. VERBS do not show any difference.

1.11

212

GOz Kaufmann

was not a major focus in school in these early years or they, too, retreated from a prestigious standard variant. That this is not just an ad-hoc hypothesis can be proven by the fact that older men in Fernheim also show the significantly highest use of nonstandard dun(e) (cL Table 4), and many teachers from Fernheim taught in M.enno in the 1960s (cf. Warkentin 1.998: 309---31.0). But the attitude towards dun(e) seems to have changed dramatically, because among the three significant differences between the age-groups (c.ollapsing the gender groups), DO-SUPPORT shows the clearest difference (p = o~**/Value F 10.5/total df 123/younger informants use the standard variant most (steady rise); RElATIVE p == O.OOl**iValue F 7/total df 192/older informants use the standard variant most. middle-aged iniormants least; ARTICLE p = 0.044*/Value F 3.3/total df 88/older informants use the standard variant most, middle-aged informants least). Most probably, the steady drop of the insertion of dun(e) has to do with the presence of teachers from Germany mentioned in Section 4. 1hese teachers are sure to have commented on the use of tun/dun(e), which is completely banned from Standard German in Germany. The exceptional behavior of younger and older men still requires some further reflection. Differently from Table 2, we cannot explain this behavior by just evoking different levels of complexity. Older men have no problem whatsoever in identifying and borrowing the standard variants \\ith THREE VERBS, and differently from Fernheim it is not very probable that these men used the standard sequences before contact with Standard German (cf. the extremely low values for Menno's sister colo-nies in the USA, Mexico, and Bolivia in Table 2). So, why should they not be able to identify and borrow the rather simple standard variant with regard to DO-SUPPORT? Looking at the behavior of older women in 'Iable 3, we see that they use the standard variants more frequently than older men in three of the five phenomena. But they do lack behind older men with regard to THREE VERBS. What we would expect is that a Mennonite who is able to borrow the standard variant( s) in a complex linguistic phenomenon should be able to do the same with regard to less complex phenomena; or put differently, those intormants who for different reasons (advanced age, lack of contact, conscious resistance to standard variants) do not apply Standard German variants in one phenomenon should avoid them across the board. This expectation is not borne out, though. The problem then is this: In order to put our analyses on a broader basis, it would be desirable to fuse these five phenomena into one standard/non-standard-dimension gauging the general amount of standard variants for every age-gender-subgroup (and eventually for every informant). But does this kind of fusion make sense if the results for the five phenomena are so different? 21

A Bilateral Pearson~s Correlation corroborates our impression: there is only one significant correlation between the five indices for the informants, and this correlation is even

11.

Looking for order in chaos 213 Convergence, indeed, seems to be a rather heterogeneous mechanism. So should we abandon the idea of summing up the five phenomena (more precisely, all tokens of the five phenomena) into one standard/non-standard-dimension? For many researchers, doing this without reaching a satisfactory level of statistical reliability may constitute a serious breach in scientific confidence. However, if we do add up the indices for all tokens, the results for the age-gender-subgroups and for the individual informants make a lot of sociolinguistic sense. The corrected model of the General Factorial AN OVA for the sum of the tokens of the five phenomena is extremely significant (cf. the line 1i:Jtal n-·tokens;22 p:::: o~·**/ Value F 7.2/df 5). 1he most important independent variable is gender (p == 0.001**/ Value F 12.2/df 1; women more standard-like than men) and after gender follows the interaction of age and gender (p :::: 0.003~·" /Value F 5.7/df 2). Age is a little less signifi·· cant (p = 0.011*/Value F 4.5/df 2; with middle--aged informants least standard--like). Thus, our explanations using gender as an important factor for the linguistic behavior in Menno is confirmed. If we compare informants instead of tokens (cf. the line Total n--infonn.); the corrected model is also highly significant even for this low number of informants (p = 0.007**/Value F 4.8/total df 5).23 Coming back to tokens, the difference between young men (most non-standard subgroup) and young women (most standard subgroup) is impressive confirming the male "retreat [... ]from a femaledominctted change" (Labov 2001: 297). An unsolved enigma is the behavior of middleaged women. All eight younger and older women, but no middle--aged woman, are

negative (DO·· SUPPORT and THREE VERBS: -0.59**; this trdilslates into a co--variation of 34.8%). With regard to this surprising re~;ult, one might say that DO··SUPPORT is more lexical in nature than THREE VERBS and, therefore, older men might use it as a conscious marker of their iden-tity as ~>peakers of "pure" MLG. Be this as it may, it is a striking fact that out of ten possible correlations, there is only one significant result. Pernheim shows exactly the same result: there is just tb.is one negative correlation (Do-suPPORT and THREE VERBS; -0.53*/co-variation of 28.1 %). In Brazil there are two positive, but rather weak correlations (Two VERBS and THREE VERBS; +0.4*/co-variatio.n of 16% and Do-suPPORT and THREE VERBS; +0.39*/co-variation of 15.2%). lhe information about the absolute frequency of standard variants in the block 1btal n-tokens (Standard [%]) is given for a (possibly slightly skewed) comparison of the overall linguistic behavior between the colonies in Brazil and Paraguay. As the newly formed index used in the follo\\oing tables depends on the different average probability for the usage of standard variants in each clause and in each colony, this information cannot be used for a comparison between the colonies (differently from the balanced frequency data in Table 2). 22.

23. With a1142 infor.mants tb.e significance for the sum of tokens is p O*•·* (Value F 6.9/ df 5; gender: p 0.003'.*/Value P 9.1/df 1; age: p 0.004"*/Value F 5.6/df 2; age and gender: p o.ou•·Nalue P 4.5/df 2). For informants the significance for the corrected model is p 0.03" (Value F 2.8 df 5).

214

GOz Kaufmann among the nine most standard informants (cf. the line ranking; the only exception among these nine informants is one older man; the five most frequent users appear in light and broad shading), while two middle-aged women are among the five informants which use standard variants least (dark shading; the other three informants are men; the two most non--standard informants are young men). One reason tor this might be the tact that the whole subgroup of middle-aged women has the highest share among the "Canadian" Mennonites (42.9o/; young women have a share of 25%; older women of 20%) and it is also the only subgroup with not a single informant among the "German" or ':Asunci6n"--Mennonites (both young and older women have one informant each in these subgroups). In view of the high probability that the contact between middle-aged women is more intense than between them and the members of other subgroups, one could cogitate that the middle--aged female Mennonites who have spent their whole life in Menno are nevertheless under a stronger influence from Canadian types of linguistic behavior than the other subgroups, this influence not being counter-balanced by a more German-like behavior.

6.2

Fernheim, Paraguay

Table 4 (next page) lists the sLx age-gender-subgroups for the 21 long term residents in Fernheim. Similar to the situation in Menno, the language data show a very homogeneous pattem. Only the length of schooling shows a significant difference; middle-aged and older men have the lowest figures. 'Ihe linguistic data, however, is again highly dependent on the age and gender of the informants. The General Factorial AN OVA for the individual indices of the 21long term residents (cf. Total n-irifotm.) shows a highly significant difference (p = 0.004~*/Value F 5.8/df 5). The results for the corrected model for tokens is also extremely significant (cf. Total n--toke::-ns: p = 0***/Value F 10/df 5). Like in .Menno, gender is the most important independent variable (p = O***/Value F 27.8/df 1; women use more standard variants than men) followed by age and gender. This interaction is highly significant (p = 0.002**/Value F 6.1/df 2). Age again is a less significant variable (p = 0.018*/Value F 4.1/df2; again with middle-aged informants using the least amount of standard variants). 24 Looking at the results in more detail, one can see that women show a steady decrease in the use of standard variants, and this fact clearly isolates older women as the most standard informants from all other subgroups. They occupy the first three ranks of all informants. TI1e highly significant interaction between age and gender is due to the contrary result for men. Older and middle-aged men do not use many standard variants, while the younger men approach the standard variants more.

24. With all 37 informants the significance for the sum of tokens is p = O***(Value F 6/ df 5; gender:p = O***Nalue F 18.7/df 1; age:p = O.Oll*Nalue F 4.5/df2; age and gender: ns). For informants there is no significant difference.

Looking for order in chaos 215 Table4. Language constellation and results for five linguistic phenomena and their sum for six age-gender-subgroups oflong term residents in Fernheim (Inform.= Informants; Stand. = Standard) young men

young women

middle men

middle women

older men

older women

One-Way AN OVA

3

4

21


4

3

3

4

SCHOOL in years

11.3

0.047*

11.3

COMPETENCE Low German Stand German Spanish

12.8 12.3 6

11.2 12 7.3

13.3 11.7 5.3

14 11.4 6.5

13.3 10 8.3

13.5 12.4 8.3

ns ns ns

20.6 7.5 1.3

22.3 6 1.7

21.6 5.9 2.2

ns ns ns

26

36

192

USE Low German Stand German Spanish

17.3 ll 1.7

9.4 17.8 1.9

24.7 2.2 3.1

LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA TWO VERBS (n) interval scale THREE VERBS (n) interval scale

40

26

28

36

p = 0.005**

- 0.083 17

8

6

-0.05

- 0.284

- 0.425

RELATIVE (n) interval scale

36

27

26

Do-suPPORT (n) interval scale

24

ARTICLE(n) interval scale

15

- 0. 197 18

ll

7

15

36

24

34

183

p = 0***

- 0. 16

64

p = 0.02*

24

15

22

119

p = 0.003** 12

12

17

ll

17

Total n-to.kens Standard(%) interval scale

91

88

59.9 -0.024

61.5 -0.003

48.9 - 0.144


4

3

-0.024

132

3

124

83

124

8 15

642 62

p = 0*** 4

3

4

21

p = 0.004**

- 0.147

Ranking

84

p = 0***

- 0.434

4 7 ll 14

13

18 21

3 12

216

Goz Kaufmann

'lhe most interesting result, however, is the difference between the informants' behavior in Femheim and Menno. Although in both colonies women use standard variants more frequently than men 25 and although at least in absolute numbers women in Femheim still use more standard variants than women in Menno (68.4o/ vs. 65.5%; non--significant), the direction of the linguistic behavior in apparent time is completely different While younger women in Menno exhibit a much higher usage of standard variants than older women (middle-aged women do not fit in this respect), women in Femheim show a steady decrease in the use of standard variants. This leads to a statistical tendency for the difference between young women in the two colonies (in Femheim 61.5%, in Menno 73.2% of standard variants; p = 0.067/Value 3.3/ df 1; middle-aged women: non-significant; older women p = 0.084< )fValue 3/df 1 with Fernheim women using more standard Vdl'iants ). And while men in Menno show an ever more marked rejection of standard variants, young men in Fernheim approach these variants. The reason for this might be precisely the fact that the use of standard variants is not characteristic of young women in Femheim and, therefore, does not need to be rejected wholesale by young male informants.1he result of this partly more standard-like linguistic. behavior (THREE VERBS, RELATIVE), however, showes again a marked difference between young men and young women. Another reason for the absence of standard variants among the middle-aged and older male informants in Fernheim may be their relative lack of f()rmal instruction. In any way, the explanation for the marked difference between Menno and Femheim is probably the different length of contact with Standard German. The introduction of Standard German as something more than a hagiolect is a rather recent innovation in Menno; it dates back to the 1950s. Because of this, our informants still react to the standard variety and its variants. ·women have adopted the new prestige variants eagerly, while men have diverged from Standard German features. For the Fernheim informants, on the other side, Standard German has always been a matter of source; therefore, no recent change from above has taken place. Therefore, women in Femheim seem to be innovating away trom Standard German, and this looks rather like a change trom below. Labov (2001: 280) characterizes this kind of change as gender-dependent: "[w)omen have

been found to be in advance of men in most of the linguistic changes in progress studied by quantitative means in the past severa.l decades." It fits into this picture that the two most non-standard phenomena for young women are complex ones, namely THREE VERBS and RELATIVE. Convergence to these standard variants would require a lot of attention, and it seems that women only pay that much attention in a change from above. Interestingly, older men in Femheim behave in an opposite fashion; they are

25. For tokens, women in Fernheim have a value of +0.064 and men of -0.078 (One--Way ANOVA:p = O***Nalue F 26.6/total df641). In Menno the results are +0.065 for women and -0.035 for men (p = O*** Nalue F 12.8/total df 663).

Looking for order in chaos 217 exclusively standard-bound for these two phenomena. Summarizing these differences, one can say that there is a strong influence of Standard German on MLG in Menno, whereas the informants in Femheim seem to keep Standard German and MLG more apart. This means that the existence of a roofing standard variety, even one with many important functions, does not automatically cause standard convergence in the roofed non-standard variety.

6.3

Coltmia Nova, Brazil

The last colony this study focuses on is the Brazilian colony of Colonia Nova in Rio Grande do Sui. These Mennonites arrived in Brazil at the same time as the Femheim Mennonites and belong to the same emigration group. The major difference between the two groups is the fact that the Brazilian Mennonites lost Standard German roofing during the time of the Estado Novo. Table 5 shows the results for these informants. Table 5. Language constellation and results for five linguistic phenomena and their sum for six age-gender-subgroups in Brazil (inform. = informants; Stand. = Standard)

young men

young women

middle men

middle women

older men

older One-Way women ANOVA

INFORMANTS

n-informants

9

9

9

9

9

11

56

6 11.8

8 15.4

11 11.5

42

SCHOOL

n-informant in years

7 12.6

5 12.4

5 16

ns

COMPETENCE

Low German Stand German

12.2

Portuguese

9.3

p = 0.001** p = 0.004**

4.7 11.5

7.5

p = 0***

USE

n-informant Low German Stand German

25

p = 0.001** ns p = 0***

Portuguese LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA TWO VERBS

(n)

interval scale

84

74

87

79

-0.056

-0. 131

73

100

497

p = 0*** (Continued)

218

GOz Kaufmann Table 5. Language constellation and results for five linguistic phenomena and their sum for six age-gender-subgroups in Brazil (inform.= informants; Stand= Standard) (Continued)

THJU!J! VERBS (n) interval scale

RELATIVE (n) interval scale

Do-suPPORT (n)

young men

young women

middle men

middle women

older men

older women

One-Way ANOVA

12 -0.05

18 - 0.115

27

31

33

39

160 p = 0.067(*)

78 - 0.077

73 -0.05

80

80

79

98

488 p=O***

49

45

51 -0. 102

49 - 0.114

50

65

309 p = 0.014*

36

37

42 - 0.268

33 -0.016

35 -0.003

259 44,8 -0.048

247 41,7 -0.059

287 39 - 0.087

272 37,9 -0.078

270

337

1672 45.9% p=O***

9 -0.047

9 -0.061

9 - 0.083

9

9

11

56 p=O***

12 17 22 30 31 33

19 20 23 25 28 37 48 52 55

14 24 26 39 43 45 47 49 56

2 5 6 8 15 18 21 34

4 7 9

interval scale

ARTICLE(n) interval scale

Total n-tokens Standard(%) interval scale


Ranking

36 38 40 42

35 218 +0.044 p = 0.007**

11

13

16 27 32 35 46

In comparison to the Paraguayan colonies, the results for the contact languages indicate a clear case of a threatened minority language. Competence in and use of MLG is steadily diminishing, while the opposite is true for the majority language Portuguese. Although there is only one young female informant, who could be called a semi-speaker in Dorian's (1977) sense, the differences between older and young informants are, indeed, impressive: young women have Portuguese indices which are for competence 4.8 and for use 5.5 points higher than their MLG indices, whereas

Looking for order in chaos older women have higher MLG indices in both cases; the difference for competence is 6.5 points and for use 22.5 points. The picture with regard to Standard German competence (use of this variety is not significantly different) is different. It follows the disappearance and reappearance of Standard German in school. As a consequence of removing Standard German from school, the middle--aged informants exhibit a dra-· matic drop of competence in comparison with the older informants, but the younger informants, who again had contact with Standard German in school, almost reach the level of the older informants . .ru for the sum of all tokens, the Brazilian result is as significant as the results in the Paraguayan colonies (corrected model: p = 0***/Value F 15.3/df 5; for the informants (ct: tl1e block Total n-iriform.) the corrected modelis p = 0***/Value F 6.7/ df 5). In comparison to the Paraguayan colonies, though, the decisive variable in Brazil is age and not gender. While gender and the interaction of age and gender do not reach a significant level, age is extremely important (for the tokens: p = 0***/Value F 37.7/ df2; the older informants showing by far the highest use of standard variants). Thus, loosing Standard German as the language of instruction in Brazil did not only have an effect on language competence in this variety but also on the linguistic shape of MLG. The first nine most standard-like informants are among the older Mennonites (cf. the line ranking). Although only one of them received schooling in German, it seems that the Standard German traditions were not abruptly given up with the prohibition of German schooling, but rather petered out over the years. 'Ihe tour youngest informants in the older subgroups (all under 50 years) exhibit the biggest distance from the use of standard variants in these subgroups (ranks 32, 34, 35, and 46). With this result, they blend in with the middle--aged and young informants, who do not show any significant difference with regard to age and gender (taking out the older informants). In comparison to the subjective data of competence and also to tl1e situation in Menno, the (re)introduction of German as a school subject and partly as a language of instruction in the 1970s does not seem to have had any measumble effect on the MLG of the young informants. 'Ihis is probably the conse-quence of the fact that in the absence of Standard German Portuguese had practically taken over all formal domains. In spite of this seemingly dear picture, it is necessary to have a closer look at the individual results in Brazil, because the fact that gender is not significant for the sum of all tokens does not mean that this is also true for the individual phenomena. In fact, besides the always extant effect of age, four of the five phenomena do show a gender effect. \Vith regard to DO-SUPPORT and ARTICLE, young women exhibit the most standard---like behavior of all subgroups. These are also the only phenomena where women in general show a tendency towards a higher use of the standard variants than men (Do-suPPORT: p = 0.073(*)/Value F 3.2/total df 308; ARTICLE: p = 0.052(*)/ Value F 3.8/total df217). So it seems that here (young) women do show the reaction

219

220

GOz Kaufmann we expect in a change from above. Interestingly, these are also the only phenomena where there is no significant difference in the behavior of young and older informants, only the middle-aged informants show a significant non-standard deviation. Therefore, one could say that the middle-aged informants' drop in the use of standard variants is due to the disappearance of Standard German, but the reintroduction of this prestige variety did only have an effect on young women with regard to these two, not very complex phenomena. Men show significantly higher indices for TWO VERBS and REI.ATIVE ('Two VERBs: p = 0.03l*iValue F 4.7/total df 496; Rm.ATIVE: p = O*~··; Value F 31.3/total df 487). Only THREE VERBS do not show a gender difference. Once again, there is an interrelationship with age, because differently from DO-SUPPORT and ARTICLE we now have a steady divergence from the standard variant, i.e. younger and older informants show a maximum difference. For TWO VERBS (and for THREE VERBS) we can detect this divergence for women, for RELATIVE for men. For the two verbal phenomena, then, we have a female type of reaction we expect in a change from below; they lead linguistic innovation. If the situation were comparable with the one in Femheim, we should see women approaching the standard variant of TWO VERBS, but whereas young women are the standard-closest subgroup in Femheim, the Brazilian young women are the subgroup furthest away from the standard variant. This difference could mean that even the syntactic sequence of just two verbal elements is less under the speakers' control than the lexical (non- )insertion of dun(e); i.e. these word--order phenomena seem to be cognitively more complex than the lel!.i·· cal insertion rule. Analyzing Two VERBS and THREE VERBS from the point of view of men, one can detect something like a rejection of a female led c.hange because after a significant drop of the use of the standard variants between older men and middle·· aged men, young men stop diverging any further from the standard variants, while young women continue the process of divergence. Two more things must be explained concerning the male linguistic behavior in Brazil: firstly, what does the steady male drop of relative pronouns mean, and secondly, why do young Mennonites refrain from using non-standard dem? With regard to RELATIVE we are faced \'oith a similar constellation as the one for DO-SUPPORT in Menno (cf. Section 6.1). It first looks as if young men were deviant because they show the lowest value, but it is actually older men who are deviant. If we exclude them from the analysis, the result for the other five subgroups is no longer significant. The high use of relative pronouns instead of the relative particle waut among older men is mostly likely connected to their upbringing and their involvement in formal decision taking which at this point was still connected to Standard German. Their rather special position can also be seen in the fact that they constitute the only Brazilian subgroup which does not show a significant difference in the use of standard variants when compared with the same subgroup in Fernheim. At least


with regard to the overall frequency of standard variants, older men seem to be the last linguistic link connecting the two colonies, which were founded by the members of the same emigration group. As for ARTICLE we have already written in the discussion of 'Table 2 that the comparatively high use of the standard variant in the Brazilian colony is probably not the result of a conscious effort but of the fact that with the disappearance of Standard German the more marked dative form dem also started disappearing. Somewhat puzzling is the dramatic non-standard behavior of middleaged men. Here, as in Menno and Fernheim (cf Tables 3 and 4 and Kaut!nann 2004: 294---296), we see that the use of dem is the most marked male characteristic. The reason behind this is unclear.

7·

Conclusion

'Ihe major goal of these concluding remarks is to lvrap up the results provided in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 and to answer some of the questions and hypotheses formulated in Sections 1, 4, and 5. Comparing the absolute percentages of standard variants elicited for all five phenomena, we can see once again the important role Standard German plays in the varieties of MLG spoken in the three colonies. Fernheim exhibits the highest share (61.6%), closely followed by Menno (58.6%), the colony which got under Standard German influence in the 1950s. Between the two Paraguayan colonies and the Brazilian colony. however, there is a large gap. The Brazilian informants, whose parents and grand--parents belonged to the same emigration group as the founders of Fernheim, but who lost Standard German roofing during World War II, only use 45.9% of the standard variants (for the 3 colonies: p = 0***/Value 80.9idf2; cf. also the results in Table 2). In order to make a valid judgment about the processing complexity of the five phenomena, we will have to look once more at the behav-ior of women. Cheshire, Kerswill, and Williams (2005: 143) write that "indeed, the linguistic behaviour of female speakers is sometimes taken as a diagnostic of change in progress [... Theretore, if we apply this proposition to our data, we should be able to distinguish the five linguistic phenomena (cf., once again, the quote of Cheshire, Kerswill & Williams (2005: 13.5) in Footnote 1). If (young) women adopt a Standard German variant fast, this variant appears to be sociolinguistically prominent. If they do not adopt a Standard German variant, one has to analyze why they are not sensitive to this variant. Table 6 shows whether a significant difference or at least a statistical tendency exists between the two genders for the five phenomena in the three colonies (collapsing age groups) and indicates the rank of young women among the six age-gender-subgroups.

r

221

222

Goz Kaufmann Table 6. Gender differences for the five linguistic phenomena in the colonies in Brazil and Paraguay THREE VERBS

RELATIVE

TWO VERBS

Menno young women

ns second

women first

ns ns

women second

women second

Fernheim young women

ns

women

women first

women second

women first

women first

women first

Brazil young women

ARTICLE Do-SUPPORT

The colonies and linguistic phenomena in Table 6 are grouped according to the behavior of young women. We can separate the table into two parts: on the left- hand and lower part we have the five blocks where young women in Fernheim and Brazil (not in Menno) show non-standard results (fifth and sixth places are marked in dark shading). On the right-hand and upper part we find the nine results where young women in the three colonies show above-average standard-like results (first and second places are marked in light shading). Only one result (Two VERBS in Menno) did not show a statistical tendency for the six age-gender-subgroups). The remarkable role of young women is obvious: they rank first in five blocks (33.3%), second in four blocks (26.7%), and fifth and sixth in two blocks each (13.3%). Only in one of the fourteen "significant" results do they rank in an intermediate position (fourth place for RELATIVE in Brazil). Looking for general gender differences in the fifteen blocks (cf. the lines starting with the name of the colony), we have four non-significant results and two results where men use standard variants more often than women (dark shading). Interestingly, four of these six "exceptions" are found in the left-hand and bottom part (80% of these 5 results), while in the larger section there are only two exceptional non-significant results (20% of these 10 results) . Thus in this part, the behavior of young women is confirmed by the female behavior in general (light shading). The most homogenous results can be found for ARTICLE and Do-suPPORT. In all six blocks women are closer to the standard and young women rank either first or second. Since there is no real Standard German roofing in Brazil and as the roofing in Fernheim has always been a matter of source, we suggested in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 that women in these colonies will not be disposed to invest much energy into convergence towards Standard German variants. Therefore, the fact that women in Fernheim and Brazil are nevertheless closer to the standard than men could be seen as proof that convergence in these two phenomena is cognitively not very costly. With regard to semi-lexical Do-suPPORT this explanation seems fair enough; with regard to the morphological form of the ARTICLE, however, the explanation is less clear. We had analyzed this phenomenon as being of medium complexity (cf. Section 5) and have already pointed


several times to the marked male behavior with regard to it (cf. also Kaufmann 2004: 294-296). Looking on the two columns on the left-hand side the separation is dearly between Menno on the one hand and Fernheim and Brazil on the other hand. We, theret{)re, conclude that these two phenomena exhibit the highest degree of complexity for the speakers, because only the extraordinary effort invested by strongly standard-driven (young) women in Menno succeeds in converging towards the standard variants. This result coincides with our classification of THREE VERBS and REI.ATIVE as complex (morpho)syntactic phenomena (cf. Section 5). The breaking point in Table 6 is TWO VERBS. Here Fernheim women are still standard--oriented, while the Brazilian women have lost Standard German as a pivot. Judging from the results in these two colonies, TWO VERBS seems to be more complex than ARTICLE, because the roofless Brazilian women start innovating in the non-standard direction at this point. On the other hand, we should not forget that the disappearance of dem in Brazil may also have purely structural reasons (cf. Sections 5 and 6.3). "Unfortunately': in Menno neither of the two values for TWO VERBS is significant and, therefore, it seems that this phenomenon is sociolinguistically inconspicuous there. The biggest surprise in this study was the fact that although the sum of the individual phenomena displays an expected outcome in these standard-with-dialect situations, strong correlations between the five phenomena (cf. Section 6.1 and Footnote 21) were not t{)und. Consequently, ongoing convergence and divergence appear to be rather heterogeneous processes which do not seem to be driven only by the linguistic complexity of the phenomena but also by other factors. Table 7 constitutes one more attempt to solve this enigma. In it the reader will find the results of a cluster analysis (with six clusters) in which the values for the five phenomena were analyzed for 76 informants from Menno and Fernheim; the Brazilian situation was judged to different for inclusion. 1he raw index data for each phenomenon were transformed into z-scale-data, which guarantee the comparability of the individual results and exclude possible skewing by the different numbers of tokens per pheno-menon. This transformation was done for each colony separately in order to respect the colony-internal means. If only one of the five phenomena displayed missing or too few data for an informant, the cell was filled with the neutral value 0. This was necessary for nine informants in THREE VERBS. As the cluster analysis calculates the indi-vidual behavior and not the one of age-gender-subgroups, all Paraguayan informants and not just the long term residents (cf. Tables 3 and 4) were included. A first point in relation to Table 7 is whether the linguistic clustering coincides with extra-linguistic factors. Interestingly, the distribution of the informants with regard to the two colonies is not significant, i.e. in spite of the differences between Menno and Fernheim, it seems that comparable types of speakers exist. A.s gender played the most important role in both colonies, it does not come as a surprise that the clustering coincides strongly with this factor. The distribution is highly significant

223

224 GOz Kaufmann

Table 7. Results of a duster analysis for informants from Menno and Fernheim (inform.= informants) Cluster 1

Cluster4

Cluster6

Cluster 3

Cluster 5 Cluster 2


4

9

27

7

20

9

3 4

10 10

4 5

COLONY Menno Fernheim

2 2

4 5

16 11 GENDER

Male

4

6

17

4

5

Female

0

3

10

3

15

8

34.5

31.7

2

2

AGE in years

28.9

26.6

RESIDENCE GROUP 5

Canada Germany

0

1

Asundon

0

0

own colony

3

3

2 4

6 0

3

0

5 10

5

11.3 7.2

11.3 7.4

SCHOOL in years

12.8

12.3

STANDARD GERMAN Competence

Use

8.8 5.5

11.1 5.6

10.9 3.9

10 4.6

LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA THREE VERBs

- 0.74

RELATIVE

- 0.52

Two VERBs

- 2.52

ARTICLE

-0.07

Do-SUPPORT

-0.22

Total n-inform.

-0.1 7

- 0.8 1

(p = 0.004**Nalue 17.4/df 5; higher shares in light shading) and only cluster 3 could be considered gender-neutral. Due to this result the clusters in Table 7 are ordered with regard to gender dominance starting on the left-hand side with an exclusively male cluster. Besides gender, the residence groups show a highly significant distribution


(p = 0.005**/Value 32.7/df 15). If we finally add age (p = 0.015*/Value F 3.1/total df75) and duration of schooling (p "'0.023*/Value F 2.8itotal df 75) as significant distributions - the values for competence in and use of Standard German are not significant-, we can characterize three pairs of cluster. Clusters l and 6 contain predominantly long term residents, are predominantly (or exclusively) male and have a comparable dura-tion of schooling. Their only sociological difference is age. Also the second pair shows just one sociological difference. Clusters 2 and 5 are both predominantly female and they have a comparable average age and schooling. 'Iheir major difference lies in the fact that in duster 5, 40% of the informants have spent part of their life in Germany or Asuncion, while in cluster 2 this share is only 22.2%. Clusters 3 and 4 are the least convincing pair: they both contain predominantly Mennonites who have spent part of their life in Canada (68.8%; the other four dusters just contain 8.3% of "Canadian" informants), which proves the strong intluence of this factor on MLG. However, this is the only comparable feature. Otherwise they are either predominantly male or genderneutral and show strong differences in age and schooling. If we analyze the results for the linguistic phenomena of the six clusters, we realize that there are six extreme values (bigger than+ 1 or smaller than -1 ). 'Ihese values could be regarded as candidates for identity marking. Two clusters, however, do not show a single extreme value, and quite unsurprisingly these two clusters contain most of tlw 76 informants, i.e. 47 or more than 60%. Looking first at duster 6, the biggest duster, the hierarchy for usage of standard variant~ is DO·· SUPPORT> TWO VERBS >RELATIVE> THREE VERBS> ARTICLE. With the exception Of ARTICLE, which might be explained by the high proportion of men in this cluster (it contains 45.9% of all male informants, but only 25.6% of all female informants), this sequence mirrors our complexity hierar-chy perfectly. So, 27 informants, i.e. 35.5% of all Paraguayan Mennonites studied, seem to function according to complexity. For the twenty informants of cluster 5, the results are not as clear-cut as with cluster 6: firstly the distance of 1.1 between the extreme values is slightly smaller than the one in cluster 6 (1.32); secondly there are two outliers (ARTICLE and RELATIVE), the other three results cluster together. The standard--like behavior with regard to ARTICLE could again be explained by the unbalanced gender mixture (cluster 5 contains 38.5% of all female informants, but only 13.5% of all male informants); the only below--average result of the cluster in RELATIVE may be explained with the complex and foreign nature of relative pronouns in MLG. In comparison to the rather homogeneous behavior of these two clusters, the six extreme values which occur in the otlwr clusters can be considered highly marked options. The Canadian clusters 3 and 4 each show one extremely below-average result. Interestingly, the distance to the most standard--like phenomenon in both dusters is rather similar (duster 3 shows a distance of 2.21; duster 4 of 2.45). The more standard-like and rather young duster 4, which shows a statistical tendency for more schooling in comparison to cluster 3 (p == 0.082(*)/Value F 2.5/total df 15), inserts non-standard dun(e) very often. 'Ihis might not be a marked option with regard to the oldest cluster 1, but definitely constitutes

225

226

GOz Kaufmann

a marked option in comparison to the other young and middle-aged clusters 2, 5, and 6, which show above-average values for this phenomenon. Likewise the most extreme of all values, TWO VERBS in cluster 3, seems to be a dear non-standard act of identity; all other clusters show positive ·values for this phenomenon. Whether the difference in schooling is responsible for the choice of one or the other non--standard variant in these two clusters, is unclear. 1he four other extreme valnes will be analyzed in a slightly different manner. If we compare the different clusters with regard to their behavior as for the five phenomena, we see that five of the fifteen possible duster pairings show only one or two significant differences, i.e. the members of the clusters do not show a different behavior with regard to three or four of the phenomena investigated. We will thoroughly analyze two of these cases. In these cases the few differences occur in one of the "homogeneous" cluster pairs mentioned at the beginning of the discussion of Table 7. 'Ihe female clusters 2 and 5 only show one significant difference, namely RELATIVE, but this difference is indeed huge. Interestingly. the more female and less "German"- and ':-\sunci6n"connected cluster 2 shows by far the highest use of relative pronouns, while cluster 5 uses relative pronouns only rarely (p = 0*""*/Value F 239.3/total df28). If we restrict our analysis to women, the absolute difference between the two values rises from 2.69 to 2.76 (p = 0***/Value F 198/total df22), and if we continue restricting the analysis to women in Menno it reaches 3.12 (p == 0**""/Value F 128.8/total df 10; for women in Fernheim the difference is only 2.42/p =0**~/Value F. 92.2/total df ll ). This result could be regarded as a marker of identity by some women in Menno, because the introduction of relative pronouns in MLG is sure to be a very c.onspicuous Standard German influence (cf. the discussion of Table 2), i.e. a perfect means for marking on~·s "stan-dard" identity. Besides this, the informants in these two clusters do not show a second difference as for the five phenomena (this remains true restricting the comparison to women, or women from Menno) stressing the symbolic importance of the use of relative pronouns instead of a relative particle. It also fits our expectations that it is women from Menno, who show a more marked difference, because in comparison to women from Fernheim they react more strongly to Standard German. Unfortunately, we cannot explain the difference in beha\ior by the difference in the cluster characteristics. For female informants from Menno, the distribution of residence groups is not significant. In duster 5 there is just one woman, who has lived in Germany, in cluster 2 there are only Canadian and long term residents. Interestingly, only four of the 23 women in these two clusters have lived in Germany or Asuncion, the two places strongly connected to the use of Standard German, while all six men in these two clusters have had such an experience. As these clusters have by far the highest values for the use of stan-dard variants (cf. the line Total n-inform in Table 7), we may say that men only reach this standard-like level with direct and intensive exposure to Standard German, while women can do so "i-vithout this kind of exposure symbolically marking their "standard" identity by the use of standard variants.


The two male clusters 1 and 6 are statistically different with regard to the complex THREE VERBS and the not complex DO-SUPPORT. The exclusive male cluster 1 is a highly interesting cluster because it shows the most extreme behavior of all clusters. Three of the iive phenomena show an extreme distance to the standardized mean, i.e. half of the six extreme values in Table 7 are concentrated in this duster. As it is also the cluster with the highest average age, we can see the dramatic changes in the linguistic and attitudinal development in Paraguay. These four informants can combine the most standard-like behavior with regard to THREE VERBS with the least standard--like behavior with regard to .ARTICLE and DO- suPPORT. As complexity cannot possibly explain this behavior, we may have to reckon with the possibility that these four older informants evaluate these variants ditierently from Germans in Germany and younger Mennonites in Paraguay. The different behavior of the men in cluster 6, which we have already analyzed, proves this point. This very young subgroup (on average the men are 24 years old) follows our expectations as for complexity. The three rather complex phenomena THREE VERBS, ARTICLE, and RELATIVE show negative results, while the least complex phenomenon DO--SUPPORT shows a strongly positive value. 1would like to conclude this article by repeating the most important result: there are many different paths of convergence and divergence, and it is this fact that has caused the lack of correlations between the five phenomena investigated (cL Section 6.1 and Footnote 21). Interestingly, however, the general tendency tor convergence or divergence can be dearly seen once we sum up the results for the five phenomena. This may be seen as a proof that the informants are aware of the (lack of) prestige of all variants; they just mix them in unforeseeable ways. A perhaps rather common-place rule for convergence and divergence in contact situations of the kind studied here might, therefore, look like this: Convergence to prestigious variants is easier when cognitively simple linguistic stmctures are involved. One can converge, however, even to complex linguistic stmctures provided the wish or the necessity to do so is strong enough ( cf. young women in Menno with regard to THREE VERBS and RELATIVE), and one can resist to ':onverge even to simple linguistic structures if one has the wish and the liberty to do so (cf. men in Menno and Fernheim with regard to ARTICLE) or if one does not succeed in identifying the prestigious variants any more (cf. young women in Brazil with regard to Two VERBs).

A corollary to this rule is that the general structural context of a phenomenon can interfere with its complexity and its sociolinguistic meaning in complicated ways. We have seen this tor ARTICLE in Brazil (cf. Sections 5 and 6.3), where the disappearance of the non-- standard variant might just be a structural consequence of the lack of Standard German input completely unrelated to any conscious decision of the speakers; and we can see this for the relationship between TWO VERBS and THREE VERBS (cf. Section 4). For these two phenomena Kaufmann (2007: 185---193 and 198---204)

227

228

GOz Kaufmann

could show that multiple verb raising with three verbs leads to verb raising with two verbs and under certain conditions even to verb raising with just one verb. Leads seems to be more adequate for this structural relationship than implies, because due to different levels of complexity these processes rarely exhibit complete synchrony. This means that using non--standard verb raising with just one verbal element is a late and rare innovation in a non-standard variety without contact to its standard variety, while not using multiple verb raising with three verbal elements is a late innovation in standard convergence. Finally. I would like to quote some rese-archers who apparently have had similar experiences with the heterogeneous and somehow "chaotic" converging behavior in contact situations: Although it L-. clear from our Belize and St. Lucian examples that language changes are taking place, it is also clear that not all change is in the same direction, towards the same target[ ... ]. (LePage & Tabouret Keller 1985: 199) Fiir gewisse Phasen der Entwicklung ist es dabei nur schwer moglich, Regelhaftigkeiten zu erk.ennen, die die Obernahme bestimmter Varianten steuern und die Obernahme anderer Varianten verhindern. (Mattheier 1996: 41)

References Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans & Kerswill, Paul (eds). 2005. Dialect Change: Convergence attd Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: CUP. Auer, Peter & Hinskens, Frans. 1996. 'Ihe convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area In Sociolinguistica 10: International Yearbook of Buropean Sociolinguistics, UlriCh Ammon, Klau.~ ). Mattb.eier & Peter H. Nelde (ed~), 1-30. 'ltibingen: Max Niemeyer. Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kersv.111 & w1lliams, Ann. 2005. Phonology, grammar, and di.~course in dialect convergence. In Dialect Change: Convergence and Dh•ergence in Buropean Languages, Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill, 135-167. Cambridge: CUP. Doll, johannes. 2002. Geschichtstexte versteh.en in einer anderen Sprache: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Leseleistung von Schillern aus deutsch-brasllianischen Begegnungsschulen und deutschen Gymnasie.n. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Dorian, Nancy. 1977. The problem of the semi-speaker in language death. The International Journal of the SociologyofLangr..tage 191(12): 23-32. Evers, Arnold 1975. 'Ihe Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. dissertation, Unlversi1y of Utrecht. FleisCher, Jiirg. 2004. A typology of relative dau.~es in German dialects. In Dialectology meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Lingusitic Perspective, Bernd Kortmann (ed), 211-243. Berlin: de Gruyter. Haegeman., Liliane &van Ri.emsdi_ik, He.rik. 1986. Verb projection raisl..ng, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguisticlnquiry 17(3): 417--466.

Looking for order in chaos Kaufmann, Goz. 1997. Varietiitendynamik in sprachkontaktsituationen: Attitiiden rmd Sprachverhaiten ruftlanddeutscher Afennoniter1 in Mexiko rmd den USA Frankfu1t: Peter Lang. Kaufmann, Goz. 2003a. Des Plattdeutschen Wanderjahre oder die lexikallschen Folgen der mennonitlschen Flucht nach Amerika. In ~'>tandardfragen': Soziolinguistische, kontaktlinguistische und sprachgesd:ichtliche Aspekte, Jannis Androutsopoulos & Evelyn Zi.egler (eds), 139-160. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kaufmann, G07. 2003b. The verb cluster in Mennonite Low German. In German Language Varieties Worldwide: Internal and External Perspectives, Klaus J. Mattheier & William Keel, 177--198. Frarikfurt: Peter Lang. Kautinann, Goz 2004. Eine Gruppe Zwei Geschichten Drei Sprachen: RuBlanddeutsche Mennoniten in Brasilien und Paraguay. Zeitschrift fur Diaiektologie und Linguistik LXXI/3: 257--306. Kaufmann, Goz. 2005. Der eigensinnige Informant: Argernis bei der Datenerhebung oder Chance zum analytischen Mehrwert? In Corpuslinguistik it1 Lexik und Grammatik, Friedrich Lenz & Stefan Schierholz (eds), 61---95. Ttibingen: Stauffenberg. Kautinann, Goz. 2007. The verb cluster in Mennonite Low German: A new approach to an old topic. Linguistisdte Berichte 210: 147--207. Kautinann, Goz 2008. \'\There syntax meets mo11,hology: Varianten des bestimmten Artikels und die Variation satzfinaler Verbcluster im Plattdeutschen texanischer Mennoniten. In Dialektale Morphologie, dialektale Syntax: Beitriige zum 2. Kongress der Intemationalen Gesellschaft fiir Dialektologie des Deutschen, Wien, 20.---23. September 2006, Franz Patocka & Guido Seiler (eds), 87--119. Wien: Prasens. Kaufmann, Goz. 2010. Non-convergence despite language contact In Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variatiotl: Theory and Methods, Peter Auer & Jiirgen Erich Schmidt (eds), 478---493. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Klassen, Peter P. 2001. Die Mem1ot1iten in Paraguay, Band 1: Reich Gottes und RJ?ich dieser Welt. Bolanden-Weiherhof: Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein e. V. Kohler, Klaus J. I 995. Binfiihrung in die Ph011etik des Deutschen. Bedin: Erich Schmidt. Koopman, Hilda & Szabolcsi, Anna 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Labov, William. 200 l. Principles ofLinguistic Change: Social .Factors. Oxford: BlackwelL Langer, Nils. 2000. 7...ur Verbreitung der Tu.n-Periphrase im Friihneuhochdeutschen. Zeitschrift for Dialektologie und Linguistik LXVH/3: 287-316. Le Page, Robert B. & Tabou.ret-Keller, Andree. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based 1\pproad1es to Lang-uage and Bthnicity. Cambridge: CUP. Lexikon der Mennoniten in Paraguay. 2009. Verein ftir Geschi.chte und Ku.ltur der i•.,.fennoniten in Paraguay (ed.). Asu.nci6n. Lotscher, Andreas. 1978. Zur Verbstellung im :zurichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift fiir Dialektologie und Linguistik XLV(I): 1-29. Louden, Ma.rk L. 1992. German as an object-verb language: A unification of generative and typological approaChes. In On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods, Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr & Robert L. Kyes (eds), 217-231. Bedin: Walter de Gru.yter. Mattheier, Klaus J. 1996. Varietatenkonvergenz: Oberlegungen zu. einem Baustein einer 'Iheori.e der Sprachvariation. In Sociolhlguistic.a 10: Internati011al Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics, Ulrich Ammon, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter H. Nelde (eds), 31-52. Tlibingen: Max Niemeyer. Milroy, James. 1992. Social network and prestige arguments in sociolinguistics. In Sociolinguistics Today: International Penpectives, Kingsley Bolton & Helen Kwok (eds), 14.6--162. London: Rou.tledge.

229

230

GOz Kaufmann Sawatzky, Harry Leonhard. 1986. Sie suchten eine Heimat: Deutsch-MennoniNsche Kolonisierung in Mexiko 1922-1984. Marburg: N.G. Elwert. Schmid, Tanja. 2000. Die Ersatzinfinttivkonstruktion im Deutschen. LinguisNsche Berichte 183: 325-351.

'Ihiessen, Jack 2003. Mennonite Low Germa,1 Dictlo,lary/Mennoniti.~ch-Plattdeutsches lt\l()rterbuch. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 'Ihomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, 'Ierrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creoll.1.atlon, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 199·1. IPP and the Structure of Participles: Groninger Arbelten zur germanistiscr.en Linguistik. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Warkentin, Jakob. 1998. Die Deutschsprachiger~ Siedlerschulen in Paraguay im spanr~ungsjcld staatlicher Kultur- und Emwicklungspolitik. Miinster: Waxmann. Warkentin, Jakob. 2007. Erzieimng und Blldung im Raum der Schule, Verein fur Geschichte und Kultur der Mennoniten in Paraguay (ed). Asunci6n. Woolliiser, Curt 2005. Political borders and dialect divergence/convergence in Europe. In Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill (eds), 236-262. Cambridge: CUP.

SECTION

4

Syntax II - The syntax of Cimbrian German

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic islands in Northern Italy- and what they (do not) betray about language universals and change under areal contact with Italo-Romance* Werner Abraham Universitiit \Vien

This article is on Cimbrian German, an old enclave dialect in Upper Italy surrounded by Italo-Romance dialects. Next to clear traces of German clausal syntax, it shows Romance characteristics, which could be due to borrov.ing from the surrounding Italo-Romance majority dialects. Pertinent literature to date has assumed that the mix of stmcl1u·al prope1ties of German and Italian are indeed due to the century·· long isolation of the German island dialects and their relationship to the majority Italo-Romance dialects. The position presented in this paper focuses on the exclusive orality of Cimbrian and the specific stmctural changes oral-only variants are subject to as opposed to written, standard vernaculars. More generally, the methodological tenet is pursued that single changes subject to ambiguous interpretation need to be disambiguated by careful alignment with the major set of properties- i.e. a minority stluctures that are commonly found in ltalo-Romance dialects may receive interpretations that are typical of oral-only German. The methodological null-hypothesis, then, is that cl1ange occurs under the narrowest accompanying structural conditions accessible within one and the same lanbruage rather than by borrowing from the social majority language.

*I read papers on this topic in the years of 2007 and 2008 to ditferent audiences: in V1enna, Munich, Rome, Oslo, and Leeds. One of the anonymous reviewers reminded me of the importance to consider contact··induced change. Special thanks are due to Ermenegildo Bidese (Trento ), Anthony Rowley (Munich), Leo Tyroller (Munich), Agnes Kolmer (Zurich), and Alessandra Tomaselli (Verona). Claudio di Meola (Rome) is thanked for his administrative support. 1he usual provisos apply.

234 Werner Abraham

1.

Introduction

Cimbrian German, a linguistic enclave dialect in Northern Italy, shows both traces of German clausal syntax and deviations from it that would seem to have allowed contact influences from ltalo-Romanc.e and Italian. 'lhis has led to the conclusion represented in the literature on the topic that the sentential syntax of Cimbrian has yielded to the Romance majority environment during centuries of immediate social contact and equally long isolation from German oral as well as written enmding. By contrast, the present approach suggests specific structural properties of change that Cimbrian has undergone are due not to contact transfer, but rather to results of the exceptionless oral code that Cimbrian speakers have been exposed to. More generally, we adopt the position that changes under contact will be possible only given certain structural openings in the receiving language for any foreign influence and, more generally still, that such influences have to be alignable with the main typological configuration of the receiving languages such that the newly developing structural properties have autonomous, i.e. not contact induced, status. In particular and explanatory to the latter, we shall assume that changes under exclusive oral encoding may be fundamentally different from those of a written code (cf., with a far wider typological scope, Abraham 2006a,b; Abraham & Conradie 2001). In what follows, data from Cimbrian will be discussed against the background of the historical changes from older OV to VO in modern Romance in the context of areal linguistic contact with the environing Italo-Romance dialects and Standard Italian. The following specific questions come to the forefront: Which structural components will change earlier than others and on which of the two clausal peripheries or elsewhere within clause structure? Are there genuine universals of diachronic change different from synchronic derivational ones? Or else, given our object of investigation being a collection of dialects which have hardly ever known stabilization through written encoding, do we have to distinguish processes of parsing facilitation under cognitive economy principles, and if so which precisely? What would such "universals of linguistic change" be in the first place? Before a more general background is introduced, the ensuing discussion needs to be seen between the striking preservation (the inertia against change) of German-Old TyTolean, or Old Bavarian, characteristics and the question whether the heterogeneity of Italo--Romance (henceforth IR) triggered deviations from German V2 1 and OV; or which other force, produced the change in Cimbrian that unfolds before our eyes.

1. A common feature of all Germanic languages, except English, is the so-called V2 property: the finite verb is the second constituent, following an arbitrary, single, clause-initial ('atomic')

Spoken syntax in Clmbrian of the lingulstlc island~ in Northern Italy 235

1.1

Cimbrian German: What is this anyway?

Cimbrian is the collective name for the dialects of the inhabitants of the "Seven Communities" as well as the "Thirteen Communities" in the Province of Verona in the South of Northern Italy (A.siago). In what follows, I will also include three more dialects from the North in this discussion: those found in the Fersental (in the province of Trentino), the dialects of the villages of Luserna (likewise in Tl-entino), and those in Pladen to the North. The decision to include these dialects in this study is based on the simple reason that the speakers of these dialects all speak minority dialects of Old T}'rolean or Old Bavarian descent in the midst of Italian-speaking majority populations. Yet. in his important Laut- and Flexionslehre des Zimbrischen, Kranzmayer (1981: 3) does not include the dialects of the Fersental nor any others but those of the so-called Seven Communities, the Thirteen Communities, and those of adjoining Folgaria and Lavarone. He calls only the latter the Cimbrian linguistic enclaves proper, separating them from the remaining dialects further to the North on clear soundhistorical distinctions: According to Kranzmayer, the status of Cimbrian vowels and consonants is considerably older than those of the Fersental or Pladen, which are not that different from today's South Bavarian. 'Ihe original German Tyrolean (fi·om South and North Tyrol, moving to today's settlements between the XIIth and XIVth centuries; see Rogger 1979) speaking population of the 7 and 13 Communities had a much wider extension (see Map 1) staying autonomously German for a long period of time. This area included the entire border chain of the Alps (Dolomites) between Etsch (Italian Adige) and the mountain chain of the Brenta reaching down to the plain of the Piave River (see Map 1 and its legend). Today's Cimbrlan linguistic enclaves are the remainder of this originally undivided linguistic area. According to modern terminological usage, Cimbrian does not include the German dialect of Pladen (ital. Sappada), which is far to the North and, thus, outside of the Cimbrian speaking area in the South (contra the classification Grewendorf & Poletto 2005 have undertaken). For the most exhaustive description of Cimbrian, see Schweizer 2008 (and its review by Abraham 2009b ).

constituent. Unless XP is a wh-phrase, the instantiations ofV2 yield a declarative clause. IfXP is a wh-phrase, the clause is interrogative: [XP (i) [V + n [ ••• (e ) ... ]]].German and its dialects are uniquely also Vlast. The Vlast slot is open only for atomic + finite verbal elements. German has an OV clause structure meaning that the subject of the clause may remain in its VP-internal position. See Haider 2009, ch. l.

236 Werner Abraham

Map 1. Areas to the East of Lake Garda and to the North of Verona where German Cimbrian was spoken in the 16th century (outer boundaries), around 1820, and is spoken in today's truncated smallest enclaves (from Kiihebacher 1972)

1.2

Presuppositions and consequences

Cimbrian German or, more appropriately, Cimbrian Tyrolean-Bavarian, respectively, has existed for centuries under social and linguistic contact with Romance (Ladinian, Friulian, Italian and its dialects in Northern Italy). Thus, Cimbrian German/Tyrolean provides an especially appropriate pattern for synchronic as well as diachronic change (loss, new adoptions) triggered under areal linguistic contact. Due to the fact that Cimbrian has not been subjected to any media or schooling influences from Standard German, as well as the fact that the vernacular has lived on only orally inside immediate communities, this dialect functions as a dependable source of its original linguistic status (as well as its oral linguistic quality for the last 200-300 years). 1.3

Assumptions about linguistic change to be confirmed, or disconfirmed, by Cimbrian German

The following assumptions are kept as short and succinct as possible in this introductory section of the paper. More specific and detailed motivations will be added later in due course.

•

Spoken syntax in Clmbrian of the lingulstlc island~ in Northern Italy 237

The radical assumption is that areal linguistic contact never takes place in terms of arbitrary transfer of grammatical elements i.e. as a simple copying mechanism of a foreign pattern. Consider the Cimbrian ·venire-futures khimp gamocht (Rowley 2003: 237), literally 'it-comes-made' to mean "it will be done" using the venitive auxiliary instead of Standard German werden "become·: Now, replacing German werden with Cimbrian kommen "come" may be a lexical calque from IR. vVhat counts, however, is the inchoative aspect shared by both lexical items, werden and kommen, which is the leading criterion for the transfer (compare Lotscher 1993 for Alemannic). In the High Alemannic dialect of the Montafon/Vorarlberg (Abraham 1965), both the venitive and the andative futures are in use with a slight, but definite meaning distinc-tion (Abraham 1965; Lotscher 1993). 1.3.1

(l)

a.

got

ga

regna

andative remote future

it goes toward rain

b.

s krmt

ga

regna

venitive nearby future

it comes toward rain

See also Bayer 1993, Bhatt & Schmidt 1993, and Abraham 2004. Any structural transfer or diachronic change is subJect to principles of least resistance - i.e. of strongest economy in the process of transfer. Such control criteria are the subject of theoretical implications in modern linguistic literature concerning linguistic change in van Gelderen 2004. Other modern literatures (e.g. Heine & Kuteva 2005; Good 2008) have nothing to say about linguistic criteria of economical processing.

1.3.2

1.3.3 Taking 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. above as points of departure, we might speak about "linguistic change triggered by areal linguistic contact, but controlled by autonomous regularities': It remains to be seen exactly what 'autonomous regularities' look like.

1.3.4 Should one consider that "linguistic change by areal linguistic contact'' is con-trolled by leading principles different fi·om "autonomous linguistic change" in a single receiving language such as Cimbrian German? Kuteva & Heine (2008) highlight areal differences where grammaticalizing buffer :~.ones receive independent status (such as the mL1C of Pro- as well as Post-article morphemes in a medial area of Scandinavia). However, so far a general clarification has not been reached in the literature regarding whether or not processes of diachronic grammaticization in foreign linguistic criteria are simply adopted. Given 1.3.1 above, I cannot see this as a realistic premiss for linguistic change.

238 Werner Abraham

StnH.:tural change has nothing to do with arbitrary (though, quite naturally, socially useful) lexical change. Pure lexical influence will always be strong and will encounter far less resistance in the receiving language. 1.3.5

1.3.6 Even iflexical elements undergo change under social contact, syntactic structure need not be subject to alteration. One prominent example is cliticization in Cimbrian and lit IR has proclitics, whereas Cimbrian has never given up enclisis of its pronominallexicals- regardless of whether the host category is CP/Comp (as in German proper) or TP/T0 (as in more strongly contact affected dialects of Cimbrian German) even when the clitic is a calque from IR. 1.3.7 We take it as a given that the description and explanation of linguistic change according to 1.3.1.-3. above presupposes a grammar-theoretical framework which is based on principles of least resistance and strongest procedural economy in correspondence with Universal Grammar and modern generative syntax (expanded by criteria of Distributive Morphology).

1.4 What precisely are the main structural phenomena of German (D) and of Italo.. Romance (IR) - those that need to be considered most prominently given that one cannot exclude change of Cimbrian German under contact with IR? 1.4.1 Verbal government direction and verbal bracket: Verbal government is leftward oriented in D, counter to verbal rightward government in IR. Furthermore, the very existence of the verbal bracket (V2 as well as Vlast) and, concomitantly, the wide middle field between the two clausal poles, V2 and Vlast, presupposes verbal leftward government. This relates to the following clause structural details:

il. "(AUXn_ 11 >) object > PPV" in D, whereas "(Auxfin >) PPV > object" in IR. [AUX(iliaryverb), fin(ite), PPV =perfect participle of the verb] i2. principled serialization in a multi· membered verbal complex; i3. main-(V2&V1881 )/embedded clause asymmetries (V2 and V1ast as opposed to only i4.

V13_.1 or Yearly as in English or French). Is Vlast in Cimbrian satisfied, or has Cimbrian already surrendered to Romance SVO? Are there structural interface forms between German SVOV and Romance SVO?

Let us consider (il)-(i4) more closely in the framework of the clausal structure in Standard German as in Figure 1. In contrast, Figure 2 sketches the corresponding clause structure of Italian. Figures 1 and 2 do not have the status of invariable templatic structural descriptions. Contrastive clausal accent determines whether a constituent is

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic islands in Northern Italy 239

in basic or in derived position. Only subjects are unaccented in the Fore Field/SpecCP; all other clausal functions go into this position under contrastive accent. DISCOURSE THEMA/RHEMA FORE FIELD lepSpec.CP

STRICT V2 ~ FIRST 'IBRACKET [C"

THEM A

lnal ciiUcs

-ts

Aber

sle Wleso

-st

RHEMA

DP, full pronouns (es)mirdes dumirdes

lw adverblals

lw

SIE

glbt ~enn

lslm

-

=>

MIDDLE FIELD

~(pronom-

Ob Ob

=> ~

Vlast ECHO THEMA SECONDVBRACKET PosTFIELD 1/0 Ill rl!tJt dlslocatlon heut? ~AG-TS heut? ~AG-ST

heute.

AB

fJaBGEBEN?

Figure 1. The computable relation between clausal structure and discourse function in German (the two shaded fields mark the poles of the verbal bracket)

Germanic and Romance are essentially distinguished by the structure of the Fore Field in these languages: German does not make use of an extension such as the one found in the first column in Figure 2. Rather, German projects at most one extra categorial node beyond SpecCP: 2 a properly governed about-topic (not represented in Figure 1) taken up pronominally in the Middle Field (MF). It is perhaps redundant to say that Romance has no double-polar verb bracket (strict V2 as well as Vlast) as German and Dutch do. This latter property marks and distinguishes most prominently the two language groups in terms of grammar (government direction) and discourse properties (see Abraham 1997, 2005a). TOPIC-Focus-TOPIC lrOP p XP-YP-ZP-

PROCLISIS

Vfin!Comp-TP(-encllsls)

fu nctlonal morphology

lexical oomplements MIDDLE FIELD

pronominal diUcs

lep C [TP IIP(Neg)

VAux (MF (mai)]

l,.p V-IIP1-IIP2 ... JD

Figure 2. The computable relation between clausal structure and discourse function in Romance (with a reduced Middle Field)

For this, see also more closely Figure 3 below. The differences between the clausal structures of German and of Italian are quite clear: 1.

2.

2.

IR has only one single verbal field (i.e. it does not have asymmetrical structures in dependent and independent clause structures, as opposed to German). IR has radical proclisis of weak pronominals (the only exceptions being infinitive and imperative enclisis); German, by contrast, has enclisis without exception.

Not considering hanging topics, which are outside of governance by the clausal predicate.

240 Werner Abraham

3.

Where German most clearly and unambiguously distributes discourse themata and rhemata by left-right serialization in the Middle Field and has only one single position for contrastive rhemata, Spec,CP, Italian furnishes three Fore Field positions ("expanded CP" in line with Ri7zi 1997). It also tends to put discoursefunctional material in right dislocation. By contrast, Gemtan has accent options beyond the discourse-timctionally decidable positional slots in the Middle Field and in clause-inceptive position to distinguish thema and rhema. IR, on the other hand, does not make equally systematic use of such options. IR has rightward verbal government (right column in Figure 2), German, by con-trast, has leftward verbal government (DP moving into the Middle Field or into Spec,CP). IR has sentence negation to the left of finite V, after the subject, in independent clauses, while German places negation to the right of finite V. IR has virtually no Middle Field elements, since it does not project a verbal bracket (Y:O&OY.). See (2) below.

4.

5. 6.

(2)

VAux [MF(mai)] [yp V-NP1-NP2 ... )

The discussion in the follov.ing section proceeds with these structural differences in mind.

1.5

Conclusions for Cimbrian

Pronominal clitics: German always has them .~.f.te.r. V2 in the Wackernagel position/WP ('end isis'); in Romance, by contrast, they are always before the finite V (i.e. in 'prodisis'). Other than in the neighboring IR contact dialects, the Cimbrian of Lusema is not a pro-drop-language, and it uses expletive es "it" enclitically. Yet, expletive pronouns also occur in the neighboring Friulian dialects (e.g. with the weather verb corresponding to German es regnet "it is raining").

1.5.1

Strict V2 and subject inversion: The option of a non-subject in sentence-initial position exists in Standard German, but only in parts of Cimbrian - in other words, the subject in SpecCP, the Fore Field, is not only strongly preferred, but is the only option in most Cimbrian dialects.

1.5.2

Thema-rhema-discourse order in Romance in terms ofleft or right dislocation (cleft constructions; CP--expansion): See Figure 2 where the dislocation of a thema to the right periphery in Italian does not have a clause--external pendens function, but is clause-integrated.

1.5.3

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic !.~lands in Northern Italy 241 2.

The facts- illustrations from Cimbrian dialects

ad 1.4.1.(il) German Aux-DO-PP (clause bracket) is replaced by (what looks like lR) Aux-PP-DO '!here is no clausal bracket (S(V)O(V)) in Cimbrian. However, see (3a,b) below. Does this mean that (contact-induced?) change begins at the sentential right periphery (as has been claimed by Grewendorf & Poletto 2005)?3 Why is only the right periphery targeted? In what f(.)llows all illustrations refer to Luserna (following Bidese eta!. 2005: 82) except if signaled otherwise (such as for '[Ruana]'): [do = pronominal direct object, DO = nominal direct object] 4 (3)

a.

Haute die Momme [yp [y hat gebiischt] die Piattn] A11x-Participle-DO heute die .Mamma hat gewaschen die Teller 'today mother rinsed the boards'

b. *Haute the Momme [yp ltat [yp die Piattn [y gebaschtlmt]] 'today the mother has the boards rinsed' ,.Aux-DO-Participle (4)

Sa hom

khott

ke

dar Gianr1i hat net

gebOllt gian

pit

se

sie haben gesagt dass der G. hat nicht gewollt gehen mit ihnen 'they said that G. did not want to come with them' Aux··neg·Participle··PP (5)

a.

I

hott

r1iemad

gesek

Aux-DO-Participle

ich habe niemand gesehen 'I did not see anyone' b.

han-ich khoome gflSeecht habe ich kaum gesehen 11ave ·I hardly seen'

[Ruana] Aux-neg-Participle

3· Grewendorf & Poletto (2005), on searching for universals in the process of change from OV to VO, focus on whether the right or the left periphery are easier entries for structural changes and on exactly whiCh of such changes. Given that the left periphery host'sf:a/la veda( dew vedere

AgrSP ~

Spec

...--........, Agrft

.AgrS0

Vrm ko!-oi-o

TP _.........., Spec 'I''

ital. lwl-o/-o

_,..............._,

T'

AgrOP

(Vf.,,)

~

Spec

AgrO'

·---~ Agroc• vista.PP

VP

~

V'

Spec

~

tv 0

DP

ved-/dev1

V' ~

DP

V0

gesehen.PP

Figure 3. Clitic constituent, CuTPiWPP, and V-sentence in German and IR

Modem German raises the finite verb to C0, whereas the clitic pronoun, -a-n "er-ihn': raising from CL0 to C1\ remains in enclitic position. On the other hand, Italian la remains in proditic position with respect to the finite verb in AgrS0• SpecAgrSP may host adverbials as in (45a,b ). The Italian PP, vista, has been raised to AgrOP due to the requirement of gender and number agreement. By contrast, the Gennan PP in predicate periphrasis remains in situ inside VP. It has not preserved its original Early


High German agreement with the object inherited (just copied?) from Late Latin (consider EOHG .. .habem figboum.M.Acc gipflanzotan.M.Acc).

5·5

Typological comparison

The illustrations so far permit the following Germanic comparison with IR. See Figure 4.

Strl ct V2 (Vfinltoln C): fr ("gerne) Continental

Predicate bracket

LAuxtc"-PPNfi.,): _/ dass..ge-

redet

tan

+

+

Null subject: tiamo

-

Expletive subject: fs frostelt mkh

En-vs.

C0 -pronouns/

V-

proclisis fr("s-) sagt=l!

enclisis (counter

complax

to vfi,-cllsls)

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

-

+(obj.)

n.a. n.a. n.a.

-

West German lc

(German, Dutch) Scandinavian

+

Lusarn/

+1-

Roan a

remaining-

+I-

Ombrian

English French

Italian

-

-

+

-

[un.a." = nnot applicable"]

Figure 4. Typological comparison under the V2-criterion (expanded and refinded beyond Tomaselli (2004: 537))

This is what Figure 4 says: Comp-CL-languages have the long clausal structure of Modern German, CP, whereas the ordering Comp + V6n-CL characterizes the shorter clausal structure of Romance. Only Comp-CL-languages share with Modern German the predicate bracket resulting in asymmetry between dependent and independent clause structures. Romance is symmetrically divided between dependent and independent structures, just as much as English is. Scandinavian, on the other hand, has a small Middle Field, despite its VO-status in both dependent and independent clauses. See however (47 a-c) below. Is this Scandinavian structural exception to clausal symmetry mirrored in the Cimbrian of conservative Luserna and Roana as opposed to the more modern remainder of Cimbrian standing (as a microvariety) for the OV-VO macro-transfer from Proto- Germanic to modern VO inScandinavian (with a remainder of OV in the small Middle Field)? We feel encouraged to think so by Brugmann's admonition about the diachronic impenetrability of syntax (his 'UndurchHissigkeit der Syntax': "auf syntaktischem Gebiet sind Entlehnungen meistens viel weniger leicht zu erkennen als in anderen Gebieten der Grammatik" (= 'on the syntactic level, more often than not, loans are less easily

254 Werner Abraham

traceable than on other levels'; Brugmann 1917: 54). This position is subscribed to by the Veronese enclave dialectologists insisting on highly constrained Romance influence on Cimbrian ("beschrankter Einfluss romanischer Dialekte auf das Zimbrische''; see Bidese & 'Ibmaselli 2005: 88). 5.6

See (46) below as an interim result about diachronic loss ofV2 across different structural steps: [the arrow,>, means "results in."]. Referenc.e is made to Figure 2, the illustrations (15)---(17), (27)···(28) as well as (35)···(39) and, finally, (44a---d).

The relative head and, respectively, the thema pendens (hanging topic) in the depen-· den.tinterrogative as well as relative clause, w-V6n-Pron.i (ct: "[0 p der Manni [M00 der/ wer; hat-er; ... ]]"), leads to structural ambiguity, namely: resumptive pronoun + w- Vfin Pron; ("[DP der Ma.nnJ lcp der/weri ha.t-er,T) and, finally, by grammaticalizing reanalysis: declarative clause such as "deri (Mann) ha.t-er;···"- which terminates in loss ofV2. Note that this never collocates with prodisis (CL before finite V60 ). In other words, Cimbrian CP-clausal structure holds as in Figure 5 for Modem German. From this follows SVO-clause order as in the Germanic languages of Scandinavia; see (47a-c) (from Wiklund 2009: 27). Compare Cimbrian (Sa,b), (12), and (15) ["( ... )"for alternative positions].

(46)

a.

1rulega hej(Ji }otz keypt b6kina probably has J. bought the book

Icelandic: subjed inversion

b.

. .. ad .l6n hefdi tritlega keypt b6kina (small) predicate bracket ... that J. has probably bought the book

c.

Olle sa att han (inte) hade (inte) liist boken 0. says that he (not) had (not) read book.the

Swedish: (small)

predicate bracket

Although there are embedded clausal structures deviating from pure VO in Scandinavian, Cimbrian also has regular structures not in line with otherwise VO, as in Au.x6n-PP-DO, such as AU4m-pro-do/neg-PP, opening a small Middle Field for pronouns, and, furthermore, pronominal adverbials as well as negative elements; consider again (3a,b) above. This leads to the assumption that such short elements are lexically merged in this discourse-thematic position and should be evaluated as a remainder from original ov.&

One could also consider a separation of the two positional variant.s,Auxfin-PP-DO as well as Au:Jrsn -pro-do/neg-PP, because of featural differences and Chomskys DlSLOC-mechani.sJIL Cf. Chocano 2007, completing this program for Scrambling in German and the Scandinavian Germanic languages (dative shift).

8.

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic !.~lands in Northern Italy 255

6.

Clear grammatical calque from Italian?

The infinitive as a elitic host - which is impossible in German ( CL only in WP, i.e. in right--adjunction to Comp; see Figure 2 appears to be a grammatical interference from Italian (IR ?) beyond doubt; after all, infinitives have no syntactically identifiable position). The clitic suffixes in the following illustrations have been highlighted. [SMALL CAPS for contrastive accent]. (47)

Non so do~·e metter--Iii (i libriJ nicht weiB (ich) wohin legen--die (die Bucher) 'not know (I) where put--them (the books)'

(48)

Penso di mangiar--la; piu tardi (la torta) (ich) glaube zu essen--sie spater (die Torte) '(I) believe to eat-her later (the cake)'

(49)

Vado a portar-glie--la; io (la torta) (id1) gehe zu bringen-ihnen-sie ich (die Torte) '(I) go to bring--them--it1 I (the cake/

(50)

Se saint gant grussan-se; alle1 sie sind gegangen grii.Ben--sie alle 'they are gone to greet--them all'

(51)

ribalan--se aus zu reiben--sie aus 'thus rub--they out'

(52)

net khoas andarst habent--s gebellt khoofan nicht kein anderes haben--sie gewollt kaufen 'not no other have-they wanted buy'

(53)

tse puosse--mi zu beichten-mir 'to confess-me'

(54)

tse vorkhovosei d'ouksanl zu verkaufen--sie d'Ochsen 'to sell--them the oxen'

Castagna (2005: 104---105)

[7 Communities]

[13 Communities]

See the Italian patterns in (47)---·(49) as opposed to (50)---(54) in Cimbrian German. We might assume - instead of simply taking it for granted that it is a grammatical interference from neighboring Italian-, the assumption that it is an overgeneralization of German V-enclisis (counter to Romance V--prodisis), no doubt under disregard of the V--finiteness condition that holds in German. Notice that under this assumption a small Middle Field opens, which offers another argument against the claim of pure

2.56 Werner Abraham

verbal rightward governance in Cimbrian (but be aware also of the counter assumption manifested by Aux-Participle-0 in 1.4.1. ad (il)). Consider also my claims with respect to "historical change" in Section 1.3 above.

7·

lhe Cimbrian phenomena in the light of South German dialect characteristics -late contact transfer or no contact transfer at all?

The question arises as to how the Cimbrian phenomena observed so far are indicative of contact influence in view of the differences, and equivalences, between Cimbrian and Standard German and its Southern dialects. 7.1 Clitic doubling (CD) does not exist in Italian (as opposed to dialects of Italian and French- see (49)- and, more prominently and important, in the Friulian and Ladinian dialects of the immediate neighborhood of Cimbrian, where they do exist), neither does it in Cimbrian. However, this does not have to count heavily in favor of the assumption that this phenomenon is contact induced,9 given the fact that the same holds for West Flemish and the Dutch dialects (ct: Abraham & Bayer 1993 Introduction). 'Ihus, the conclusion is that it is an autonomous development. 10 Subject-CD: (55)

dar habant-za; de

Baibar; gaerbatet

d'Ekhare

da haben-sie die Weiher bearbeitet the .Acker 'there have-they the women worked the field~' (56)

Bir; morgan gea-bar;

au1

Saagra

[7 Commw1ities] Castagna (2003: 106f.)

[13 Commw1ities]

wir morgen gehen-wir zum StraBenfest 'we tomorrow go-we to the street party'

Objed-CD: (57)

Aso hats-mar; gapreart

gargenuin miar1 och

so hats-mir geschienen richtig mir 'this way has-it-me seemd alright me also' (58)

tse vorkxovo-se;

d'Ouksan/

[7 Communities]

auch [13 Communities]

zu verkaufen-sie die OdlSen? 'to sell--them the oxen'

9·

Observation provided by Gildo Bklese (p.c.).

10. An anonymous reviewer points out that ditic doubling in the South Bavarian and German enclave dialects looks different from those in the Dutch dialects. However, this is of no avail in the present context. It is quite clear and common knowledge that parallels between the enclave dialects and those of Dutch hold for subjects, not, however, for objects.


(59)

Gestam hast-eni gikhoaft du in Giornal/ gestern hast--ihn/sie gekauft: du den Journal/die Zeitung? 'yesterday have--you--him/them bought you the paper'

[Lusema]

A pertinent question that arises from such data concerns the exact narrative or dia-logue function of sentential elements displaced from their base positions in the clause (such as subjects or objects in paraphrasal position in the middle of the sentence: see, e.g. Da haben sie, die Weiber, bearbeitet the Acker 'There have they, the women, worked on the fields') compared to those appearing in a hanging post--position (thema post-pendens, at the end of either a clause or constituent: Gestern hast sie gekctuft - du, die Zeitung? 'Yesterday have (you) heri bought - you, the papern. The illustrations on which we base our conclusions are not marked for special prosodic or accentual charc:tcteristics.

7.2

Dative-object differentiation (DOM)

Triggered by case syncretism, objects are often identified by prepositional marking in some languages of Romance and its dialectal vernaculars. This can also be found in South German dialects, most prominently in Alemannic and Southern varieties of Austrian-Bavarian (see Seiler 2003 or already Mayerthaler & Mayerthaler 1998, who highlight this phenomenon as a typical trait of Southern substandard German; see also Rowley 2003: 265). Clearly, DOMin Cimbrian may have developed under IR contact, but, given DOM in the dialects of Southern German, it may also be an autonomous development. We do not know anything about the age of its emergence. (60)

Du muasst des tJ/in deina Pmu vaschmibn. du musst das an/in deiner Frau verschreiben 'you must that at/in your wife prescribe'

(61)

Er giit dr Opfl a miar instead ofa diar. er gibt den Apfel an mir statt an dir 'he gives the apple at me instead of at you

(62)

The laicht-s enkh bol

en enkh ondera

der leiht -es euch wohl in euch anderen 'he loans-it you well in-you others'

[Bavarian] Seiler (2003: 15)

[Alemannic]

[Fersental] Rowley (2003: 265)

(63)

Kloob-ich Gi1:mtti h1it-ar-me ghet net ad 1:mder. Bidese et al. (2006: 86) glaub-ich Gianni hat-er-mir gegeben nicht in an andern 'believe- I G. has-he-me given not in another one'

(64)

Ghestar han-ich ghet an libar mne Pieren [Roana] gestern habe-ich gegeben ein Buch in dem Piero Bidese et al. (2006: 84) 'yesterday have-I given a book in the.DAT I~

2.58 Werner Abraham

Processing facilitation

8.

If my assumption is correct that in a variety of phenomena in Cimbrian as well as Austrian-· Bavarian dialects processing facilitation eases the parsing of oral encod·ing, then this would open the door f{)r a new interpretation of the data. See Abraham (2006a,b) as well as Abraham & Conradie (2001) for a fundamental discussion. All phenomena discussed in what follows are shared between Cimbrian and South German, Alemannic, and Bavarian-Austrian. Each of the characteristics observed and discussed below is not only a core property of Cimbrian, but it also shows that Cimbrian is fully alligned with South German. Moreover, these characteristics hold for oral codes only and, consequently, have autonomous status, which cannot plausibly be transferred from environing Romance dialects and the majority language, Italian. 11 8.1

Double perfect before the background of the South German preterite demise (Oberdeutscher Priiteritumsschwund, OPS)

OPS is firmly anchored in Cimbrian. Simple preterite forms are not observed in Cimbrian. (Dal Negro notices just two items in the conservative Wallis dialects of Agaro and Saley: chontun "konnten" (instead of hon chonna) and wan "waren" (instead of sen gsii); Dal Negro 2004: 242; see also Frei 1970: 315; cf. most recently Poletto 2009 for identical double forms in certain dialects of Northern Italy). (65)

I hon--s gahot tsechen id1 habe-es gehabt gesehen 'I have had seen'== "I had seen"

(66)

I pin gaben khemmen id1 bin gewesen gekommen 'I am been come'= "I had come"

8.2


Obligatory tun "do" as finite auxiliary in the declarative dause

There is a solid amount of genuine declarative clauses in Cimbrian with the light finite tun instead of the finite full predicate lexeme as is the case in Southern substandard German (Abral1am 2006a). This holds also for Cimbrian in both independent and dependent clauses as {67)-{69) below show. The result is a principled verbal bracket; the full verb (next to light tun) never fills finite position in TP or CP. This will leave the full verb--predicate in clause--final position for discourse·-·structur.U re-asons characteris-tic of Modern South German (the purpose is to fill the narrative foregrounding position

n. Any parallel claims oflinguistically genetic autonomy in the sense of HMer's (1956) are not immediately present here.


in its structural default site ("Aux-filter"; see Abraham & Conradie 2001; Abraham 2006a,b; Abraham & Bayer 1993 Introduction). Cimbrian shares this characteristic in full alignment with South German. (67)

Dos tua e

gern

song

[Palai] Rowley (2003: 201)

das tue ich gerne sagen 'this do I you willingly tell' (68)

S is a

Bail

as

bortr1

tucl

es ist eine Welle, dass ich warten tue 'it is a while that I wait do' (69)

Pariarn

tuat--s mer en Zboasesker

reparieren tut-s mir ein Zweiandsechziger 'repair does-it me a sixty-twoer'

8.3

Subjunction inflection

Subjunction inflection (subjunction suffigation mirroring the inflecting suffixes of the finite verb in clause-finalilate position) is a common feature among the AustrianBavarian dialects. Cimbrian shares this phenomenon undividedlyP (70)

Betzn.-so

sa du sechen tanast


wenn-du sie du sehen tiitest 'if--you them see would do' (71)

Dass-so olbe

lamentarn

muast!

dass-du allweil lamentieren must 'that -you always lament must'

8.4

Serialization of elements in the V-complex

The most remarkable characteristic is the serialization between the two most deeply embedded predicate components i.e. (2> )3 > 4 in (72)-(7 3) below which inverts the order of Standard Written German. See the glosses, which enable the reader to compare with Standard German as well as Dutch. See also (35)-(37) in Section 4.2 above. (72)

As

o hot gameicht lon

spiln

de kinder [Palai] Rowley (p.c. Leo Toller)

1 2 3 4 dass er hat gemacht lassen spielen the kids 'that he has made let play the kiM

12.

See for this topic also Hoekstra 1993 as well as Zwart 1993 under typological premisses.

260

Werner Abraham

(73)

Der hot bol

gameicht belln

helven

2 3 4 I der hat wohl gemocht wollen helfen 'this one has wanted will help'

The ordering 3 > 4 is a serialization unshared by South German dialects. Yet, little if anything can be concluded from this with respect to structural neighborhood to IR since lR has no such V-comple.xes in the first place (to all appearances due to the fact that modal verbs have far less usability in such complexes due to the fact that they lack the systematic change between epistemic and root infinitival forms). See Abraham 2006b for a discussion of this issue.

9·

Concluding generalizations

We have confronted the assumption that Cimbrian is the result of typological change under triggering conditions of contact with Italian (Friulian, Ladinian), much in line with prior claims in the literature to this effect. By contrast, we have assumed throughout autonomous linguistic change of an exclusively oral preserved dialect code (Abraham 2006a). For either position, there are pros and cons. In what follows I weigh the consequences of those pros and cons and weigh them out against one another. 9.1 'lhere are several infallible conclusions we can establish here with respect to the clausal structure of Cimbrian and it~ comparison with Modem Standard German and the South German dialects. For example, as long as the clitic form of pronouns attaches to the clausal subjunction as well as to finite V2 in the independent declarative- i.e. in WP - anything that ranges above XP-Vfin (true V2) amounts to a thema pendensi.e. to CP-dislocation. Not until Pro in WP is given up in favor ofV6n--proclisis does CP-expansion in Romance develop in the sense of Rizzi (1997). CP-expansion is unknown to German and its dialects (Grohmann 2003). Some of the V3-occurrences, such as (7 4), may have to be evaluated as clause left-dislocated apropos, i.e. as hanging themata/topics.B (74)

Adv »subject>> Vnnit

Rowley (2004: 529); see illustrations in Section 1.1.-1.5.),

9.2 Strict V2 in German need not fully cover V2 in Romance. Scandinavian, Yiddish, and Cimbrian also have V2 in the dependent clause. Yet, a small Middle Field has

13.

Note that V3 has already been documented for Old High German ('lbmaselli 1995).


been maintained (cf Haider 2000, 2004; 1bmaselli 2004) just like in Cimbrian. Cf the discussion in 74 above. 9·3 One may assume (with Pintzuk's and Krach's Double Base Hypothesis) that areal linguistic contact of bilingual Cimbrian speakers triggered historical change with the result that original (German) Cimbrian OV gave way to (Romance) Cimbrian VO almost trivially. We have questioned this simple assumption. Whatever the answer, there would be sufficient interesting problems to be solved, among which: What structural components yield to contact induced digrc:llllmaticity early, and which do later? 14 Are universals of change involved, and if so, which (any of van Gelderen's (2004) economizing principles)? Or, alternatively, does clausal process facilitation under oral encoding play a determining role? To come closer to an answer consider the following cognitive economy principles: V-early, including V2/3, sinc.e V.-early warrants early identification of clausal functions as opposed to V-last, thus ascertaining relief of the working memory and that clause parsing is facilitated. This in turn prompts the question: What would 'linguistic change universals' be in the first place if not for something like economy principles? Taking this in account, consider the processing facilitation to be in line with van Gelderen's (2004) economy prindples (such as the reduction of phrases (XP) to head (X0 ) (ct: (75)), most prominently which can be summarized as "make a fortiori a simple word from a (complex) constituent" as in (76). (75)

XP> X 0

(76)

a. b.

[pp

[DP

wes.GEN [p wegen]] > 'whose ways' >

lsPECCP

weswegen] "because of this"

[Subj-DPi Schuhei dilnt\ [lauf-]] > [Subj-DPi [sc Schuhei di.\nnilauf-]]] shoes thin 0 r.subi··DP nm > shoes thine>f.shoes-run

The concept of Late Merge, i.e. to "insert as a functional morpheme a fortiori as late as possible into the proc.ess of syntactic derivation, also plays a role in these observed changes. In other words, insert as a ready--made lexeme in the appropriate syntactic (functional) slot without it further triggering any derivative processes". "Late Merge" follows from the principle of linguistic change in (75), but is more strongly motivated

14. Most remarkably, this question does not turn up in major recent work on linguistic change under contact (Heine & Kuteva 2005; Kuteva & Heine 2008). It may not be too presumptuous to assume that both the question and an appropriate answer and solution to the problem presuppose a sound and powerful syntactic mechanism of description and functional explanation (see, for example, such claims in Abraham 2005a).

262

Werner Abraham

theoretically in Minimalist syntax. Notice that "XP > .XO" is immediately plausible and more or less theory-independent 15 Changes under the economy trigger will often yield analytic transparency (separation of simple functional morphemes instead of a single more complex one) and, by consequence, ease clause processing most prominently under the restrictions and limitations that the working memory is subject to in oral online-processing. 16 These two criteria for change - structural simplification under the economy criterion and analyticity to satisfy categorial and functional transparency are manifested in the observable cyclic changes (as "Jespersen's Cycle" in Romance and Germanic). I take for granted that the parallel existence ofbilinguality in a society as Cimbrian triggers pressure towards analyticity; in any case, if the linguistic code is that of dialectal orality unsupported by a written norm.

9·4

What would be the consequences and implications of a shift from German V2 (S/0/Adv >> Vftn-postpro >> Adv/0/S- ~nftn as well as _Aux >>do » PP) toward Romance syntax (S >> clitic- V:in >> 0, where also _Aux >> PP >>DO)? C[ Bidese, J Poletto & Tomaselli (2002: 89) and others prior to the latter.

9.4.1 Dependent w-constructions (also relatives and dependent interrogatives) resist symmetrization between independent and dependent clausal structuring longer than other dependent clausal structures: WP--pronominal enclisis as well as V60 ··clitic are restricted to dependent word interrogatives and relative clause formation. In other words, the more conservative ("more German.") Lusema German has CP-structures (w(o)--enclisis in relative and interrogative clauses): (77)

lcoMP WO·· [wp ·-CL [ (IP ... ]]])

15. Analogy, as claimed by Fischer 2008 as a fundamental trigger for grammaticization, is no doubt strongly change-motivating and may also be added to such principles of economy underlying language change. Other mechanisms claimed as candidates for the universality of linguistic change such as "(inter)subjectification" still await sufficient empirical confirmation or may be an epiphenomenon before a deeper explanation (see Abraham 2005b, 2009). To the extent that metaphorical and metonymical processes are claimed as explanations for grammaticizing developments (as, iteratingly, forwarded by Heine 2003 and, more recently, Kuteva & Heine 2008), the absence of descriptive measures in terms of mereological feature hierarchies may be detrimental to intersubjective observability of similarity relations (see Abraham 2004 and, a long time prior to the latter,Jakobson 1972). For a list of powerful candidates explanative of morphologi.cal change, see Leiss 2008.

t6. For an inventory of element'> and mechanisms characterizing"oral encodinl:f as opposed to "written encoding'; typically motivating syntactic change, see Abraham 2006a.


In contrast, the dialect of Roana has only a TP-structure just like Romance (only V-enclisis (i.e. no Comp-enclisis in WP) despite of Camp-occurrence: (78)

[cOMPas

b

NP

h V-CL] ... ]])

9.4.2 DP-inversion (S/0/Adv- V6,. >>Adv/0/S-V) is lost prior to subjectclitic inversion, i.e. ~fin--ciitic >> --clitic-- ~'in~-. What is the driving force behind this? Behaghel's principle of constituent heaviness is hardly to be made responsible since it has no explanative quality.

9-4-3 What exactly are the deeper links and differences between S/0/.4.d1'-Vfin -cliticAdv/0/S and S--clitic-- Vfin--O? What what kinds of structural reduction exhausts the counter positions? At this point, I leave these questions for future research. 9·5

Contact-induced grammaticalization: The research status quo

9·5·1 The present claim The traditional account of the VO-OV mix in Cimbrian is that all serializations different from Modem German are the result of contact with IR varieties (among others strongly advocated by Krach 1989 ('Double Base Hypothesis') and by Rowley 2003: 251, 289, (291). My counter claim to Cimbrian change due to L-contact has been strong: no change has been observed beyond what has proven to be possible in Germanic without contact (as, for example, in Scandinavian Germanic). More generally, change (between typologically different languages such as SVO(rw V2)-IR and SVOV(V2 and Vlast)-Cimbrian \\lzl 2009). Again, this provides a clear counter position to the assumption that results from

271

272

Werner Abraham

variation in word order (SOV ne.xt to SVO) by contact of an original SVOV language with pure Romance variants exhibit an SVO order. This is a claim that is plausible at first sight to pursue if it comes to describe Cimbrian (Rowley 1986, 2003, 2004, 2006 as well as others in this limited field of work on linhruistic enclaves).

Cited references Abraham, Werner. 1965. Die Mundart von Tschagguns im Montafon. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Vienna. Abraham, Werner. 1997. The base structure of the German clause under discourse functional weight: contentful functional categories vs. derivative functional categories. In: W. Abraham & E. v. Gelderen (hg.) German: syntactic problems problematic syntax. 11-42. [Linguistische Arbeiten 374]. Thbingen: M. Niemeye~: Abraham, Werner. 2001. SVOV in German and Dutch. Interface between discourse prominence and subject identification In Refkctions on Language and Language Learning. In Honour of Arthur van Essen, Marcel Bax & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.)155-170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Abraham, Werner. 2004. The grammaticallzation of the infinitival preposition toward a theory of'grammaticalizing reanalysis: Journal ofComparative Germanic Linguistics 7(2): 111-170. Abraham, Werne1: 2005a Deutsdre Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Grundlegungeiner typologischetl Syntax des Deutschen [Studien ztu· deutschen Grammatik 41]. Ttibingen: Stautfenbw·g. Abraham. Werner. 2005b. An intersubjective note on the notion of'subjectificatio.ri In Orga-nizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis. Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds). 1--16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Abraham, Werner. 2006a. Dialect and typology: Where they meet and where they don't. In Types of Variation: Diachronic, Dialectal, and Typological Interfaces [Studies in Language Companion Series 76], Terttu Nevalainen, Juhani Klemola & Mikko Laitinen (eds), 243-268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Abraham, Werner. 2006b. Re7
Spoken syntax in Clmbrian of the linguistic island~ in Northern Italy 273 Abraham, Werner & Conradie, C. Jac. 2001. Priiteritumschwrmd rmd Diskursgmmmatik in

gesamteuropiiischen BezUger1: i\reale Ausbreiturrg, heterogene Bntstehung, Parsing .~OY.'ie diskursgrammatische Grandlagen and Zusammer1hiinge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bayer, Josef 1993. zum in Bavarian and scrambllng. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5: 50-70, Dialektsyntax, Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds). Bhatt, Chri.sta & Schmidt, Claudia Maria. 1993. Die am infinitive-Konstruktion als Aspektphrase im Kolni.schen und im umgangssprachlichen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5:71--98, Dialektsyntax, W Abraham & J. Bayer (eds). Bidese, Ermenegildo. 2008a. Die \Vackernagelposition als CLP. Ein neuer Interpretationsvorschlag zur Position morphophonologisch reduzierter Pronominalelemente in den ger-manischen Sprachen unter besonderer Berticksichtigung des Zimbrischen. Romtagung der Germanisten/DSWI 1-1. Feb. 2008. Handout. Bidese, Ermenegildo. 2008b. Diachrone Syntax des Zimbrischen. Ti.i.bingen: Narr. Bidese, Ermenegildo, Dow, James R. & StoLz. Thomas (eds). 2005. Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch and Romanisd1 [Diversitas Linguamm 9]. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Bidese, Ermenegildo, Poletto, Cecilia & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 2006. The relevance of lesserused languages for theoretical linguistics: The case of Cimbrian and the support of the TITUS corpus. In LULCL -- Lesser Used Languages. Computer Linguistics. Proceedings ofthe Lesser Used Languages and Computer Linguistics Conference Balzano, 27--28 October 2005, Isabella Ties (ed),77--96. EURAC research. Bidese, Ermenegildo & Padovan, Andrea. 2010. Erodierte Sprachstrukturen und Grammatik-theorie. Zur Morphosyntax der Halbsprecher in der zimbrischen Enklave Lusern. Talk and handout at the conference Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien, Rome, Februa1y 4--6, 2010. Bidese, Ermenegildo & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 2005. Formen der 'Herausstellung' and Verlust der V2-- Restriktion in der Geschichte der zimbrischen Sprache. In Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch tmd RomanL~ch [Diversitas Linguarum 9], Ermenegildo Bidese, James R. Dow & 'Ihomas Stolz (eds), 71-92. Bochum.: Brockmeyer. Brugmann, KarL I 917. Der Ursprung des Schelnsubjekts es in den germanlschen and romanischen Sprachen. Berichte iiber die Ferhandiungen der koniglichen siichsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 69(5). Leipzl.g: Teubner. Castagna, Adriana. 2005. Personalpronomlna und Klitika im Zlmbrischen. In Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch [Dlversitas Linguarum 9], Ermenegildo Bldese, James R. Dow & 'Ihomas Stolz (eds.) 93-113. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Chocano, Gema. 2007. Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic Lang-uages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistlcs Today 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cinque, Gugli.elmo. 1999. A.dverbs and Functional He,ads: i\ C'ros.~-linguistic Perspectit'e. Oxford: OUP. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2007. The fundamental left-right asymmetry of natural languages. lVIs, Universita Ca' Foscari di. Venezia. Cognola, Federica. 2009. On the mixed OV/VO syntax of Mocheno. Talk and handout at the 37th ()sterreichische Linguistentagung, Syntax Workshop, Salzburg Dec. 7, 2009. Comrie, Bernard 2008. Inflectional morphology and language contact, with special reference to mixed languages. In Siemund & Kintana (eds), 15-32. Crisma, Paola & Longobardi, Giuseppe. (eds). 2009. Introduction. In Historical Syntax and Linguistic :lhe.ory, 1-16. Oxford: OUP. Dal Negro, SiMa. 2004. 7he Decay of a Language. 7he Case of a German Dialect in the Italian Alps. Bern: Peter Lang.

274 Werner Abraham Fischer, Olga. 2008. On analogy as the motivation for grammattcallzatton. Studies in Language 32(2): 336-382.

Fret, Gertrud. 1970. Walserdeutsch in Saley. Wortin1:altliche Untersuchung zu Dialekt und Weltsicht der altertumlichen Siedlung Salecchio!Saley (Antigoriotal). Bern: Haupt van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Bccmomy [Lingulstik Aktuell/Ungulstl.cs Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Good, Jeff (ed.). 2008. l.Amguage Change and IJniverStlls. Oxford: OUP. Grewendorf, Gi.inther & Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. Von OV zu VO: Ein Vergleich zwischen Zimbrisch und Plodarisch. In Das Zimbrische zwischen Germaniscil und Romaniscil [Diversitas Linguarum 9], Ermeneglldo Bidese, James R. Dow & Thomas Stolz (eds). Bochum: Brockmeyer. Grewendorf, Gi.inther & Poletto, Cecilia. 2009. Was ist eine Verbzweitsprache? Talk and handout at the Tagung Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien, Rome, February ·1···6, 2010. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains. On Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies [LinguistikAktuell/Linguistics Today 66]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haegeman, Liliane. 1993. Some speculations on argument shift, clitics, and crossing in West-Flemish. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5: 131-160, Dialektsyntax, W. Abraham & J. Bayer (eds). Haider, Hubert. 2000. OV is more basic than VO. In The Derivation of VO and OV [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], Peter Svenonius (eel.), 45-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haider, Hubert 2004. How to turn Germanic into Icelandic and derive the OV-VO contrasts.

Journal of Comparative Germatzic Linguistics 8: 1··· 53.

:t Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 200·1, Verb Clusters. A Study of Hungariatz, German, and Dutd1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics 68]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Latzguage 38(2): 647--651. Haider, Hubert. 2009. German. What it Means to be OV. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammatica:tization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575-601. Oxford: BlackwelL Haider, Hubert. 2007. Review of Katalin

Heine, Bernd. 2008. Contact-induced word order change without word order change. In Siemund & Kintana (eds), 33-60. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva. Tania 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Oxford: 0 UP. Hinterhtil:ll, Roland. 2004. Language change versus grammar change. What diachronicic data reveal about the distinction between core grammar and periphery. In Diachronic Clues to Synchronic C.rammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 72], Eric PuB & Carola Trips (eds ), 131-160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hinterholzl, Roland. 2006. Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: OUP. HinterhOlzl, Roland. 2009. The role of information structure in word order variation and word order change. In New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic, Roland Hinterholzl & Svetlana Petrova (eds) 45-66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. HinterhOlzl, Roland. 2010. Information structure and unmarked word order in (older) C:.ermanic. In Information structure. Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectil'e.-;, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Jlery (eds), 282-306. Oxford: OUP. Hinterh0l71, Roland & Petrova, Svetlana (eds). 2009. New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoekstra, Eric. 1993. Dl.alectal variation inside CP as parametric variation. Linguistische llerirhte Sondt'T'heft 5: 161···1i9, Dialek~yntax, W. Abraham & J. Bayer (eds).

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic island~ in Northern Italy 275 Otto. 1956. Stammbaumtheorie, Wellentheorie, Entfaltungstheorie. PBB 77: 1-37; 424-476. PBB 78 (1956): 93-136. Hr6arsd6ttir, 'Ihorbjorg. 2009. Restructuring and OV order. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83: 37-82. Jakobson, Roman. 1972. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In Selected Writings, Vol. 2: 239-259. Johanson, Lars 2008. Remodeling grammar: Copying, conventionali7.ati.on, and grammaticallzation. In Siemund & Kintana (eds), 61-·80. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmet1:v of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kranzmayer, Eberhard. 1981. & 1985. Laut-- and Flexionslehre der deutsch-zimbrischen Dialekte [Beitrage zw· Sprachinselforschung Band 1, Teil1 & 2]. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften (lsterreichs. Kroch, Andy. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199---244. Ktihebacher, Egon 1972. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der deutsch- italienischen Sprachgrenze. Der Schlem 46: 33-- 52. Kuteva, Tania & Heine, Bernd 2008. On explanatory value of grammaticalization. In Good (ed.), 215--230. Leiss, Elisabeth. 2008. Grammatical complexity and affix ordering. A typological and diachronic approach to the theory of word structllre. Paper at the Morphology Conference, Workshop on Affix Ordering, Vienna Jan. 30 Feb. -1, 2008. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles ofDiachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Lotscher, Andreas. 1993. Zur Genese der Verbdopplung bei gaa, iaa, aafaa ("gehen", "lassen", "anfangen") im Schweizerdeutschen Linguistisc.he Berichte Sonderheft 5: 180---200, Dialekt-syntax, VV. Abraham & J. Bayer (eds). t...1atthews, Stephen & Yip,Virginia. 2009. Contact--induced grammaticalization: Evidence from bilingual acquisition. Studies in Language 33(2): 366-395. (Special issue:). Clancy Clements & Shelom.e Gooden (eds.) Language Change In Contact Languages: Grammatical Hofler~

and Prosodic Considerations]. Mayerthaler, Willi & J:vlayerthaler, Eva. 1998. Aspects of Bavarian syntax or 'Every language has at least two parents: In Development and Diversity. Lang-uage Variation across Jime and Space. A Festschrift for Charles-James N. Bailey [The Summer Institute of Llnguistl.cs and 'Ihe University of 'Iexas at Arlington. Publication 93], Jerrold A. Edmondson, Crawford Feagin & Peter Miihlhausler (ed~.) 371-429. Dallas TX: SlL. Meid, Wolfgang. 1985. Der erste zimbrische Katechismus. Dar kl6ane catechismo vor dez beloseland.

Die zimbrische Version aus dem Jahre 1813 a11d 1842 des picc.olo c.atechismo ad uso del regno d'Italia of .1807 in kritischer Ausgabe [Innsbrucker Beitrage 1ur Sprachwissenschaft: 48]. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck. Noonan, Michael. 2008. Contact- induced change: The case of the Tamangic languages. In Siemund & Kintana (eds), 81-106. Padovan, Andrea. 2009. Diachronic clues to grammaticali7.ation. Phenomena in the Cimhrian CP. 'Ihlk and handout at the Workshop Dialektologie als Briicke zwischen synchronischer und diacltroner Linguistik at the Universlty of Verona, December 17-18, 2009. Panieri, Luca, Pedrazza, Monlka, Nicolussi Bai1, Adelia, Hipp, Sabine & Pruner, Cristina. 2006.

Bar lirnen z' sdlraiba un zo re.da az be biar. Grammatica del cimbro di J.,userna. Grammatik der zimbrischen Sprache von Lusem. Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adi.ge/Autonome Region Trentino/Stidtirol: Istituto ClmbroiKulturinstitut Lusern.

276

Werner Abraham Pietsch, Lukas. 2008. Prepositional aspect constructions in Hiberno-English In Siemund & Kintana (eds), 213-238. Poletto, Cecilia 2009. Double auxiliaries, anteriority, and terminativity..fournal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 31-48. Poletto, Cecllia & 'lbma~elli, Alessandra. 2000. I:interazione tra germanico e romanzo in due 'isole llnguistl.che: Cinbro e ladino a confronto. In lsole linguisNche? Per un' a,1alisi del sistemi in contatto, G. Marcato (ed.) 163-176. Padova: Unipress. Poletto, Cecilia & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 2002. La sintassi del soggetto nullo nelle is ole tedesco-fone del Veneto. InLa dialettologia oltre 112001, G. Marcato (ed.), 237---252. Padova: Unipress. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 231---337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian. 1997. Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In Pare-meters of morphosyntactic change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), 396--·126. Cambridge: CUP. Rogger, Igino. 1979. Dati storici sui mocheni e I loro stanziamenti. In La valle del Fersina e ie isole lingulstiche tedesche del Trentino. Atti del convegno diS. Orsola, 1-3 settembre 1978, Giovan Battista Pellegrini (ed. ), 153-173. San Michele all~dige: Mus eo degli usi e costume della trentina. Rowley, Anthony R 1986. Fersef!tal (Val Fersina bel Trient/Northernlta~v). Untersuchungen elner Sprachinselmuf!dart [Phonai 31, Monographien 18]. Ttibingen: Niemeyer. Rowley, Anthony R. 2003. Liadlt as de sprodl. Grammatica della lingua mochena Grammatik des Deutsch-Fersentaierlschen. Lusern: Istituto Culturale Mocheno-Cimbro. Kulturinstitut fur das Fersental and Lusern Kulturinstitut Bernstol-Lusern Rowley, Anthony R. 2004. Syntax des Fersentalerischen. In Linzerschnitten. Beitriige zur 8. bayer-isch-osterreichischen Dlaiektologentagung, zugleich 3. Arbeitstagung zu Sprache and Dlalekt in Northernosterrelch in Llnz, September 2001. Stephan Gaisbauer & Hermann Scheuringer (ed.), 529-536. Lin7~ Ada:tbert-Stift:er-lnstltut des Landes Oberoster.reich. Rowley, Anthony R 2006. Bar lirnen z~hraiba un zo reda az be biar. Grammatica del cimbro di Luserna. Grammatik der zimbrischen Sprache von Lusern. Luse.rn: Centro Stampa e Duplicazlonl della Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige/Druckerei and Ve.rvielfiiltigungsdienst der autonomen Region Trentino-Stidtirol. lstituto cimbro- Kulturin.~titut Lusern Santorini. Beatrice. 1994a. Jiddi.~ch als gemischte OV /VO-Sprache. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5: 230-245, Dialektsyntax, W. Abraham & ]. Bayer (eds). Santorini, Beatrice. 1994b. Some sinilarities and differences between Icelandic and Yiddish. In Verb Mo1•ement, Norbert Hornstein (ed.), 87-106. Cambridge: CUP. Schweizer, Bruno. 2008. (ed. by James R. Dow). Zimbrische Gesamtgrammatik. Vergleichende Darstellung der zimbrischen Dialekte [ZDL- Belheft 132]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Seiler, Guido. 2003. Prapositionale Dativmarkierung lm Oberdeutschen. Wlesbaden: Steiner. Siemund, Peter & Kintana, Noemi (eds). 2008. Language Contact and Contact Languages [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Taylor, Ann & Pintzuck, Susan 2008. The position of objects in Old English: The role of information status. Talk and handout at the 'Ihursday Night Colloquium, University of Tromsoe, Nov. 20, 2008. Taylor, Ann & Pl.ntzuck, Susan. 2009. The effect of Information structure on ob_iect position in the history of English. In information Structure and Syntactic Change. [Oxford StudiF.s in the History ofEnglish 1], Marie-Jose L6pez-Cou.~o. Bettelou Los & Anneli Meurman-Solin (eds). Oxford: OUP.

Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic island~ in Northern Italy 277 Tomaselli, Alessandra 1995. Cases ofV- 3 in Old High German. GAGL 33: 93-127. (Also in Ciau.e Structure and Larzguage Change, Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts (eds), 345-369. Oxford: OUP. "lbmaselli, Alessandra. 2004. Il cimbro come laboratorio d'analisi per la variazione linguistic a in diacronia e si.ncronia. In Vizriis linguis. Stud/ offerti a Blio l'.iosele in occasione dei suo settantesirw compleanno, 533-549. Pubblica:Z:roni. dell' Universita degli Studi di Verona, Facolta di Lingue e Letterature Strani.ere. Verona: Edizi.oni Fiorini. Tyroller, Hans. 2003. Grammatisd:e Beschreibung des Zimbrischen in Luserrz. Stuttgart: Steine.r: \Viklund, Anna- Lena. 2009. In search of the force of dependent V2: A note on Swedish. Working Papers in Scarzdhzavian Syntax 83: 27---36. Winteler, Jost. 1876. Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus. Leipzig: Winter. Zwart, Jan-Woute1: 1993. Clues from dialect syntax: Complementiz.er agreement. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5: 246---270, Dialektsyntax, W. Abraham & J. Bayer (eds).

Bibliographical titles belonging to the field. beyond the author quotes in the present article Abraham, Werner. 1987. Burz.io triift Wulfila. Zu den distributionellen Eigenschaften von wairdan 'werden' und wisan 'sein' im gotischen Passiv [Groningen Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics --- TTT 9]. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Abraham, Werner. 1991. The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In Gram-maticalization [T)'pological Studies in Language 19--2], E. Closs Traugott & B. Heine (eds), 331--380. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Abraham, Werner. 2009. Review of Silvia Dal Negro, 200,1, The Decay ofa Language. The Case of a Gennan Dialect in the Italian Alps, Bern: Peter Lang. Linguistische Bericht z'sega proved to be impossible as will be shown in the next sec.tion. To sum up, it is reasonable to assume that z'sega is merged in a very high position.

Diachronic clues to grammaticalization phenomena in the Cimhrian CP 289

Analysis: The ongoing changes in the Cimbrian CP

4·

4.1

Ke

The diachronic data I presented in Section 3 confirm G&P's analysis: old and modern Cimbrian pattern alike regarding the position of ke (and all other ke-- type complemen-tizers), which is merged in a high structural position over Force allowing for finite verb movement to occur in the left periphery because all target positions are available. Now, we might wonder why ke cannot instantiate lower CP projections much like Italian che; however - at least in initial stages of contact - it is not unreasonable to assume that functional items borrowed from a stronger standard start out surfacing in the highest functional layers of the weaker language. If the pressure exerted by the standard is strong enough, in the course of time the functional loanwords begin to expand, eventually taking on features formerly proper to their native homologous counterparts. 1herefore, the question is: Does this process of expansion (and reanalysis) occur randomly? In other words, can these items lexicali7.e whatever functional projection as soon as they have acquired new features? In gener.U the answer seems to be negative. Let us observe for a moment the situation oflanguage attrition between Standard Italian and Calabrian dialects described by Egerland (2003): We notice that there is a precise path that this expansion process must follow. In the Calabrian varieties taken into account, restructuring verbs select a comple-menti;.;r.er and a finite verb instead of the usual construction with infinitives. 11 (16)

a. he begun to sing (standard Italian construction) b. he begun that he sings (dialectal jorm)

Egerland shows that there is a general loss of finite forms ( 16b) while infinitival forms (16a), typical of the Italian syntax, are becoming common. In other words, dialectal speakers begin to use constructions typical of the stronger standard. Anyway, this infiltration seems to be rigidly regulated. In fact, :Egerland shows that the expansion of infinitival fonns does not come about randomly, but along an implicational scale that matches the hierarchical structure of the sentence in the spirit of Cinque {1999, 2006). In the four major restructuring contexts tested by means of questionnaires, the results are consistent with the (sub-- )hier.rrchy in (17). (17)

mental ability modal'>> deontic modals > aspectual verbs> ergative verbs of movement.

n. This phenomenon is typically associated with Balkan languages but is widespread in Southern Italian dialects as welL

290

Andrea Padovan Therefore, a top-downwards infiltration of Italian constructions into dialectal usage takes place: There is a first subgroup of informants that use infinitives just with mental ability modals preserving the dialectal construction in the other three cases; another subgroup uses infinitives with mental ability modals and with deontic modals while dialectal constructions are maintained in the other two cases and so on. 'Ihis implica-tion holds tor all contexts. Let us now go back to Cimbrian: the expansion of ke seems somehow to resemble what we have seen so far. If we observe the behavior of ke in Old Cimbrian and in the Cimbrian of contemporary fluent speakers, we can assume that this comple-mentizer starts out as a general subordinating element in the spirit of G&P. However, as for younger speakers (even more so for semi-speakers), we have to account for the fact that ke seems to take on features matching with lower positions of the CP--field: Fin but also Force, because as we have seen a subgroup of informants use ke as a relative complementizer. (18)

Grammaticalization path of the Cimbrian c.omplementizer (preliminary): if a complementizer loses old or acquires new features it can be directly merged in other (lower) functional heads: [s, ordP {ke} h:arceP {ke} ·· · [FocusP [FinP {ke} [!P [vp]]]]]

Note that I am not assuming that grammaticalization involves downward movement (though at a diachronic stage) that should be avoided in general; lexi.cal items becom-ing functional items show the opposite pattern ending up occupying higher functional projections. However, recall that (i) ke already has a f-unctional stat-us; (ii) the process of expansion in an area that could be conceived of as a "bridge" between two clauses can in principle entail what looks like downward movement but it is just the instantiation of a different head of the CP--layer. This hypothesis is not unproblematic from other viewpoints, though: If ke is really merged in the bottommost CP projection, then we should expect (i) that verb movement to Cis blocked; (ii) that clitics and the particle da cannot encliticize to the complementizer; (iii) that the asymmetry between matrix and embedded clause syntax gets lost. In fact, (i)-(iii) are the hallmarks of the production of semi-speakers and some young fluent speakers. Moreover, subjunctive morphology is virtually absent in ke- type clauses even when ke is selected by a volitional verb: this leads to assuming there is no longer an Irrealis Mood activated in the IP and long distance-checked by FinP. The final step of this process might be the loss ofV2 in general: this is just a tentative (but not unreasonable) idea that deserves more data in order to be borne out. Therefore, I leave the question open fur future research. To sum up, there is evidence for arguing that a gradual, top-down infiltration of the CP-layer has occurred but, still, it is difficult to show that the CP gradually becomes "deactivated": In other words, if it is indeed the case that ke begins to be merged in Force, the target position of the Vfin is no longer available. Therefore, even if the verb can reach

Diachronic clues to grammaticali7..ation phenomena in the Cimbrian CP Fin, its movement upward is blocked and ditic gathering cannot occur. Accordingly, I would like to restate (18) as (19) in terms of inactivation of the relevant heads. Note that I am not claiming for an unsplit CP: Sticking to a strictly cartographic approach amounts to assuming that CP-Iayer projections must be present in order for the hierarchy of features to be represented in the syntax. As a result we have a "simplified" CP but, crucially, not an unsplit one i.e. some projections are present but may not be accessible. 12 (19)

Grammaticalization path of the Cimbrian complementizer (revised): when a complementizer undergoes a process of expansion giving rise to more restrictive syntactic operations within the CP-layer some projections may not be active or accessible: ("SubordinatorP"

[ForceP

ke

ke

((Fon:eP ·· • {[FocusP} [FinP)

({[FocusP} [FinP)

[;p (yp])]]]) or

lrp [yp]]]]]

Roughly speaking, there might just be a topmost head, say Subordinator or Force, under which subordination and clause-typing are subsumed. This head is followed by an inactive C P-layer (in round bracket in (19)) that does not allow for syntactic operalions to occur at tl1is leveL Verb movement may be restricted to IP.

4.1.1 A parailel l will now just touch on an interesting paralle~ namely the situation of language con-tact between a variety of Arabic and an Indo- European language. Khuzistani Arabic is a minority language spoken in Western Iran (see Matras (2007); examples cited from there) in contact with Farsi. Among the functional elements borrowed from Farsi, there is the factual comple-mentizer ke, 'tl1at: (20)

a.

rayl-l-si tJdr-in ke know-2sG.F COMP husband-2sG.F on everything lied.3sG.M 'you know that your husband lied on everything'

b.

hna ... marta ke huwwa w Yazi z'sega is ungrammatical leads to excluding that z'sega occupies Int(errogative)P in Rizzi's (2001) sense, and it is, therefore, not comparc:tble to Italian se, "whether" On the other hand, zsega. and ke seem to both be merged in the topmost projection of CP. However, "Subordi-natorP" is too loose a label to host declarative and interrogative subordinators. In the spirit of Bhatt and Yoon (1991), SubordinatorP is the topmost CP-layer projection, which is active in those languages that do not contlate subordinating and clause-typing; this work put forward that languages displaying embedded V2 (e.g. Yiddish) split the Comp category in a Subordinator and a Mood head, which allows for V6n movement to CP. Certainly, ke and z'sega are both merged very high in the structure. All the same, the fact that they occupy the same position is questionable to say the least. It might then be the case that this uppermost projection has a finer--grained internal structure that deserves more investigation. Julien (2008) exploits the idea ofSub(ordinator) to account for embedded V2 in Scandinavian languages: in particular, she assumes that a subjunction phrase is always merged over Force. Embedded V2 is taken to involve movement of either the subject or a topicalized XP to Spec, Force and the V6n to the head of Force, ForceP encoding the illocutionary force of the sentence. In non-V2 embedded clauses, the subordinator is base-generated in SubP 14 anyway, but no Forc.e is merged because there is no illocutionary force to be instantiated and the sentence displays the usual embedded word order. 1hus, Julien claims for an unsplit CP where Sub is merged directly over Fin and V6n remains stranded in IP; in other words, Sub and V6n do not compete for the same position, differently from Cimbrian az. Anyway, I believe she is right in taking Force not to conflate both illocu·tionary force and clause typing. Force could then be conceived of more as a field than a single projection, on top of which a SubP is always merged. 4·3 4.3.1

Old specs, new heads

Cimbrian 'Be'

Van Gelderen (2004, 2009) deals with diachronic changes in the (English) CP: she claims that economy principles such as Lctte Merge Principle (LMP) and Head Preference .P1·inciple (HPP) are responsible tor the reanalysis of elements as higher in the structure and as heads. In particular, LMP and HPP, which in a nutshell means 'Merge as late as possible' and 'Be a head rather than a phrase' respectively, are both at play in the grammaticali7.a-tion path of wh-·pronouns such as Old English hwreper, 'whether'.

14.

See also Haegeman (2006) for a similar definition of Sub.

294 Andrea Padovan

'

(23)

[cp wh; [c" 0 ... [vp ti ~ [cp wh [c· 0 ...

[___________________________________!!

via LMP I stage

listage

[cp

[c· wh via HPP III stage

In the first stage, the usual movement of the interrogative pronouns to a Spec of CP is represented; in the second stage the pronoun is reanaly:t.ed as an interrogative marker directly merged in the Spec; finally in the third stage the head is reanalyzed as a question indicator: at this stage new wh-items are likely to appear and the cycle goes back to stage one again as can be seen in in (24).

(24)

a.

Hw.e(jer para twe3 ra dyde paes f<eder willan? (stage I) which of the-GBN two did the-GEN father will?

b.

Nast ou hwae(ler beoo paes rican mannes ban (stage II; V to CO) not-know you whether be of that rich man's bone

c.

oa cwredon ... hwreoer renig man him they said... whether any person him mete brohte (stage III, head) food brought

(van Gelderen (2004: 94))

In Cimbrian the -wh--item be (alternatively spelled bi) introduces an embedded yes/no question and it looks like it is a phonologically weak form of bia, 'how'. Note that be and bia were interchangeable in Bacher's corpus while both Bellotto's re-edition and modem spoken Cimbrian use the two items with different functions.

(25)

a.

Be da di Loserner ham getdnt zo khemma zo wissa, be da Ia pesta no is bait vor (DSL) "How people from Lusern happened to know, whether the pest is still far away"

b.

zboa drai tage darnA soin-sa bidar gekheart zo ghiana au z'sega be 'z steat pet'n proat (DSL)

c.

zboa drai tage darnA soin-sa bidar gekheart zo ghiana au z'sega bia 'z steat pet'n proat (Bl978) ''two or three days after they came back to see how the bread was like"

In Example (25a) which is the title of a tale the first be functions as a full-fledged wh-item meaning 'how, in which way'; the second one just introduces an embedded yes/no question. Example (25l~) displays an interesting change in the 1978 version of the original tale transcribed by Bacher i.e. be can no longer be used as equivalent to bia. Thus, it seems that be!bi has an evolution similar to Old English hwa~per, starting out as a wh-element and ending up being a head due to ec.onomy reasons, as proposed

Diachronic clues to grammaticalization phenomena in the Cimbrian CP 295

by van Gelderen. C[ also Alber (1994) who proposed that wh-elements like wia or wos are reanalyzed as heads in some Austro- Bavarian varieties. Cimbrian 'da' Cimbrian, like most Germanic languages has an e.xpletive pronoun, 'z, which behaves in a way similar to German Vo~feld--es.

4-3.2

(26)

a. b. c.

'z renk "it rains" 'z tiiatmar Ant "I am sorry"

'z givalltmar di milch (P) "I like milk" (personal constr.)

z

also is used in presentative/existential clauses together with the particle da, which surfaces enclitic onto the finite verb so in, 'be'. (27)

a.

'z is-ta no vil snea at di techar there is still a lot of snow on the roofs

b.

'z soin-da net Yil sbemm in halt there aren't many mushrooms in the woods haiir soin-da net vii sbemm in balt 15 (P) this year there aren't many mushrooms in the woods

c.

As we have seen, the particle da nowadays has a restricted usage (cf. § 1.2 ). However, in earlier stages of Cimbrian as far as I can see it was in free variation with 'z at least in ergative/ unaa.~usative wnteJ..i:s; therefore, it must have been an expletive element. In the following examples we compare as usual Bacher's and Bellotto's usage. (28)

a. b.

c.

d.

dar hear haltet-en aso gearn ke da soin vortgant di bochan sovil as-be de urn (DSL) dar hear haltet-en aso gearn ke 'z soin--da vortgant di bochan sovil as-be de urn (B 1978) "the m-mer cared for him so much that the weeks went by like they were hours" dar man isse-se gevuntet aso guat sem in disan gart zo sega da geat als viirsnen (DSL) dar man isse-se ge\'Untet aso guat sem in disan gart w sega 'z geat als viirsnen (B1978) "that man was so happy to see (=noticing), in that garden, da is going everything well"

15. Notice that in (27c) no "Vorfeld-z" is present when there is a topicalized element.

296 Andrea Padovan

Along the lines of G&P, modern da. is a particle (possibly) connected with habitual and progressive aspect. They argue it is merged in Ground0, a projection belonging to the Topic layer, it must nonetheless have been a there-expletive early on (note that it is etymologically and semantically connected with the locative adverbial da). As I have few data available, I tentatively assume it was used only in ergative/unaccusative contexts or with post-verbal full DP subjects or quantifiers. 16 Eventually 'z must have won out over da becoming the only expletive pronoun. Da seems to have undergone a grammaticalization path similar to be because it started out as a specifier being then reanalyzed as a head. But why does this binary system tend to stabilize preserving just one of the two elements? Such "binary" systems of expletives are not uncommon. 1his coexistence is attested in Old High German: FuB (2009) shows that do!da 'there/then began to be used as expletive before Vorji?.ld--es developed. The gradual loss ofdoida (which, by the way, begun to be associated with V2, whereas it had a pragmatic function, at least at an earlier stage) seems to have given rise to the development of es. Apart from German dialects, Modern German still preserves da, but only in specific contexts such as idioms and existentials - and with restrictions. All Germanic V2-languages have expletives but they differ as to what kind of subject is allowed to co-occur with an expletive. Gennan and Icelandic are the most permissive ones whereas Scandinavian lanbruages and Dutch rule out all kind of definite subjects. Platzack (1998) and Boeckx (2001), among others, argue that expletives have different functions depending on the language: First, it is necessary to distinguish between the EPP per se, which is checked in FinP, and a general "visibility requirement" that the complementi7.er layer is endowed with, due to its discourse--related nature. According to this requirement, lexicalization of some G- projection must occur. On the one hand, languages such as Swedish or Dutch have to check both the EPP and [+finiteness] features 17 whereas Icelandic just has to fulfill the visibility requirement forcing lexical elements to instantiate CP--layer projections. This is the reason why no expletive need be present if the relevant CP--layer projection is lexicalized by some constituent (29c-d). On the contrary, Swedish always displays lexical expletives both in first or post verbal position (29a-b ).

My older fluent speakers consistently reject both (28a) and (28c). Thus, this construction is ill-formed in modern Cimbrian; consequently, Bellotto's change is not a stylistic variant but the only possible form. 16.

17. EPP and finiteness are taken to be strong in languages such as Swedish or DutCh and weak in Icelandic (and German).

Diachronic clues to grammaticalization phenomena in the Cimbrian CP 297 (29)

a. *(det) har kommit manga linguister hit idag (Sw.) many linguists here today it have come b.

Idag har *(det) kommit mdnga lingui'lter hit

hafa komia margir malvfsindamenn hingad i dag (Ic.) c. *(pad) here today it/there have come many linguists d.

i dag hafa (*pa<J) komi to provide some detailed insight into the mechanisms that regulate movement to the left periphery on the empirical basis of an up to now rather poorly investigated German variety, i.e. Cimbrian. We first show that Cimbrian still possesses the V2 property in the sense that the inflected verb moves to the left periphery of the clause. Five empirical arguments are discussed in favor of this hypothesis concerning the existence of a prefield-expletive of the German 'es' type, the order of clitics, of negation, of separable prefixes and of the particle da with respect to the inflected verb. We propose that V3 instances, which apparently violate the V2linear restriction, are to be analyzed as invohing Topics located higher than the C projection where the inflected verb moves. We also show that wh-elements are to be split into two clas.'les, which are moved to two different specifiers in the layered left periphery of the clause. This split is a function of tl1e internal structure of the wh-items, whicl1 can contain or not a lexical restrictor, which is in turn related to two different interpretations (i.e. d.e dicto and d.e re) of the wh-item itself. Keywords: left periphery; Cimbrian; wh-items; verb second; Topics

1.

Introduction

In this work we examine the left periphery of Cimbrian, a German dialect with very peculiar grammatical features spoken in some Veneto and Trentino villages in NorthEastern Italy. Given that Cimbrian is an endangered language, and is already dying out in most of the villages where it used to be spoken, we will restrict our empirical investigation to the variety of Luserna, the only one where Cimbrian is still actively spoken by the majority of the population. 1

We thank Fiorenz.o Nicolussi for his help and patience with the Cimbrian data and we are grateful to Ede Zirrunerrnaim fur ha'fi.ng drawn our attention to the distinction between de re and de dicto readings of wh-elements. Thanks also go to the audience of the IGG conference held in Siena in Februar 2009 for helpful comments. We would also like to thank Gildo Bidese 1.

302

Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto Cimbrian is usually assumed to have lost the V2 property, because it allows f{)r V3, V4 etc. orders and it does not display DP-subject inversion. However, we claim that Lusema Cimbrian is still a V2 language, in the sense that the inflected verb moves to the CP domain in main declarative clauses. We will show that Cimbrian maintains some of the typical properties ofV2languages, as subject (clitic) inversion in declara-tive clauses, a first position e.l!:pletive pronoun similar to German es, and the typical asymmetry between main and embedded clauses (although restricted to one subclass of embedded clauses). The sections from 3 to 6 are devoted to a detailed analysis of these properties: in Section 3 we describe the peculiar type of subject inversion Cimbrian has maintained through the centuries; in Section 4 we analyze the complementizer system showing the existence of two series of complementi:l.ers only one of which blocks V to C. In Section 5 and 6 we hypothesize that the two classes of complementizers are located in different positions, and bring arguments to map the e.xact position of each class. Once we have a clear idea of the way the Cimbrian CP is layered, we investigate the properties of wh--items, different types of subjects and 'lbpics and the position to which they are moved in the left periphery. In Section 7 we show that Cimbrian wh-items display a split between two classes: complex wh-phrases are always moved very high in the structure of the CP to a position which we define as ReferentialP (RefP). Simple ·wh-words have two possibilities: they either move to RefP or to a much lower Operator position, the choice between RefP and OpP is related to the interpretation of the wh-word. We claim that the movement of wh-items to the low OpP or the high RefP position is related to the distinction between the de die to and the de re reading of wh--elements, which is associated with the presence of a "Restrictor" in the internal structure of the wh-item itself: wh-elements which have an internal restrictor (and complex wh-phrases always have a lexical one, namely their internal noun) move to RefP, wh-elements which do not have an internal restrictor move to the low OpP. Bare wh-words can be inter-preted as including a null lexical noun or not, therefore they have both possibilities. In Section 8 we deal with Topics and show that the linear V2 restriction typical of Germanic languages is not a direct consequence ofV to C, in the sense that all and only those lanbruages where the verb moves at least to FinP ban two (or more) con-stituents in front of the verb. Some V2 lanbruages do allow V3 (and more), but only if

for pointing out to us interesting phenomena of Cinibrian and helping us find our way through the vallies and mountains on the border between the Romance and Germanic world. Many of our examples are due to our own field work, some others are reported from Panieri et al. (2006). Por the purpose of the Italian academy, Cecilia Poletto is responsible for Sections 1-4.2 and 8, and GUnther Grewendorf is responsible for Sections 4.3.-7.

Hidden verb second: The case of Cim brian 303

the first XP of the V3 sequence is a left dislocation. We observe that these are precisely those languages where clitic pronouns can double left dislocated XPs. This empirical generalization can be explained by adopting a theory of doubling in terms of splitting ofthe DP in two subparts: the ditic pronoun (which encodes Case, the highest projection in the internal structure of the DP) and a TopicP internal to the structure of the DP (we follow here Giusti (2006), who assumes that each DP, being a phase, possesses an internal left periphery similar to the one found in CP). Languages where the DP can be split leaving the ditic behind allow for movement of a pure TopicP to the left periphery of the clause, while languages without clitic doubling must move the whole DP to the left periphery. A possible explanation for this correlation is found at the end of Section 8.

2.

Luserna Cimbrian as a V2language

Before starting with our discussion, we defme the V2 property in technical terms as movement of the inflected verb to a position which in other contexts is occupied by a complementizer. Therefore, not only those languages where the verb reaches Force are V2, but any language in which the verb reaches at least the FinP projection, which we take to be the lowest position where a complementi:t.er can be merged. Our definition ofV2 is therefore rather wide: movement of the inflected verb to any projection in the C domain conforms to it. If this only occurs in a subset of main clauses like interrogative main clauses (as for instance in English, French or Northern Italian dialects) we will define the language as a residual V2 language, following Rizzi's (1991) original proposal. If verb movement occurs also in declarative main clauses, the language will be a full V2language (as all Germanic languages except English). Roberts (2004) proposes that the V2 linear restriction is a consequence of an .EPP feature with which the head of FinP is endowed. Any element moving to the left periphery can satisfy the EP P feature because FinP is not specified tor any Focus, Topic or operator feature and thus can attract any XP. In turn, any XP moving to the left periphery has to pass through the specifier of FinP, and given that there is only one SpecFin, there can only be one XP in front of the inflected verb. This analysis very elegantly ties the V2 linear restriction to subject inversion by means of a sort of"bottle neck" through which any XP must move to reach higher projections in the CP domain. However, as it is, it clearly does not account for those languages like Old Italian, central Rhaetoromance, Mocheno, Sappadino and, as we will see, Cimbrian, where the verb moves to Fin but more than one element can be found to its left. In Section 8 we will come back to this problem and suggest a possible way to reconcile Roberts' analysis with V3 cases data. In this section we concentrate on the peculiarity of the Cimbrian left periphery.

304 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto

Cimbrian has not attrc:tcted much attention in generative studies until recent years. The work available, (see Bidese (2008), Tomaselli and Bidese (2007), and Scardoni (1999)) is mainly based on data from the dialect of Roana, which is nowadays a non-V2 variety. The arguments the afi.)rementioned authors present to show that Roana Cimbrian has completely lost the V2 property are based on the three standard correlates ofV2: (a) the lack of the V2linear restriction, according to which the inflected verb has to be realized as the second constituent of the dau se, (b) the im possibility of any kind of subject inversion in main declarative clauses and (c) the lack of asymmetry with respect to verb movement between main and embedded clauses. The dialect of Luserna is similar to the one of Roana in having lost the linear V2 restriction, since several constituents can freely occur in front of the inflected verb, as the following sentences show: (1)

Gestarn dar pua hatt gisekk in has. a hare yesterday the boy has seen

(2)

Haute die mome hat gekoaft die oala al merca. today the mother has bought the eggs at the market

Notice, however, that this test is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of verb raising to the C domain, as other languages where the V2 linear restriction is relaxed have been analyzed as V2 languages. This is the case of Old Italian, which, in spite of V3 (and V4 etc.) orders (cf. (3)), displays systematic subject inversion in main declara·· tive clauses and an asymmetry between main and embedded clauses with respect to subject inversion, ditic placement and pro drop phenomena (see Beninca (2006) for a detailed discussion on this). We provide some examples ofV3 in (3) and of subject inversion in (4): (3)

a.

Et

dall'

altra parte Aiaces era uno cavaliere franco.

and on the other side

b.

A.

·was a

knight

courageous (BL, Rett., p. 94, r. 7)

E la reina Artemidora di Alicamasso, che in adiuto and the queen A. of Alicarnasso who in help

mescolo di Serses era venuta, francamente si of Serses was c.ome courageou~ly herself mingled.3sG nella battaglia. into the battle (4)

(BG, Or., p. 92, r. 1)

a.

quali denari avea Baldovino lasciati loro. which money had.3sG Baldovino left them

b.

. . .primieramente avea ella fatta a lui ingiuria. (BL, Rett., 116) ... for first had.3sG she done to him injury

(Doc. fior., 437)

Hidden verb second: The case of Cimbrian 305

The same is true of other German dialects spoken in the Italian Alps like Sappadino (Plodarisch) and Mocheno, which also display regular subject inversion, but allow for V3 orders: (the Sappadino data in (5) are reported from Poletto and Tomaselli (2001) and the Mocheno data in (6) are reported from Cognola (2008): (5)

(6)

a.

Hainte tuit de marne de kinder ins pette. Today does the mother the children to bed

b.

bolde s holz gehokt. Geischter der Hons hot me has in--the wood the wood hacked Yesterday the H.

a.

Van Nane ho de Mario klofft. has the M. spoken of.the N.

b.

Gester en de boteig der Mario hot a puach kaft. has a book bought yesterday in the shop the M.

The (a) examples display subject inversion, while the (b) examples show that nonetheless V3 is possible. V3 orders are also possible in Old High German, as noted (among others) by Fuss (2003), (2005), (2008) as the following example illustrates: 2 (7)

a.

(lsid01; 278) Dnthtines uuordu sindum himila d1ifestinode. (Robinson 1996: 36) word are heavens made fast of Gods

b.

Inti ubil man fona ubilemo tresouue bringit ubilu. and bad man from bad treasure brings bad-things

(Tatian)

Therefore, a language which displays V3 is not necessarily a non V2language, but sim-· ply one where several1bpic positions can be filled simultaneously. 'Ihtts, the appear·· ance ofV3 does not prove anything with respect to the movement path of the inflected verb: a language can have I to Fin movement (as attested by subject inversion) \Vithout respecting the V2 linear restriction, as the languages above show. If the loss of the

2.

Fuss distiguishes among six cases ofV3 orders in Old High German:

a

V3 order after dislocated topics V3 order after two adverbial expressions (that in most cases can be taken to form some kind of unit, e.g. [XP [XP] [XP]] Vfin ... ) c. V3 order induced by intervening sentence adverbs d. V3 order induced by intervening personal pronouns e. V3 induced by intervening short adverbs (mostly thcJ 'then') f. V3 after preposed adverbial clauses

b.

We refer to hL~ work for a detailed analysis of the different cases. For the purpose of the present work it is sufficient to note that "iolations of the V2linear restriction exist in Old Germanic.

3o6 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto

V2 linear restriction is not enough to conclude that the verb does not move to C0 in a given language, we can use the second diagnostic for V to C movement, namely subject inversion. Therefore, any analysis which ties subject inversion and the V2 linear restriction as the one proposed by Roberts (2004) encounters a problem with languages like these. The situation of Cimbrian concerning V3 orders has changed with time: Bidese (2008) shows that in the first and second Catechisms (dating respectively 1602 and 1813) the V2linear restriction is respected (the only exception found is the one with pronominal subjects we mention in the next section), while nowadays V3 sequences are rather common, as the following examples show: (8)

a.

merca. Hai.\te die mome hat gekoaft die oala al today the mum has bought the eggs at.the market

b.

Gestam die mome hat gebii.scht di piattn. yesterday the mom has washed to dishes

However, we will not conclude from examples like these that Cimbrian is not a V2 language for the reasons mentioned above: there exist languages which do not respect the V2linear restriction but which nonetheless display subject inversion and movement of the inflected verb to the C domain.

J.

The problem of subject inversion

From the above discussion, we can conclude that the lack of V3 orders is a suf.· ficient but not a necessary condition of V2 languages. Therefore. we need to resort to subject inversion to show whether Lusema Cimbrian really has movement of the inflected verb to the C domain. 'Ihis test is also not without problems since in Luserna Cimbrian the possibility of having subject inversion is related to the type of subject: no DP subject inversion of the Germanic type is allowed as the ungrammaticality of (9a, b) shows: (9)

a. *Haute geat dar Giani vort. today goes the G. away b. "Gestarn hatt dar Giani gisekk in has. seen a hare yesterday has the G. Haute dar Giani geat vort. today the G. goes away

d.

Gestarn. dar Giani hat gisekk in has. has seen a hare yesterday the G.

However, inversion is possible and indeed obligatory when the subject is represented by a subject clitic pronoun as in the following examples:

Hidden verb second: The case ofCimbrian 307 (10)

a.

Gestarn hatt-ar gisekk in has. a hare yesterday has--he seen

b. *Gestarn ar hatt gisekk in has. yesterday he has seen a hare

Bidese (2008) notices that the ban against DP-subject inversion is already attested in the first Cimbrian document, the Catechism dating 1602. He reports the following example attesting inversion with subject pronouns and claims that subject pronoun inversion (illustrated in the following example) is common in the text while inversion of a DP subject is virtually non e.lC:istent: (11)

und darome saint za zbelf artkheln. and therefore are they twelve articles

(Kat. 1602: 247, Bidese (2008: 34))

Working on the same text, Beninca and Renzi (2000) also confirm the absence of DP subject inversion and report a single example ofinversion of a non clitic subject, which is a quantified noun phrase. (12)

unt hia saint iere painighe alle ghegogelt. all cancelled and hier are their sins

(Kat. 1602: 1272-3, Beninca & Renzi (2000: 148))

Contemporary Lusema Cimbrian also displays a special treatment of quantifiers (at least bare ones) as opposed to usual noun phrases: on a par with subject clitics they allow subject inversion, as the following examples show: (13)

a.

'Z

b.

'Z

hat-ta niamat telefonaart. it has-part. nobody phoned hat niamat telefonaart. it has nobody phoned

Moreover, cases of inversion of full pronouns become possible if the full pronoun is doubled by a subject clitic,3 as is the case in constructions which probably have to be analyzed as cases of focused subject pronouns: (14)

a. ""Gestarn hatt er gisekk in has. yesterday has he seen a hare

b.

Gestarn er hat gisekk in has. yesterday he has seen a hare

c.

Gesta:rn hatt-ar er gisekk in has. yesterday has-he he seen a hare

3· An additional afb>urnent in favour of V2 is the fac..t that an embedded clause in first position triggers subject inversion (although limited to !>'Ubject ditics) as it does in standard German and other V2 languages: (i)

Bhlda rivan di khindar, sperr--bar di ttir. when arrive the kids, dose .. we the door

3o8 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Po1etto If real DP inversion is lacking, we could conclude that Cimbrian is not a real V2 language, and never was, as DP inversion was never possible (at least from the first attestation we have). However, this would be wrong: as we noticed above on the basis of Bidese's (2008) work. the first attested document (the Catechism dating 1602) as well as the sec.ond (the Catechism dating 181.3) were consistently V2 with respect to the linear restriction. The only cases of V3 found were due to the fact that the text is a translation fi·om Latin where there are two constituents preceding the inflected verb. Bidese further notes that in the first Catechism, the violation of the V2 linear restriction consists in the addition of a subject pronoun to sentences where the origi·· nal Latin text had none (Latin being a null subject language, lexical subject pronouns are restricted to cases of Focus or Topic). In these cases the position of the subject pronoun inserted in the Cimbr:ian trmslation is located to the left of the inflected verb and not to the right, as exemplified in the following example: (IS)

Im funften iz schaffet. in-the fifth it orders ...

(Kat 1602:529, in Bidese (2008: 42e))

The same type of violation is found in Old High German and Old English texts and has been studied by van Kemenade (1987), Tomaselli (1995), Fuss (2003), (2008) among others. (16)

a.

Dhaz ir chichundida. this he announces

(Isidor Contra Iudaeos)

b.

erino p011Wl ih fircbnussu. iron portals destroy

(Isidor Contra Iudaeos)

This has been interpreted by the authors mentioned above as evidence that those pro·· nouns were either 'VVackernagel eli tic" or weak forms and occupy a dedicated special position in the CP layer.4 1his possibility has completely disappeared from the synta..lC: of Luserna Cimbrian: when a clitic occurs in main clauses starting with any XP, the subject eli tic must fol·· low the inflected verb. We follow Bidese's proposal here and assume that modern Cimbrian clitics are real heads and behave as such, while Older Cimbrian pronouns in V3 contexts are rather weak pronouns and have a dedicated position in the clause (see Cardinaletti and Starke (1999)), which is however a specifier position.

4· Several authors have worked on the problem ofV3 with subject pronoun in Old Germanic languages. The first seminal work is van Kemenade (1987) on Old English, Tomaselli (1995) concentrates on Old High German.

Hidden verb second: The case ofCimbrian 309

Modem Cimbrian also has weak pronouns, and they appear on the left of the inflected verb, contrary to clitic heads: 5 (17)

a.

Dar khint. he (weak pron.) comes

b. ""Haute hat dar

der Giani gisekk. today has he (weak pron.) the G. seen

c. "Ar khint. he (dit.) comes d.

Haute hat-ar der Giani gisekk. today has-he (clit.) the G. seen

With Bidese we conclude that: 1. 2.

The syntax of DP inversion has not changed in Cimbrian, as DP subject inversion was never possible. The syntax of pronouns has changed because clitic heads have been developed.

However, the fact that in Older Cimbrian the V2 linear restriction was respected leads us to assume that these two properties (i.e. subject inversion and V2linear restriction) are not really two sides of the same coin: Cimbrian shows that the linear restriction has been lost, while DP subject inversion has remained impossible. Even more, Older Cimbrian shows that a language can obey the linear V2 restriction without having DP subject inversion. 'Iheref{)re, we should be cautious in interpreting lack of DP subject inversion as evidence for the non V2 character of a language. This is not only confirmed by the fact that in XVII century Cimbrian the linear restriction is respected but no DP subject inversion is allowed, but also by the fact that in Old Italian the linear restriction is not respected, though DP subject inversion is found. This shows that what has standardly been assumed to be a cluster of properties associated with the V2 parameter is not to be considered as such. In a more general vein this is not a surprising result, as other parameters have also been taken apart in recent literature. Work on the pro drop parameter has shmvn that what we used to view as properties associated with this parc:IIlleter can be found separately in different languages and that clusters of properties being present or absent together are rather to be conceived in probabilistic terms than as a real yes/no split.

5· lhe fact that real ditics cannot appear in first position in Cimbrian constitutes independent evidence for its V2 status, as larJ.b>uages like the Northern Italian dialects (which are not V2 and possess subjec..t ditic heads) do not bar1 subject ditics in first position: (i)

El

vien.

He comes

(Venetian)

310

Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto

Concerning the reason for the rather astonishing fact that DP inversion is banned from a V2 language, we postpone the discussion of our proposal to Section 7, where we will have a more precise idea of what the left periphery of Cimbrian looks like. More generally, given that the tests to ascertain the V2 status of Cimbrian do not appear to be as clear--cut as we would like them to be, we intend to further investigate the third empirical correlate assumed to be a reflection of the V2 property, namely the asymmetry between main and embedded clauses. As we will see, the system of complementi1.ers found in Luserna Cimbrian is rather interesting and reveals that for one subclass of complementizers, the asymmetry typical ofV2 languages is still opera-tive. This in turn will shed light on the diachronic development of languages losing the V2 property, which we interpret to mean, in syntactic tenns, V to C movement, as standardly assumed.

The complementizer ~-ystem of Cimbrian

4·

The system of Cimbrian complementizers can be split into two classes: we will refer to them as "ke-type complementizers" and "az-type complementizers" using the two complementizers which most frequently occur in embedded declarative clauses. Here is the list of the complementizers belonging to each class reported by Panieri et al. (2006: 338---342): (18)

Ke-type

ke, 'that'; benn, 'when'; bia, 'as'; umbromm 'because'; bia nd, 'why';

Az- type

az, 'if/that'; bal, 'when/if'; benn, 'if'; ir1tdnto az'while'; dnka az 'even if'; dopo az 'after';Jirl az 'until'; ma az6 'unless'; bo 'relative c.omplementizer'.

'Ihe clauses following ke--type complementizers behave as main clauses in various respects, while clauses introduced by a.z-type complementizers display different properties. We illustrate the point with respect to four different properties, which we will discuss in turn. 4.1

Separable prefixes

On a par with other Germanic languages, Cimbrian has a set of separable prefixes. However, they are not unmovable as they are in standard German, but appear in at

6. Notice the combination of a Romance adverb with the Germanic complementizer rather than with the Romance one. Younger speakers tend to use intanto ke, dopo ke,fin ke instead, and this could be the key to the loss of the Germanic complementizer system. However, we will not investigate this phenomenon any further here.

Hidden verb second: The case of Cirn brian 311

least two positions. As already shown in Grewendorf and Poletto (2005), separable prefixes can either precede or follow the past participle in a declarative clause, but always follow the auxiliary or a simple main verb in main clauses: (19)

a.

hon au-gehort die arb at ka Tria. have up-given the job in Trient

b.

hon gehmt--au di arb at ka Tria. have given-up the job in Trient

c. *I auhon gehmt die arb at ka Tria. in Trient up-have given the job (20)

a.

hon o.ffe-geton die ture. have open-done the door

b.

hon geton-offe die ture. have done-open the door

c. *I offe hon get on die ture. open have done the door

Embedded clauses with ke do not differ from main clauses and display the same two possibilities: (21)

a.

die arb at an menta. Dar hat-mar khott ke dar hat ogeheft he has-me told that he has pref.-begun the job on Monday

b.

die arb at an menta. Dar hat-mar khott ke dar hat geheft 0 he has-me told that he has begun pref. the job on M.onday

Notice that in sentences like ( 19)-(21) the prefix can never cross the inflected auxiliary (or any inflected verb), as shown by (22): (22)

hat geheft die arhat an menta. a. *Dar hat-mar khott ke dar o he has--me told that he pref. has bet,'l.m the job on Monday di arbat an menta. heft b. "Dar hat-mar khott ke dar o on Monday job the begins pref. he he has-me told that

This rather interesting oscillation between a pre- and a postparticipial position of the prefix might be interpreted in the following way. Assume that Cimbrian is not different from German with respect to the position of separable prefixes, which encode aspectual features and therefore must be located in some Aspectual projection in Cinque's (1999) hierarchy. The pre- or postparticipial position of the prefix cannot be due to its optional movement in front of the past participle, given that in general verbal prefixes are unmovable, as German clearly shows. Rather, we surmise that the distinction between the two languages is to be attributed to verb movement: Cimbrian is a VO language; therefore, it must be different from German with respect to the movement possibilities of the verb in general and of the past participle too. Thus, we propose that the oscillation found in (19) to (21) is due to movement of the past participle, which


can remain lower or rc:rise higher than the prefix. 'Ihe following structure illustrates the two possible orders: (23)

a. b.

[cp.. ·lrr.

[AsoP prefix lvp past pa1tidple DPob!]]]] b···lrr· pa..~t participle [AspP prefix [yp past·part:ieiple DPobJ]]]]

Notice furthennore that embedded clauses of the az-type also display prefixes before or after the participle. In addition to that, they have a third option, which is impossible with ke·· type embedded clauses: the prefix can be located in a position higher than the auxiliary (or the main inflected verb). (24)

(25)

a.

Dopo az--ar hat 0 geheft di arb at an menta. after that--he has pre f. begun the job on Monday

b.

Dopo az-ar hat geheft 0 di arb at an menta. on Monday after that-he has begun pre f. the job

c.

Dopo az--ar 0 hat geheft di arb at an menta. on Monday after that-he pre f. has begun the job

a.

dar mann bo da hat o-geheft a naiiga arbat. job the man that part. has up--taken a new

b.

dar mann bo da hat geheft-o a naiiga arbat. the man that pa1t. has taken-up a new job dar mann bo da 0 hat geheft a naiiga arb at. the man that part. up has taken a new job

The empirical generali7.ation we can state is that az-type clauses have a syntax dif.· ferent from main and ke-·type clauses. Elaborating on this empirical observation, we can assume that in az-type clauses the inflected auxiliary remains in a position lower than the prefix, while in main and ke-type clauses, it always raises higher and crosses the prefix. 'Ihere is independent empirical evidence that this hypothesis is correct: both higher and lower adverbs of the aspectual and modal type (as analyzed by Cinque (1999)) can occur higher than the auxiliary in az-type clauses, thus attesting that the order prefix--auxiliary is due to lack of movement of the auxiliary, not to prefix rc:ris·· ing. 'Ihe f(.)llowing examples show the case in point: while in main clauses the adverb za occurs to the right of the inflected verb, it occurs to its left in az- type embedded clauses. Given that adverbs do not move from their merge position (unless they are focused, which is not the case here), we can conclude that the preverbal position of adverbs which usually occur postverbally shows that in this type of embedded clauses the verb does not move as high as it does in main clauses. (26)

a.

. .. az ar za vorl is gont . ... that he already away is gone


(27)

b.

is gont. ... az ar vort za ... that he pref. already is gone

c.

gont. ... az ar vort is za ... that he pref. is already gone

d.

... az

e.

. .. az ar vort furse is gont . ... that he pref. maybe is gone

t

... az

a.

Dar hat za geriiaft. he has already phoned

b.

Dar hat-mar khott ke dar hat za geriiaft. he has-me told that he has already phoned

vort is gont. ar furse ... that he maybe prt. is gone

ar vort is furse gont . . . . that he pref. is maybe gone

We can draw the following tentative conclusion: in az-type clauses, the inflected auxiliary can remain lower than in main and ke- type clauses. In what follows, we present additional tests which confirm this conclusion. 4-2

Negation and verb movement

Another test which is often used to determine the position of the verb in VO languages with the V2 property like the Scandinavian languages is the relative ordering of the inflected verb and the sentential negative marker. In Mainland Scandinavian the verb is usually analyzed as remaining in a lower position (inside the VP), given that the order is Neg- V. while in Icelandic the fact that the order V-Neg is possible is analyzed as raising of the verb higher than the negative marker to some 1° projection. If the tentative conclusion presented above is correct, tb.en we predict that the clauses selected by the twn complementi:l.er types should also differ with respect to the posi-tion of the standard negative marker? 0 nee again, we can observe that ke- type clauses pattern with main clauses; in both cases the negative marker obligatorily follows both main and auxiliary inflected verbs (and always precedes the past participle): (28)

a.

boas ke dar is net vortgont. know that he is not away-gone

b. "I boas ke dar net is vortgont. I know that he not is away--gone

7· Notice incidentally that the negative marker uet in Cim.brian seems etymologically and syntactically similar to the German 'nkht' type, and not to the higher one used in Italian, as it does not trigger negative concord. We assume here that it occupies the same position as German 11icht.


c. *I boas ke du net geast ka Tria. to Trient I know that you not go

(29)

d.

Dar khiit ke dar steat net dahuam. he says that he stays not at-home

a.

Dar is net khent. he is not come

b. *Dar net is khent. he

not is come

With az-type complementizers the situation is different and more complex: in the case of main verbs, negation must precede the inflected verb: (30)

a.

Dar hat gebollt azz-e net vortgea. he has wanted that-I not away-go

b. *Dar hat gebOllt azz-e vortgea net. he has wanted that-1 away-go not The constrast between (28)/(29) and (30) clearly shows that main verbs in az-type clauses cannot raise to cross negation, while main verbs in main and ke-type clauses must do so. (31)

hebat geboellt az-ar-me net oruaf, ma dar hat-s getont. had wanted that-he-me not phones, but he has-it done

a.

oruaf net, ma dar hat-s getont. b. *I hebat geboellt az-ar-me had wanted that-he-me phones not, but he has-it done An interesting difference is found as far as auxiliary and modal verbs are concerned; in this case negation can either occur before or after the auxiliary: (32)

(33)

(34)

a.

... azz-a-dar net hat khOtt zu kemma. . .. that-he-to-you not has said to come

b.

hat net khott zu kemma. ... azz--a-dar ... that-he-to-you has not said to come

a.

Onka az-ar hat net ogeheft a naii.ga arhat, issar herta toebig. job, is-he always nervous even if-he has not begun a new

b.

Onka az-ar net hat ogeheft a naii.ga arhat, issar herta toebig. job, is-he always nervous even if-he not has begun a new

a.

Bal dar net bill

if b.

he

gian, schikh-en vort. not wants go, send-him away

Bal dar bill net

gian, schikh-en vort.

In this case we propose that auxiliaries and modals can but need not raise higher than the position of the negative marker. This difference between auxiliaries and main verbs is well known in the literature on verb raising: already Pollock (1989) notes the same


difference between infinitival auxiliaries, which can (but need not) raise higher than negation in French, and main verbs, which cannot move past the negative marker pas. vVe can conclude that the second test also goes in the same direction as the first one: in az-type clauses the inflected verb seems to be located lower than in ke-lype clauses and main clauses, where the verb must move past the negative marker net. 4·3

The particle da

Another test showing that we are on the right track in assuming that in az- type clauses the verb does not raise as high as in main and embedded clauses introduced by ke has to do with the position of the particle da. 8 In main clauses the particle is ahvays located after the inflected verb, as shown by the following example: (35)

a.

gelaii.tet die klokkng. han--da Aile sunta the bells every Sunday have-part. rung

8. This particle is homophonous •Nith the locative element da 'there; though the fact that the two can cooccur shows that they are not the same item. We will not investigate the semantic imp01t of the particle here, leaving it to future research. Here we limit ourselves to providing some information on its distribution. Da is a patticle occurring in relative clauses (on the subject, object and other arguments)

(i)

hat geschenkt in Gianni. Dar libar bo da-r to G. the book that part.--he has given

interrogative clauses (ii)

da-r hat gisekk in pua. boas net bo the boy I know not where part.-he has seen

declarative clauses (iii)

di milch di bake. 'Z gen-da it give-part. the milk the peasants

The pattide da is not a locative: as it can cooccur with a locative instance of da (iv)

hat gelek. Dar libar bo da der Giani da there has put the book that part. the G.

Da senres as a host of ditics (v)

putzt ist kronk. bo da-se S beibe the woman that patt...them cleans is sick

Da is incompatible \-\'i.th weak pronouns, but co-occurs both with ditic and tonic pronouns (vi)

a.

herta lesst worma geat in pett. Dar libar boma the book that-one always reads when--one goes to bed

rna herta lesst v\'orma geat in pett. b. *Dar libar bo da the book that part. one always reads when-one goes to bed

316

Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto

b.

Alle sunta latitn-da die klokkng. every Sunday ring-part. the bells

c. *Alle sunta da lai.itn die klokkng. every Sunday part. ring the bells

If the complementizer is of the ke-type, the particle da is again located immediately after the inflected verb, as shown by the following examples: (36)

Dar Mario hatt khOtt ke aile sunta han-da gela(itet has said that every Sunday have-part. rung the M. die klokkng. the bell-.

(37) *I boas

ke da khint di nona. know that part. comes the granny

In the case of az-type complementizers (like bal., in the example below) the particle is located immediately after the complementizer itself: (38)

Bal-da rivan di khindar, sperr-bar di ttir. close-we the door when-part. arrive the kidocusP

[FinP

hr

lrp lwackP da/clitics) [AspP prefi.'l:

[NegP net] ... [yp]]]]]]]]

Az--type complementizers can either be high or low in the structure ofthe CP: if they are low complementizers located in Fin°, this means that clitics of the Wackernagel type and the particle da, which occur in enclisis to the complementizeriinflected verb, must be in some IP position, as shown in (45). According to this analysis, complemen·ti1.ers of the ke-type are located in ForceP. The alternative is that az/the inflected verb are in Force: in this case Wackernagel clitics and the particle da could be located either in IP (as in (47)) or in CP (as in (46)). If az occupies the Force position then complementizers of the ke-type are located in a projection even higher than Force, which we call here SubordinatorP. 10 Notice that the two alternatives make distinct predictions concerning the position of Topics and Foci with respect to the complementizer: if az is a low complementizer,

9· We assume here Rizzi's (1997) original structure with the modification proposed in Benind. and Poletto (2004). to. See Bhatt and Yoon (1991) on the distinction between complementi.:1.ers that act as mood-indicators and complementizers that act as pure subordinators.

Hidden verb second: The case ofClmbrian 319

'Ibpics and Foci should precede it; if az is a high complementizer, it is expected to be followed by Topics and Foci. The following examples show that az-type complementizers such as bo are high complementi1..ers, given that Topics and focused elements occupy a position lower than these complementizers: (48)

Dar libar bo da i in Gi1mi za on get. to-the-G. the book that part. I already have given

(49)

a.

Dar libar bo da-r IN GIANNI hat get. the book that part.--he THE G. has given

GIANNI dar hat get. b. *Dar libar bo IN the book that THE G. part.-he has given

Although (46)/(47) seem prima facie to be more complex than structure (45), as the additional projection SubordinatorP must be postulated, the order with respect to 'lbpics and Foci shows that it is the correct one. 'Iheretore, we exclude (45) on the basis of the examples above. Furthermore, we can also exclude (47) on the basis of the following argument If da and clitics were located in IP, then we would predict that some specifiers can intervene between the complementizer and the clitic cluster. (50)

az-ta-r-en that-part.--he--him

(51)

a. *Fin az--o--ar net riiaft. until that-perfl1e not phones b. *Fin az net at• otiiaft:. until that not he perf.phones ar otiiaft. c. *Fin az furse until that maybe he perf.phones

'Ihe examples above show that this is never the case, as complementizers and clitics always form a single unit: no prefix, adverb or negation can intervene between a.z and a subject clitic. There are also phonological phenomena of assimilation between the complementizer and the particle da: for instance az + da = azta (z is pronounced as a voiceless sibilant /s/ and the voiced consonant of the particle becomes voiceless as wel1). 11 Moreover, if we adopt an antisymmetric framework in which right adjunction is not allowed (see Kayne 1994), we cannot obtain the order az-da-subject clitic-object clitics through clitici7.ation.

n. An additional indication comes from the fact that native speakers write the sequence complementizer-da-clitics as one single word.

320

Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto If we adopt structure (46) we solve both problems: dct and Wackemagel clitics are in the CP domain and az moves from Fin° to Force0 crossing the positions of da (here represented as GroundP) and adjoins to the left of the clitics in WackP creating a cluster which cannot be split by any specifier: 12 (52)

lsubordP ke lForceP

az-da-ar hopicP az-dfil-aT' lwacJr.P clitics arv-dtl-al' lGroundP ardfil·

L_______________________________L____________________________________________________________L__________________________________

hoptcP az..[FocusP a,z [FinP az (rp[AspP

prefix lNegP net] ... [yp ]]]]]]]]]]]

i

In this way, we capture the tact that Topics and Foci are lower than the complemen·ti:z.er, and the fact that the clitic cluster is enclitic to az. Moreover, we also capture the fact that the class of az-complementizers does not allow for verb movement (as the order with negation and adverbs considered above shows), which in principle would be possible if the Fin position were empty. Lack of verb movement only in these constructions shows that the complementi1...er is not directly merged in Force but must start out in Fin and then move to Force. There is independent evidence for complementizer movement in the left clausal periphery. Watanabe (1993) assumes CP--recursion in order to account tor the fact that embedded topicalization in English targets a position to the right of the complemen·tizer in non-wh-clauses and to the right of the fronted wh-element in wh-clauses: (53)

a. b.

. .. [cp leo that b Topic [co 0 [AgrsP ••• ]]]]] . .. [cp wh-phrase leo 0 b Topic leo 0 [AgrsP ••• ]])]]

Furthermore, Watanabe makes two crucial assumptions about the selection of clause types: From the two types of clauses to be selected by a verb, namely wh-clauses and non-·wh--dauses, the former are characterized by the presence of a wh-·phrase in Spec of the topmost CP, while the latter are charc:tcteri:z.ed by an empty Spec of the topmost CP. The argument for complementizer movement derives from Watanabe's analysis of factive complements which he develops on the basis of these assumptions. He argues

Empirical evidence for the existence of a left--peripheral Wackernagel position can be derived from an observation by Hubert Haider (see Haider 2009) according to which there is a garden path effect with the scrambled noun Marga in (i) but not with the pronoun in (ii), which may be attributed to the fact that there exists a left --peripheral syntactic position whid1 is exclusively designed for pronouns: 12.

(i)

well Marga Kollegen vorgestellt bekamen. since Marga colleagues introduced got

(ii)

well es Kollegen vorgestellt bekamen. since it colleagues introduced got


that factive complements also require CP-recursion with the Spec of the lower CP being occupied by a factive operator: (54)

John regrets

b

that bOp [AgrS he fired Mary]]]

While this analysis allows him to accow1t for the impossibility of adjunct extraction out of factive complements as well as for the impossibility of topicalization within factive complements, it conflicts with the idea that the definiteness of factive complements as represented by the factive operator is selected by the matrix verb, which would require a structure like (55). (55)

b

Op [co that

[Ags.P ••• ]]]

However, (55) is not compatible with the assumption that a non-wh-complement is characterized by an empty Spec of the topmost CP. To solve the conflicting demands from the theory of selection and the theory of clause types, Watanabe assumes that CP recursion is created by complemerrtizer movement, as indicated in (56):

1he assumption of complementizer movement also provides him with an account of the COMP-- trace effect observed with embedded topicalization: (57) "Which athletes1 do you think that [pictures of til are on sale?

If one assumes that the trace of the complementizer that inherits the inertness of tha.t for government, then the CP recursion analysis can explain the ungrammaticality of (57) along the lines of Rizzi's (1990) analysis of the that-t effect. (58) ?*Whid1 athletes do you think lcp that 1 lcp [pictures of]i ti [Agrs.P ti are on sale]]]

In (58) it is the trace t; of the subject that is the offending trace since it cannot be governed by the trace\ of the complementi:r.er, which would also account fi.)r the contrast between the ill--formed example (57) and the significantly better example (59): (59) ??VVhich athletes1 do you think that [pictures oft 1] Mary bought?

Empirical evidence that there exist indeed nvo complementizer positions located on the left and on the right of Topics comes fi·om Paoli (2003), who provides examples with two complementizers and a Topic in Old Romance: (60)

a.

Sire, je te adjure par le vray Dieu que ta Lord I you beg for the true God that your fille Tarsienne, que tu ne la donnes that you not her give daughter T. a mariage a autre que a moy. to marriage to anybody that to me

(apoll f48b, Paoli (2003): 261)

32.2 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto b.

Onde dize Josepo que en casa de so padre que le Where says ]. that in house of his father that him llamaron primeramiente Ciro. called for-first C.

(GenEst 177r.2)

A theory-internal argument for complementizer movement is offered in Poletto (2000: Section 2.2.3). Poletto shows that in many Northern Italian diale clarification is not trivial at all Fuss (2008: 242) argues on the basis of Axel (2007) that nwnerous V3 cases which are attested in Old High German are still possible in modern German. However, modern German clearly does not have the freedom of stacking one Topic after the other as Old Romance or Cimbrian do.


We briefly outline a sketch here which we think is promising, but will need further confirmation by work on other V2 languages and different diachronic stages of them. 30 Let us first recall the problem: Roberts analysis assumes that any XP moving to the left periphery has to pass through the "bottleneck" of SpecFin because this projection is endowed with an EP P feature which can be satisfied by any XP. As FinP has only one specifier, there can only be one XP to the left of the inflected verb in Fin°, although the XP can continue to move further to check its Operator, Focus or Topic feature. How come then that languages like Old Italian, Sappadino, Mocheno and Cimbrian allow fi.)r any number of XPs located in front of the inflected verb? In a nutshell, we intend to propose that this is due to the fact that Topics are allowed to skip the SpecFin position in some languages but not in others and that this must be tied to the presence of clitics which double Topics. Our argument runs as follows: in languages where V3, V4 etc. sequences are allowed, not all orders of the XPs preceding the inflected verb are possible. It is imprecise to say that any type of XP can be located in front of the inflected verb in the languages mentioned: the only possible sequence is the one provided by an operator (like wh or Focus) preceded by one or severallbpics. Poletto (2002) examines modern Rhaetoromance dialects, which have much in common with Old Romance and are still clearly V2, and shows that the only possible sequences are precisely: (101)

a. b.

Topic*wiJ31 Topic*Focus

Any other sequence (more than one Focus, more than one wh or operator, one or more Focus or operator followed by one or several Topics) is excluded.1he violation of the V2 restriction is thus limited to Topic XPs, which occur in front of a single A'-movedXP. 1his violation seems to be connected to the existence of resumptive elitic heads: Old Italian, Rhaetoromance, Sappadino, Cimbrian, Mocheno32 are alllanbruages which have clitic heads and where clitic heads can double 1opics. Bidese (2008) and Poletto and Tomaselli (2008) propose the following empirical generalizion: (102)

V2 is relaxed when clitic doubling appears.

It is evidently possible to reconcile Roberts' account with languages like Cimbrian by saying that 1bpic elements in the CP do not move, but are base generated there. This is however not what we would like to say, becau.se we adopt the recent standard "iew first proposed in Cecchetto (1999) that "Ibpics do move from the IP.

30.

31·

Here the asterisk means that there can be more than one 1bpic.

32·

Por a detailed analysis of the Mocheno left periphery see Cognola (2008).


In more technical terms, we can state that the possibility of clitic resumption somehow permits a Topic to circumvent the restriction proposed by Roberts. If Topics are resumed by a clitic in the IP, they can move directly to the Topic positions in the left periphery bypassing the Spec of FinP, while operator-like items like wh-elements and Focus always have to go through SpecFin; so in any V2language there can be only one operator-like item in the CP. However, Topics must move through SpecFin only if the language does not have doubling elitic heads. How does the presence of a ditic allow 'Ibpics to skip SpecFin? We capitalize here on an intuition that we have already developed in the preceding section on wh·items, namely the one that the type of movement an XP undergoes is determined by its internal structure. Moreover, given that DPs are phases, they are internally built in a fashion parallel to CPs. Suppose that clitic doubling is to be analyzed as a torm of "splitting" of a bigger constituent (usually referred to as "big DP" in Uriagereka (1995)) as proposed by Kayne (1975), Uriagereka (1995), Belletti (2006), Grewendorf (2008), and Poletto (2008) among others. The structure of a "big DP" as proposed by Uriagereka is illustrated in (103). (103)

[[DP [Do d) [DP]]

We adopt this idea in the version developed in Poletto (2008), who assumes that eli tics are the head of a Case projec.tion KP and that KPs/DPs are phases and have an internal left periphery similar (though probably not identical) to the one of the CP. (1 04)

[KP [Ko cl]

·· · [.1\;p!::P [r~:::us.P [Gender}'

[N\:mber [NP]]]]]]

The left periphery internal to a DP, whose highest projection is a KP where the clitic head sits, contains Topic and Focus projections.33 If eli tic doubling is a form of splitting of the KP illustrated in (104), then the element moving to ~lbpicP in languages which have clitic doubling is not the entire KP, but a lower projection. The KP projection containing the clitic is left behind and only a lower projection is subextracted. We propose that the subpart of KP moved out to the CP left periphery is precisely the internal TopicP, which leaves the clitic stranded in IP. (105)

Ucp fropicP] ..• [FinP [1p [SpecAgrP [KP [r«'cl] ~~~~ Agr-0 ... [VP]]]]]]]34

33· Giusti (2006) shows that in some languages the specifiers of the 1bpic and Focus phra'!es internal to the DP are available to movement of ad.iectives. 34· We have represented the KP as being in a SpecAgr position, notice however that nothing crucial for our analysis depends on this asswnption.

Hidden verb second: The case of Cim brian 341

'Ibis means that the constituent moved to the TopP in CP in languages with clitic doubling is a "pure TopicP" in the technical sense that the constituent moved is not a DP/KP but precisely a TopP which perfectly matches the TopP hosting it in CP. In languages where no eli tic doubling is possible (because there exist no clitic heads), the only option is to pied··pipe the whole big DP/KP to the CP left periphery.35 If the whole DP/KP is pied piped to CP, it must pass through SpecFin to reach the left periphery; if only the subpart of KP including TopicP is moved, then this pure TopicP can directly reach its corresponding position in the CP bypassing SpecFin. This explains Bidese's empirical generalization: when clitic heads start doubling left dislocated XPs, then V3 becomes possible even in V2 languages. In our terms, extraction of a pure TopicP from the whole KP/DP becomes possible and the pure TopicP is the only element which can skip SpecFin and reach its final position in the CP left periphery. As for the reason why pure "Iopic constituents have the property of skipping FinP, we capitalize on an observation concerning Topics made by Rizzi (2004): he notices that Topics do not trigger minimality effects, while Focus and whitems do. Rizzi explicitly discusses a hypothesis in terms offeature emptyness: Topics do not contain other features than those that make them 'Ihpics (i.e. aboutness and D-linking in Rizzi's terminology). Suppose that Topics are indeed inert to any sort of feature checking except their own; in intuitive terms, a Topic is in a sense sometl1ing external to the predication and as such cannot check any feature internal to it Therefore, the EPP feature 36 in FinP cannot be checked by a constituent whose highest pro· jection is TopicP, as is the case in ditic doubling languages. However, the whole DP/KP of non clitic doubling languages is still a "normaf' argument and as such is not inert to feature checking and can satisfy the EPP feature in FinP. The link between clitic doubling and V3 is not immediately visible, though our analysis captures it in a rather straightforward way. If our analysis is correct, it follows that only V2 languages with clitic doubling of Topics allow for V3 orders. This means that there might be V2 languages which have already developed ditic heads, but do not have doubling of Topics yet, and even in tl10se cases V3 would be blocked. Our analysis also predics that there should be no V2 languages where V3 is systematically possible and which have no clitic doubling of Topics. To bear out tl1is prediction requires further empirical work on other languages

35·

The technical execution of the idea is represented in the following derivation: (i)

(ii)

[[KP [K'

[[xp

cl]

[TopicP [FocusP [FP [NP]j]J]j

[TopicP [FocusP [FP

[Np]]

rx' [KP [K, cl] H~ f~ f-l':P- fm:]-]]]]]]

36. At present the big mystery of what an EPP feature exactly is remains. However, this does not bear on our analysis, as we claim that Topics are inert to all features of the clause except their own.

342 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto of the Romance and Germanic type and of other language families where our empirical generalization can be tested.

9·

Conclusion

In this article we have discussed the left periphery of Cimbrian and the elements which can occupy it. From this work some general consequences for the structure of the left. periphery and for V2 emerge: first of all, these data confirm the idea that V2 is not a unitary phenomenon in the old sense of a parameter triggering a cluster of phenomena which include the linear restriction, subject inversion and the main versus embedded clause asymmetry. Cimbrian is different from German, as it allows V3 (and V*) orders and displays restrictions on inversion, but still maintains one class of embedded structures where the asymmetry is visible. Various research perspectives are still open. First of all, the analysis of complementizers of the az-type could be extended to other languages which do not display any mixed complementizer system, like standard German, a problem we do not discuss here. The spreading of the comp lementizer ke and the progressive loss of the az comp lementizer will lead to the loss of the main versus embedded asymmetry in sentence stnH.:ture. 1his in turn will probably weaken the evidence native speakers have for the V2 phenomenon (recall that subject inversion is reduced to clitics and that the linear V2 restriction is not respected in Cimbrian). The loss of the "Germanic" type of complementizer might be one of the factors which will eventually lead to the entire loss of any correlate ofV2 (in our terms, loss of any V to C), hence, also of the cases of subject clitic inversion in declarative clauses, and of expletive 'z. Given what we said above, the loss ofV2 seems to derive from the interplay of at least three factors: (a) the loss of the V2 linear restriction due to the development of clitic doubling, (b) the activation of a high Topic position above ForceP which hosts topical wh-items and referential DPsubjects, preventing DP subject inversion, (c) the creation and spreading of a new class of complementizers which erases the original asymmetry in verb movement with respect to main and embedded clauses. We also have further empirical work awaiting us in order to verify if the empirical generalization that clitic doubling and V3 orders are connected is correct. The main thread of our argumentation has been the assumption that the type of movement of an XP to the left periphery depends on its internal structure, both with respect to the final landing site (low OpP or high RefP as is the case for wh-items) and with respect to the path the moved XP follows (through FinP or directly to the 'Ibp P in CP as is the case for left dislocated DPs depending on whether they are eli tic doubled or not). However, there still are several loose ends which we hope to develop in the future concerning the status of Topics, and in particular whether tl1ey are really inert


to feature checking internal to the predicate they are associated with. Another possible development of our idea would be to consider the internal structure of subjects and see whether the fact that they occupy different positions- a WackernagelP (as subject eli tics do in Cimbrian), a low Operator position (as bare Quantifiers do) or a high RefP (as definite DPs) is reflected in their internal structure. We leave all these questions open and hope to have shown that the study of Cimbrian is particularly revealing for the syntax of the left periphery.

References Axel, Katrin. 2007. Studies on Old High Germatl Syntax: Left Senterzce Periphery, Verb Plac.ement and Verb-Second [Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today 112]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Beghelli, Filippo & Stowell, Tim. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi. (ed.), 71-109. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Belletti, Adriana. 2006. Extending doubling to non-lexical domains: Complete vs. partial copying + deletion and related reconstruction issues. In Form, Structure and Grammar. il Fest~chrift Presented to GUnther Grewendorf on Occasion of HL~ 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuss (ed.~), 129-136. Bedin: Akademie Verlag. Belletti, Adriana. 2008. Answering Strategies: New Information Subjects and the Nature of Clefts, Ms, University of Siena. Beninca, Paola. 1984. I:interferen:za sintattica: Di un aspetto della sintassi Iadina considerato di origine tedesca. Quaderni Patavini di Unguistica 5: 3-15. Beninca, Paola 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance. In Negation, Tense and Clausal .4.rchitecture: Cross-linguistics Investigations, Raffaella Zanuttim, Hector Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul Portner (eds), 53-86. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Beninca, Paola & Cinque, Guglielmo. 1985. Lexical subjects in Italian and the pro-drop parameter. Paper presented at the Comparative Generative Grammar Fiesta, Salzburg, August 1985. Benincit, Paola & Renzi, Luigi. 2000. La venetizzazione della sintassi nel dialetto cimbro. In Isole linguistiche, GiannaMarcato (ed.), 137-162. Padova: Unipress. Beninca, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The Structure ofCP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 52-75. Oxford: OUP. Bhatt, Rakesh M. & Yoon, James. 1991. On the composition of COMPand parameters ofV2. In Proceedings of the lOth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Dawn Bates (eel.), 41-53. Stanford CA: Leland Stanford Junior University (Center for the Study of Language and Information). Bidese, Ermenegildo. 2008. Die diachronL~che Syntax des Zimbrischen. Ttibingen: Gunter Narr. Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michael. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. In Clitics in the Languages c~fEurope, Henk van Riemsdijk (eel), 145-233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis ofleft and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53: 40-67. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: 0 UP.

344 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto Cinque, Guglielmo. 2001. 'Restructuring' and the order of aspectual and root modal heads. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax - Essay Offered to Lorenzo Renz~ Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds ), 137-155. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cognola, Federica 2008. OVNO syntax in Mocheno main declarative clauses. To appear in Sele;.:ted Proceedings ofthe .34th 1,1contro di Grammatic.a Ge,lerativa, Paola Benindt, Federico Damonte &Nicoletta Penello (eds), Padm'R: Unlpress. Fuss, Eric. 2003. On the historical core of V2 in Germanic. Nordic .Journal of LinguL~tic.~ 26(2): 195--231. Fuss, Eric. 2005. Tile Rise of Agreeme11t. A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammati-cali.zation of Verbal Injlectio11 [Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today 81]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fuss, Eric. 2008. Word Order and Language Change. On the Interface between Syntax and Morphology. Habilitationsschrift, Universitiit Frankfurt. Giupponi, Elena. 1988. Pro drop Parameter und Restrukturierung im Trentino. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna Giusti, Giuliana. 2006. Parallels in clausal and nominal periphery. In Phases of Interpretation. Mara Frascarelli (ed. ). 163-184. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grewendort; Gunther. 2008. The left clausal periphery. Clitic left dislocation in Italian and left dislocation in German. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse. Sy11tactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 49-94. London: Routledge. Grewendort; Gunther. 2010. Wh-movement as topic movement. To appear in Functional Heads. Studies in honor of Guglielmo Cinque, Laura Bruge, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti. Nicole Munaro &Cecilia Poletto (eds), Oxford: OUP. Grewendort; Gi.inther & Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. Von OV zu VO: Ein Vergleich zwischen Zimbrisch und Plodarisch. In Das Zlmi:Jrische zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch, ErmeneglldoBidese, James R. Dow&'Ihomas Stolz(ed.~). 114-128. Bochurn: Brockmeyer. Grewendorf, Giinther & Poletto, Cecilia 2009a. The hybrid complementi:z.er system ofCimbrian. In Proceedings XXXV Tncontro di Grammatica Generativa [Studies in Linguistics 3], Vincenzo Moscati & Emilio Senidio (eds), 181-194. Siena: Centro Interdlpartlmentale di Studi Cognltivl sul Linguaggio, Universita degli studi di Siena. . Grewendort:, Gunther & Poletto, Cecilia. 2009b. Topic or operator? 'I'wo types of wh-items in Cimbrian. Ms. Universities of Frankfurt and Venice. Groenendijk, Jeroen A.G. & Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Haider, Hubert. 2009. Gardenpaths mlt Marga. Talk delivered at the workshop in honor to Marga Reis, Thbingen. Heim, Irene. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen's semantics for know. Ms, MIT. Kayne, Richard. 197 5. French Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2005. On parameters and principles ofpronounciation. In Organizing Grammar. Studies in Honor ofHenk van R.iem~di,tk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Co rver. RinyHuybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (ed.~). 289-299. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History ofBnglish. Dordrecht! Forts. Munaro, Nicola. 1995. On nominal Wh-phrases in some norfuern Italian dialects. Rivista di Grammatica Generattva 20: 69--100.

Hidden verb second: The case of Cirn brian 345 Munaro, Nicola. 1997. Proprieta Strutturali e Distribuzionali dei Sintagmi Interrogativi in Alcuni Dialetti Italiani Settentrionali. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofPadova. Munaro, Nicola & Pollock, Jean- Yves. 2004. Qu'est -ce que (qu)-est -ce que? A case study in comparative Romance interrogative syntax. In Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglldmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds), 221-258. Oxford: OUP. Paoli, Sandra. 2003. COMP and the Left Periphery: Comparative Evidence from Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester. Panieri, Luca et al. 2006. Barlirnen z'schriha tm reda az be biar: Grammatica del ambro di Luserna, Regione Autousma Trentino Alto Adige, Istituto Cirnbra Lusern. Pesetsky, David. 1989. Language--particular processes and the earliness principle. Ms, MIT. Platzack, Christer. 2010. Backward binding and the C-- T phase: A case of syntactic haplology. To appear in Functiorwl Heads. Studies in honour of Guglielmo Cinque, Laura Brage, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Eiusti, Nicole Munaso, & Cecilia Poletto (eds.), Oxford: OUP. Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northem Italian Dialects. Oxtord: OUP. Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. On V2 and V3 sequences in Rhaetoromance. In Syntactic Aiicrovariation, Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kle~i (eds). . Poletto, Cecilia. 2007. Tra tutto e niente: Ordini OV in Italiano antico. In Miscellanea di studi linguL~tici ojJerti a Laura Vanelli da amici e ailievi padovani, Roberta Maschi, Nicoletta Penello & Piera Rizzolatti (eds), 33--48. Udine: Forum Editrice. Poletto, Cecilia. 2008. Doubling as a spare movement strategy. In Aiicrovariatiotl itl Syntactic Doubling, Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds), 38--68. Bingley: Emerald. Poletto, Cecilia & Pollock, Jean-- Yves. 2009. Another look at Wh-questions in Romance: The case of Mendrisi.otto and its consequences for the analysis of French Wh-in situ and embedded interrogatives. In Romance Languages and Li11guistic Theory 2006. Selected Papers from 'Going Romance', Amsterdam, 7-9 December 2006, Daniele 'Ibrck & W. Leo Wetzels (eds), 199-258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poletto, Cecilia & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 2001. La Sintassi del Soggetto Nullo nelle isole Tedescofone del Veneto: Cirnbro e Sappadino a Confronto. In La dialettologia oltre il2001, Gianna Marcato (ed.), 237-252. Padova: Unipress. Poletto, Cecilia & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 2008. Die Syntax der Pronominalobjekten und die Form des Partizips. Konservative Merkmale in der Sprachgeschichte des Zimbrischen. 'Ib appear in Parrallela III, atti del T'erzo Convegno Internazionale Deutsche Sprachwissenscltaft in Italier., Claudio di Meola (ed.). Pollock, Jean- Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal g.rammar and the structure ofiP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized MinimaWv. Cam bridge MA: The MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1991. Residual verb second and the Wh-cri.terion. Technical Report in Formal and Computational Ling<Jistics 2, University of Geneva. Reprinted in Parameters and Functional Heads, Adriana Belletti. & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 63-90. Oxford: OUP, 1996. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Eleme12ts of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the positi.on 'int(errogative)' in the left periphery ofthe clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax Essays Oj_fered to Lorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cir1que & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 287--296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

346 Gunther Grewendorf & Cecilia Poletto Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223-251. Oxford: OUP. Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces Recursion = Language?, Ulrich Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gii.rtner (eds), 115-160. Berlin: de Gruyter. Roberts, Ian. 2004. 'Ihe C-system in Bryt:honl.c Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In 1he Structure ofCP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 297-328. Oxford: OUP. Scardonl. Sara. 1999. La Sinta.ssl. del Soggetto nel Cimbro Parlato a Giazza. Ph.D. dissertation, Universita degli Studi di Verona. Shlonsky, Ur. 2009. \\'here is Why? Ms, University of Geneva. Stowell, Tim & Beghelli, Filippo. 1994. The direction of quantifier movement Paper presented at the GLOW Conference, Vienna. Szabolcsi, Anna & Zwarts, Frans. 1997. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. In Ways ofScope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 217---262. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Thornton, Rosalind. 1995. Referentiality and Wh··movement in child English: Juvenile D-linkuency. Language Acquisitiotl 4: 139-175. Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1995. Cases of verb third in Old High German. In Clause Structure atid Language Change, Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts (eds), 345-369. Oxford: OUP. Tomaselli, Alessandra & Bidese, Ermeneglldo. 2007. Diachronic development in isolation: The loss ofV2 phenomena in Cimbrian. Li11guistische Berichte 210: 209-228. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects in the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79--123. Watanabe, Akira. 1993. AGR-based Case Theory and its Interaction with the A-bar System. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Revisiting the Wackernagelposition The evolution of the Ciinbrian pronominal systen1 Ermenegildo Bidese Universita di Trento

The present contribution reconstructs the development of the personal object pronouns of Cimbrian, a German dialect spoken in Northern Italy which evolved many centuries in close contact with northern Italy's Romance dialects. With reference to their functional status and their clausal position we discover that Cimbrian's object pronouns started from a German model and have over time become closer to a Romance one. In the older Cimbrian texts, these elements are clearly recognizable as full phrases (XP), occupying the traditional WackernagelposUion; in modern wTitings they behave as heads (X 0) and appear only in an 'adverbal' position, i.e. enclitic to the finite verb, similarly to the syntax of Romance object pronouns. The fact that they cannot be realized as proditic to the finite verb - like the Romance ones - shows however that the original Germanic. syntax limits the influence of that Romance. Attempting to explain this phenomenon, this current study suggests revisiting the structure of the

Wackernagelposition.

1.

Introduction 1

Cimbrian is a German dialect spoken today only in the secluded mountain village of Lusem (Italian Lusema) in the province of Trento in northeast Italy.2 Yet, in the past, Cimbrian was commonly used - in a few villages until the eighties of the last

I sincerely thank Werner Abraham and James R. Dow, who read the first draft of the present paper, both for reviewing the content and revising my English. I am also grateful to Mid1ael T. Putnam for giving me the opportw1ity to publish this study.

1.

2. Por the discussion about some aspects of the syntax of Luserna-Cim:brian see the contributions by Grewendorf & Poletto and by .Andrea Padovan (this volume) as well as the extensive syntactic discussion and comparison of Cirnbrian 'A'ith to day's Bavarian by .Abraham (also this volume). A classic description of Lusern's Cimbrian can be found in Bacher ([1905], 1976). Tyroller (2003) has also offered a general description of the grammar of Lusern's Cimbrian. Cf. also Panieri, Pedrazza & Nicolussi Baiz (2006).

348 Ermenegildo Bidese

century- in a much more extensive area including a part of the provinces ofVicenza and Verona in the region of Veneto.3 The Cimbrian communities in those provinces formed an administratively autonomous federation tolerated for a long time by the sea-republic of Venice, in Vicenza in the so called Fedemtion of the Seven Municipalities, and in Verona in the Federa.tion of the Ihirteen Municipalities. Generally, it is assumed that the Cimbrian variety spoken in the Seven Municipalities was the most conservative of the three, especially with regard to aspects of both morphology and the lexicon.4 In any case, only in this latter variety was a form of'literature' produced such that we can approach Cimbrian from a diachronic perspective analysing the Cimbrian syntal!: during the last 400 years. 5 The present contribution deals with the evolution of a particular aspect of Cimbrian syntax, namely the functional status and the clausal position of the personal object pronouns. The issue is particularly interesting because the German dialect of Cimbrian has developed in close proximity ·with northern Italy's Romance dialects for many centuries. German distinguishes itself significantly from Italian and northern Italy's Romance dialects with regard to the nature of personal pronouns and their positions in the clause. It is a well-known fact that the paradigm of German's personal pronouns presents only one series, that of the 'full forms; with the exception of the third person singular neuter es that behaves idiosyncratically. By contrast, Italian and northern Italy's Romance dialects clearly show two pronominal series: one 'full form' and another clitic one.6 It is true that many German dialects present several cases of pronominal fonns reduced morphonologically attaching to the final verb in the main clause and to the complementizer in the embedded one, but they are to be considered as allomorphs of the full forms that means as maximal projections (XP) like the full pronouns. By contrast, Italian and northern Italy's Romance ditic pronouns are

J. Today, in the Venetian villages, only few speakers or semi-speakers can be found, as there is no longer an integrated community of people who use the Cimbrian langtLage in everyday commtmication Yet, many institutions and cultural associations are involved in the revitalisation of the Cimbrian language. For a general introduction into the geographical and historical main questions about the formation, the evoltLtion, and the linguistic vitality of the Cimbrian enclaves see Bidese (2004).

4· See the classic contributions of Schmeller (1838) and Kranzmayer (1981 ..·1985) and, most recently, Panieri (2005, 2008, and 201 O) as well as Abraham (this volume) extracting from the data very explicit syntactic differences. In the fifties of the last century, the Bavarian linguist Bruno Schweizer pro\'ided the most complete description of the grammar of all the Cimbrian varieties then still spoken and documented in written. The manuscript comprehending five volumes remained unpublished for fifty years. Recently James Dow edited and published Schweizer's legacy (cf. Schweizer 2008 ). See the re\'iew of this monumental work in Abraham (2009). 5·

See Bidese (2010b).

6.

See Poletto & Tomaselli (1995).

Revisiting the Wackernagelposition 349

functional heads? Considering object pronouns and their forms, this prompts the following questions: (1) How do Cimbrian object pronouns behave, or, rather, how do Cimbrian object pronouns evolve under the imminent influence of the neighboring Romance dialects? (2) How can such an evolution under imminent language contact be adequately explained? The oldest known Cimbrian document is the Cimbrian translation of Cardinal Bellarmino's Italian catechism Dottrina christiana breve ("short Christian doctrine"), published in 1602.8 Other relevant historical texts of the Seven Municipalities' Cimbrian are a collection of 'baroque lyrics' from the 17th and 18th centuries, 9 a fic-titious dialogue about a visit to the market bet\¥een 1:\'V'o persons from Asiago (the largest of the Seven Municipalities )10 as well as a novena in Cimbrian translated for a religious holiday in honour of the Holy Mary 11 from the 18th century. For the 19th century we have to mention the Cimbrian translation of a further catechism, Pic-coio Catechismo ad uso del regno d'Italia ("small catechism for the Italian Kingdom"), published in 1813, and in a second, slightly revised, edition from 1842,12 as well as a narration about the construction of Roanas (one of the Seven Municipalities) bridge written in 1895 by the teacher Domenico Zotti and published in 1906 by the Paduan university professor and ethnologist Aristide Baragiola.13 Another source of the synt:lX of this phase is the collection of tales found in Schweizer (1939). Further texts have been produced in the eighties of the last century, among them worth mentioning the collection of Costantina Zotti's memoirs. 14

7· Cardinaletti (1999: 63): ':A.t the end of the derivation, weak pronouns are (deficient) maximal projections occurring in specifier positions, whereas clitic pronouns are heads, adjoined to the functional head." Note that Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) proceed on the assumption that there are three types of pronouns in natural languages: strong pronouns, weak pronouns, and clitics. 8. Two partially diverging and differently preserved original copies of the first Cimbrian catechism can be consulted respectively in lnnsbruck (Ferdinandeum, sig. H~ 906, nr. 3) and in Vienna (()sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, sig. 62790-A Rara). The critical edition of this text was provided by Wolfgang Meid (cf. Meid 1985a). 9·

See Heller (1988) for the critical edition.

10.

See Stefan (1998).

n.

See Stefan (2000).

For both editions see Meid (1985b ). A digital version of the two texts can be retrieved in http:/ /titus. uni- frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/ germ/zimbr/kat 1813d/kat18.htm and http://titus. uni -frankfurt.de/teA.1e/etcs/germ/zimbr/kat 1842d/kat 18.htm.

12.

13. See Baragiola (1906). We use the new edition of the text provided by the Cirnbrian Cultural Institute (d Lobbia & Bonato 1998).

14.

See Zotti (1986).

350 Ermeneglldo Bidese

For our investigation of the diachronic syntax of Seven Municipalities' Cimbrian it seems advisable to select both catechisms (abbreviations being Cat.1602 and Cat.1813) because of similarity in style, and the narration about Roana's bridge (abbreviation Bar..l906) because of the length of the story and the narrative style; lyTic, however, appeared less suitable for our syntactic investigation. Furthermore, from a syntactic point a view, Bar.1906 represents a dear innovation in comparison with the two catechisms. Later narrations present the same aspects Bar.1906 already shows. In what tollows, each of these literary works will be characteri7.ed with respect to their linguistic properties to be critically discussed.

2.

2.1

Tite diachronic syntax of Cimbriau object pronow1s "!he Cimbrian catechism of 1602

In the first documented phase of Cimbrian diachronic syntax, object pronouns systematically fill two positions: I.

Immediately to the right of the finite VerbiV2, or else, if this position is already occupied by the subject pronoun (under subject-verb-inversion), to the right of that (in the far-left middle field). This can be observed in the following clausetypes: (a) in declarative main clauses (cf. 1---3); (b) in interrogative main clauses (cf. 4 and 5); (c) in subordinate clauses governed by a 'bridge verb' (cf. 6); and (d) in subordinate clauses introduced by the causal complementizer barume!barome "because" (cf. 7 and 8): (1)

unt dez ezzen, unt rusten ist unzDAT noat and to eat and to dress is (for) us necessary.

(2)

De belt hatten ghepittet the world has--him implored.

(3)

derzua schaffet er urlZnAT ••• in addition orders he (to) us ...

(4)

Ber hat se aufgheleghet? who has them ordered?

(Cat.1602: 597)

(5)

Disa bia kimet: si unz..iJA'i' zo sainan vorghebet? these, how became they (for) us to be forgiven?

(Cat.l602: 741)

(Cat.1602: 423---4) 15

(Cat.1602: 1345)

(Cat.1602: 502-3)

15. 1he nunibers indicate the lines of the original text in the standard edition of Meid (1985a).

Revisiting the Wackernagelposit!on 351

II.

(6)

darome bizzebir, er mak unzACC erhoern therefore know--we, he can us hear.

(Cat.l602: 395)

(7)

barume er [ ... ] bil uzACC holik because he [... ]wants us (to be) saintly.

(Cat.1602: 555)

(8)

Barome mit der Vorte enhalteber unzAcc von sunten because with the fear abstain -we llS from sins.

(Cat.1602: 92)

Generally, immediately to the right of the complementizeriComp or, if this posi-· tion is already occupied by the subject pronoun, to the right of those. This is typical of those subordinate clauses introduced by other complementizers than barume!barome "if" (cf. 9···12) or by a relative pronotm (cf. 13 and 14 ): (9)

daz urlztJAT ist zoakemt dazselbe liberle that U'l is sent this the same little book.

(C!it.1602: 66)

(Hl)

Daz er dik burt erhueren that he you will hear.

(11)

dazar u.znAT ghebe dez bol that--he us may give the well--being.

(CaU602: 376)

(12)

bia ber unsACC haben zo botragan how we us have to behave.

( Cat.1602: 492)

(13)

beile tmZnAT habent ghebet daz sainen who us have given the life.

(Cat.1602: 526)

(14)

derse hat in himel ghefL1ert who--them has in (the) heaven conduced.

(Cat.1602: 1352)

(Cat.1602: 1267)

From a morphonological point of view we can distinguish two pronominal series in the first Cimbrian Catechism, the tormer with 'full forms; and the latter with morpho·· nologically reduced fonns (cf. for example the fonn unz "us" as in 9 and the form uz "us" in 11). The crucial question is whether the morphophonologically reduced pronominal forms are to be considered as eli tics like the Romance ones or as 'allomorphs' of the full forms. We plead for the second solution, for the following syntactic reasons: a.

'Ihe morphophonologically reduced pronouns do not exclusively occupy an 'adverbal' position as the Romance clitics generally do, 16 since they clearly show structural adjacency to the complementizer or the relative pronoun (see above 9-14 );

16.

See Poletto & Tomaselli (2009), and Tomaselli (2010).


b. c.

d.

2.2

In Cat.1602, there are no examples of the typical Romance phenomenon of object clitic-doubling (l;'ho visto luiJ"himditic (I) have seen him") to be foundP In Cat.1602, in special constructions with dislocated elements like the 'leftdislocation/LIY, in which a pronominal resumption of the left-dislocated nominal elements is required, a demonstrative pronoun appears as a resumption element (contrastive left-disiocation in German: den neuen Lehrer, den habe ich heute gesehen/"the new teacher, this have I today seen") against the Romance leftdislocation that requires a ditic element (clitic left--dislocation in Italian: il nuovo insegnante l'ho visto oggi/"the new teacher, himditk (I) have today seen"). 18 1his means: The pronominal resumption strategy of dislocated elements pursued in Cat.1602 stands for a typology that is typical of German, but not of Romance. 19 Cat.1602 dearly presents the German Verb--Second-rule,20 which is traditionally assumed to be connected with the so called Wackernagelposition,21 which represents, in the traditional sentence field-analysis (Satzfeldanalyse), the top position of the MittelfeltP 2 reserved for pronominal elements. In this respect, it has often been proposed to introduce for the first position of the left edge of the Mittelfeld, a Pronominalfeld; the term Wackernageiposition also indicates the special status of the Mittelfeld's left border. 23

The Cimbrian catechism of 1813

In contrast to the first Cimbrian catechism, the Catechism of 1813 shows a consider·· able innovation in light of the position of the personal pronominal object Only in a residual context is it possible to find pronominal objects as in Cat.1602: more precisely, in embedded contexts adjacent to the complementizer; in other words, when the complementi1..er is the declarative conjunction az "that, so that" (d. 15-17):

17.

See Anagnostopoulou (1999).

See for this topic Anagnostopoulou (1997) and for an in-depth analysis of the Cimbrian data Bidese (2008).

18.

19.

See Poletto & Tomaselli (2000) and Pili (2001).

2.0.

See Bosco (1999) and Bidese (2008).

2.1.

See den Besten (1983), Travis (1984), Tomaselli (1990) and Kiparsky (1995).

2.2.

See for example WC'Illstein-Leisten. Heilmann & Stepan (1997: 57).

See Abraham (1997), (2005) and this volume. See also Zifonun., Hoffman & Strecker (1997: 1557).

23.

Revisiting the Wackernagelposit!on 353 (CaU813: 533) 24

(15)

Az uzDAT dar iinzar Gott schenke alle de sain gnizien so that us our God grants all his graces.

(16)

az U:ZUAT kemme ghet bas barpitten that us may be given what we ask.

(Cat.1813: 384)

(17)

az ar mar nommet alla de bool that you (from) me would accept all the good">.

( (',at.1813: 477)

With all other subordinate conjunctions or with relative pronouns, object pronouns are realized enclitically to the finite verb, therefore 'adverbally' (cf. 18-20 and 21): (18)

biabarhicensenaach how we forgive--them.

(Cat.1813: 396)

(19)

se dar benne bar srunUZACC net gapaichtet since we have-us confessed

(Cat.1813: 465)

(20)

b~EL ar hebetmar voar hemmest gamacht which you have-(for)-me l.mtil now made.

(Cat.18L3: 362-3)

As tor the object pronouns appearing in these contexts, we assume that they are to be considered as clitics like the Romance ones, but with the relevant difference that the Cimbrian clitics are always in an enclitic position, never in a proclitic one. This assumption about the nature of these pronouns is confirmed by the fact that there are several clauses in Cat.1813 with a clitic duplication of the pronominal (only indirect) object (object clitic-doubling). See (21)-(23): (21)

bibel se' habentmart seii miari iibel gataant how often they have-meclitic they me harm done.

(22)

brumme gal6.ichentachi euchj because they like-youclitic you.

(23)

tort z' kimmetacht euchj zo kemmen ... since it belongs-(to) youclttlc (to) you to be ...

se

(Cat.1813: 375---6)

(C,at.1813: 369)

(Cat.1813: 505-6)

As for the two other phenomena (left dislocation and V2), we assume that their development is connected with that of the pronominal system of Cimbrian. It can be established beyond doubt that in Cat.1813 there are no more examples of contrastive left--dislocation, with a D-·pronoun as resumptive element. By contrast, there are many examples of clitic left--dislocation, above all in interrogative contexts. 'Ihis develop-ment of the dislocation and resumption strategy from a contrastive left-dislocation to

24.

The numbers indicate the lines of the original text in the standard edition ofMeid ( 1985b).


a clitic one is to be judged as a signal that the syntax of the left periphery is going to change radically. In addition to the appearance of resumption clitics in Cat.1813, we also have evidence for the disappearance of the phenomenon of contrastive leftdislocation. Unlike clitic left-dishJCation, the contrastive one allows only one fronted element. Now, in Cat.1813 there are dues as to the realization of two elements in front of the V2-clause. See (24) below, which is not to be considered as a left-dislocation, but, rather, as a hanging topic. 25 Nevertheless, it is a hint at a modified left-periphery in Cat..1813 as compared to Cat..l602. (24)

[Dar Sun von Gotte me Herren] 1 [nukhentensich man] batar1galazt zo sfunan Gott? (Cat.18.l.3: 157-8) the son of God the Lord, making-himself man, has -he ended being God?

We see what appears to be a change of the left periphery confirmed by the fact that the V2-rule is on its way out in Cat.1813. For example, there are optative sentences showing two elements in front of the finite verb (cf. 25 and 26): (25)

[Aso] [de liba Vrau ... un ... ] pitten voriiz iinzarn Herren Jesu Christ (Cat.1813: 555-6) so the beloved Lady ... and ... may pray for us with our Lord Jesus Christ.

(26)

[Aso] [Gott ... ] vii.ariiz in de iinzarn dineste so God ... may lead-us in our activities.

( CaU813: 557)

The same can be found in interrogative sentences, in which the WI·I·-word is preceded by another element, generally a prepositional phrase, as in (27) and (28): (27)

Un [nach den viarzk taghen] baz hatar gatant? and after forty days what has-he made?

(28)

[In minsd1en boart], bazhatsid1 zo tii.nan zo volghen allen disen Comandamenten? (Cat.1813: 232-3) in few words, what must be done in order to follow all these commandments?

(Cat.1813: 194)

All these observations confirm the idea that a change in the Cimbrian pronominal system and the corresponding syntactic phenomena took place between Cat.1602 and Cat.1813, even though in the latter text the signals of syntactic variation are not that evident

25.

See Bidese & Tomaselli (2005) and (2007).

Revisiting the Wackernagelposit!on 355 2.3

The Cimbrian of Dez Dink vo' der Pru.cka

In the third Cimbrian text analyzed here, the narration of the events concerning the construction of Roana's monumental bridge Dez Dink vo' der Prucka ("1he affair of the bridge"), with all the syntactic variations which in CaU813 we only had weak indication tor, clearly come to light The chain of changes follows the following steps --see (a-c): 'Ihe V2-rule is now violated systematically (cf 29-31):

a.

(29)

[In Doi Zait] [dear erste Deputato] hat kott 'me Loite at that time the first deputy has said (to) the people.

(30)

[Afde noin Oarn] [de Klocka] hat get Avviso at 9 oClock the bell has given alarm.

(31)

[In Tak saiten zbenonzbozek von Agosten] [dear Ponte] ist ganget all~a at the day 22nd of August the bridge was up for auction.

(Bar.1906: 110)

(Bar.l906: 115)

In Bat:1906 there are no clauses with clitic left-dislocation, but we saw that this typical Romance structure already has appeared in Cimbrian in Cat..l813. Other Cimbrian texts from this period (tor example Schwei7.er 1939) confirm this. The typical Germanic form of left dislocation, contrastive left-dislocation (~ith a o-pronoun as resumptive element and only one element fronted) was also a characteristic only of the first documented phase of Cimbrian represented by Cat.1602. Like Cat.1813, Schweizer's (1939) texts only show the clitic resumption of dislocated elements and the possibility to have more than one element in left dislocation. 27 & for object clitlc--doubling, it can be noted that, in Bar.1906, this construction expands to other contexts than those in CaU813. Unlike CaU813, object clitic-doubling now captures nominal phrases too (as opposed to only pronominals in Cat.1813) (cf. 32 and 33). Likewise, doubled elements can now be found in preverbal position (cf. 33 and 34):

b.

(32)

biar haben-z-eni gamachet segen de Braveni we have-it -(to) themcHtic let see to the fops.

(Bar.1906: 115)

(33)

me dessen ~·onme Roane; degnarn--se-sich gnanca segen--sent that that of Canove deign-they not even to see-itclitic'

(Bar.1906: 110)

26.

Pagination corresponds to that of the new edition of Baragiola's text by Lobbia & Bonato

(1998).

27.

(Bar.l906: 105) 26

For more data see Bidese (2008).


(34)

miar; importar-z-mar; nicht zo sterben to me matters--it-(to) meclitic nothing to die.

(Bar.l906: 111)

Consistently with this syntactic development, the only position the object pronow1s occupy in Bar.1906 is the 'adverbaf one, i.e. enditically to the finite verb. Thus, in this Cimbrian text, there are no more examples of subordinate clauses in which the object pronouns are realized adjacent to the complementizer (cf. 35-37): (35)

baREL gebent--ilz zua who combat-us.

(Bar.1906: 112)

(36)

ba sd1on biar haben--z-·et! gatant how terrific we have--it--(to) them made (=take them in).

(Bar.1906: 107)

(37)

as6 bia der Komaun bil-se tradiren how the town council wants-them to betray.

(Bar.1906: 109)

Actually, this text contains no e.xamples of subordinate sentences introduced by az, therefore we can not be sure whether in this particular context it was also possible in this text to reali1.e object pronouns adjacent to the complementizer as residually attested in C..at.18l3 (see above 15---17). We conclude that it can not be completely excluded for Bar.1906 either. In any case. it would be a matter of a very residual possibility. To sum up, the diachronic analysis of the Cimbrian pronominal system from the first attested document in this language, the 1602 C-atechism, to the story Dez Dink vo' der Prucka, shows that over some three hundred centuries Cimbrian moved away from a syntax which is typologically German and got closer to a Romance type. Whereas the pronominal objects in Cat.1602 can be considered as morphonologically reduced pronouns and also as allomorphs of the full forms, those in Bar.1906 must be ana-lyzed as clitics in accordance with the categorical status of ditics in northern Italy's Romance dialects. Regarding the position in the clause, whereas the original position of the pronominals was the Wackernagelposition, on the left periphery of the Mitteifeld, that in Bar.1906 is 'adverbal: i.e. structurally adjacent to the finite verb. Furthermore, the examined data seem to suggest that this development of the Cimbrian pronominal system went hand in hand with the following changing phenomena in three distinct syntactic areas: (a) the syntactic change of the left clausal periphery: from contrastive left-dislocation to clitic left-dislocation, concomitant with the loss of the strict V2-rule; (b) the syntactic development of the structural center of the clause: the emergence of object clitic-doubling; and, finally, (c.) the grammaticalization of the intermediate area between the left dausal periphery and the structural center of the clause: the change of personal pronouns from morphonologically reduced forms to ditics. The following section is devoted to the analysis of three aspethey turned=(just)rww.

net< se: not< the:y

sa= (look)=

know< the:y (look)=

Gabi: [0 m:hm, 0 ]

The ne.xt section outlines previous research on the use of grammatical, prosodic, and lexical resourc.es for managing turn--taking. 'Ihe data used to illustrate some of these resources come from Siebenbiirger Sachsisch, a settlement variety of German. Note that the regularities described in Section 2 hold for Colloquial Standard German as well. The phenomenon that is the focus of this study, however, has no equivalent in Colloquial Standard German. Section 3 provides further preliminaries: It describes the methodology and data used.

In developing my analysis, I have benefitted from discussions with Amanda Huensch and from audience questions and comments at the 2008 convention of the National Communication Association in San Diego, CA. In 2006, during a data session at the University of Illinois, Makoto HayaShi first drew my attention to the lexical variants that are the subject of this study. Juliane Edenstrom and one anonymous reviewer have provided valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this article. All remaining errors are mine. 1.

The lines containing the target forms ier1tz and ientzter are highlighted through arrows. See appendices A and B for transcription conventions and abbreviations used.

1.

Adverbs in German conversation 417

z. Resources for constructing turns: Grammar, prosody,lexis There exist, first, grammatical resomces for shaping sentential TCUs and thus for signaling the status of a turn. Typologically, German exhibits verb-second ordering in declarative main clauses and wh-questions. 'Ihis verb-second ordering is displayed regardless of the type of constituent that occupies the first position. In exc.erpt 2, the syntactic first position is occupied by a direct object ( 2)

Verb -second ordering in German: ge rmrmistik [0 05- B_4 96] l1h dieses briecht det INA nkhen . .hh this kind needs the ((name)) not. [O][V][ S ] .hh this kind LillA doesn't r1eed.

K:

Composite verb forms and complex verb phrases are ordered according to a syntactic rule called Satzklammer ('sentence brace; English terminology following Auer 1996) in main clauses. Data sample 3 provides an example of a sentence brace structure; the parts highlighted through bold print form the brace itself. (3)

Strong syntactic closure in German: der schober [0 03-B_378] M: hias ientz ian pension gonge, he+has now in p~_nsion gone, [S] [V]

[PPT]

he just retired, In a declarative sentence in German, the finite verb (V) in second position represent~ the left brace of the sentence brace structure, followed by the so--called MiUe!feld ('inner field'). Adverbials and prepositional phrases in German are typically contained in this inner field (cf. Frey & Pittner 1998; Pittner 1999; Weiss 1975; Zifonun, Hoffmann, Strecker & Ballweg 1997 ). 3 'Ihe right brac.e constitutes the right boundary of the inner field and may be filled with elements such as infinitives, predicate complements, separable verb prefixes, or a past participle (PPT). Thus, the second part of a composite verb generally appears in clause-final position in German. Because the right brace in a syntactic structure (clause or sentence) typically constitutes the actual end of a sentential TCU and is also oriented to as such by recipients in spoken interaction, the ends of such units are strongly projectable based on syntax alone. In short, there are certain clearly defined and syntactically driven word order rules in German. Based on these, interactants can both predict and recognize points of possible syntactic completion and thus identify places at which turn transition is interactionally 'le!,>itimate:

3· For accounts of expansions beyond the right boundary of a sentence in German, see Auer 1996,2006, Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007, Edenstrom 2008,2009, and Vorreiter 2003.

418 Emma M. Betz

Speakers also have a variety of prosodic resources available to indicate that a TCU that is projectable as nearing completion is indeed constructed to be complete at the projectable point. These signals of 'designed' completion in German include characteristics of volume, speed, stress, and pitch (e.g. Auer 1996; Gilles 2001; Kern 2007; Selting 1996, 2000, 2001, 2005). Certain pitch configurations, combined with gram·· matical and pragmatic features, mark transition relevance. They are typically absent fi·om turns designed as not yet complete. In German, tenninal falling or rising pitch with respect to the speaker's pitch range signal turn yielding. whereas final level or only slightly rising pitch is used to signal turn holding (Gilles 2001; Kern 2007; Selting 1996, 2000: 510, 2001; for research on English, see Ford, Fox & Thompson 1996; Local, Kelly & Wells 1986). Moreover, pitch peaks close to a possible completion of a TCU seem to function as "a carrier whose syntactic properties and placement can have it heard as projecting upcoming completion of tum" (Schegloff 1998: 241; see Auer 1996 for German). Lastly, an upstep or downstep in pitch, in combination with syntactic cues, often marks a prosodic break, and thus, for example, the beginning of a new structure (Auer 1996; Selting 2001; see also Walker 2004). We can thus note that prosodic features, just as features of syntax, are used by participants for signaling and identifying actual transition relevance. Besides syntax and prosody, lexical markers are important in organizing units in conversation. Studies investigating the connection between lexis and turn organization in German have described turn--final markers (e.g. response pursuit tokens, Harren 2001) and turn-initial markers, which connect turns and sequences, for example by signaling the beginning of an extended contribution (e.g. Egbert 2002, 2003; Zifonun et al. 1997: 899; Taleghani--Nikazm 2008). Egbert (2002, 2003) outlines the use of German iibrigens, which, placed turn--initially, projects a new and discontinuous topic to come.4 In its main syntactic position in the inner field of a verb-second sentence, however, iibrigens indirectly refers to a previous sequence or interaction beU.veen the same interactants, thereby invoking a common interactional history. In the latter use, iibrigens is consequently classifiable as a modal particle rather than as an adverbial. With respect to lexical TCUs, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) note that, in constructing a turn-at-talk, lexical TCUs (e.g. really? in English) appear overwhelmingly as first or only TCUs in their turn and their occurrence elsewhere is limited to doing something special. These differences in distribution can offer one kind of evidence for position-sensitive grammars. Studies such as Egbert 2003 and Sacks et al. 1974 highlight the connection between word semantics, word choice and interaction by showing that the meaning of a lexical item, indeed its word class, often crucially depend on its placement in a tum and sequence.

4· This is similar to 'by the way' in English (Sd1egloff & Sacks 1973).


While the connection between lexis and turn construc..tion (that is, the organization of single turns and the connection between turns) has received some attention in German, the connection between lexis and TCU construction (that is, the construction ofbasic units within a turn) has not. 'Ihis study looks at one particular lexical item within TCUs, specifically within sentential TCUs, in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch. Data excerpt 4 provides another e.l!:ample of ientz(t) and ientzter used in spontaneous interaction. Both forms carry the semantic value of a temporal adverb. They refer to the immediate present or to a point in the past constructed as close and immediately rei-· evant to the present and are thus translated as 'now' or 'just now' (cf. example 1).5"We can note, however, that ientz and ientzter differ in their placement in the interactional units in which they are used: TCU-final and TCU-initial placement can be contrasted. (4)

branessle [53.54....avl3/l4 ....44:12], talk about harvesting edible nettles l Maia: OV OVER nau (.) g_y wttse glech BU- BUT PRT (.) then when+they immediately BU- BUT (.j right when they come 2

ereu'l ku, -w-use si gri:B sien "nuer.0 c.ome ~· when+ they this ta:ll are oonJy.o .!!1!~

=> 3

*M: head *M: dismissive shake hand gesture* gaut. niet IEN*tzter. *ientz siese* n[immi a[ny more] good. not now. now they're not

not 4 Erna:

when they're this ta:ll ~only (then).~

now.

now they're not"

g[oodany] more. [ ojao [ oyeso

1 I

Besides documenting a distributional difference for two semantically congruent versions of the temporal marker 'now' (ientz(t) and ientzter), the present study provides a sequentially grounded analysis of their use in interaction. Previous conversation analytic research has indicated that, on the one hand, different tokens used in similar environments typically perform different interactional functions (e.g. Gardner 1995; Zimmer·· man 1993; Golato & Betz 2008), and that, on the other hand, homonymous tokens used in different tum and sequence position usually serve quite different functions (e.g. Alm 2007; Barske 2009; Betz & Golato 2008; :Egbert 2003; Heritage & Raymond 2005).

5· Ientz(t) and ientzter are of Germanic origin and thus cognates to the Standard German jetzt rather than borrowings from Romanian (Braun-Santa, Haldenwang, Richter & 'Ihudt 1972: 220; Grimm & Grimm 1874-1960 (1971); Ney 1984; Schullerus 1925: 389-390). Both go back to Middle High German ietze, iezuo, iezunt, iezent; the colloquial forms are assumed to have formed through metathesis (Braun-Santa et al. 1972: 220).

420 Emma M. Betz

Given these findings, it stands to reason that ientz(t) and ientzter, two different tokens with the same semantic content, fulfill different interactional function andior exhibit a systematic structural-distributional difference in Siebenburger Sachsisch. In Section 4 below, I show that speakers of this ·variety of Gem1an indeed use ientz(t) and ientzter as position-sensitive tokens. 'Ihe tom1er indexes the status of the current turn as 'design-· edly incomplete; the latter marks it as 'designedly complete: Moreover, I argue that the description of these tokens needs to inc.lude an analysis of the larger sequenc.e in which they occur. since it can be shown that ientzter is involved in topic management. The following section provides a brief description of the methodolo!:,'Y and data used. The analysis in Section 4 inc.ludes the presentation and discussion of ientz(tj and ientzter within the turn, sequence, and action contexts in which they appear. I dose in Section 5 with a discussion of the phenomenon of position--sensitive adverbs in a broader conte..lCt: I present a similar phenomenon in another variety of German, Bavarian German, and locate the implications of my findings at the intersection of morphology, word choice, and pragmatics. I also discuss implications for the classification oflexical variants and raise questions concerning the grammaticalization paths of adverbs and particles in German.

3·

Methodology, data and transcription

This study is a micro-analysis of sentence-level resources and their use in interaction. It aims to describe the interplay between the linguistic structure of utterances, specifically the choice and linear ordering of lexical elements, and the in--situ tasks that they are deployed to fulfill in discourse. To this aim, this study adopts a view of grammar as embedded within the larger organization of social conduct. In this conceptualization of grammar, "the linguistic shape of an utterance is intertwined with the changing relationships among participants over interactional time" (Schegloff, Ochs & Thompson 1996: 44). Guided by the view that grammar shapes and is shaped by interaction, and using the methodology of conversation analysis (CA) (Atkinson & Heritage 1984; Boden & Zimmerman 1991; I-Iutchby & Wooffitt 1998; Lerner 2004; Prevignano & Thibault 2003; Sacks et al. 1974), this study analyzes the use of temporal adverbs in German as determined by aspects of turn-taking and sequence organization (see e.g. Auer 2005; Ford 1993, 2001; Ford & Fox 1996; Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002; Jefferson 1993; Schegloff 1996, 2002, 2007). Within an interac.tionallinguistic. view of linguistic structures, word ordering in German within and outside the sentence brace is primarily a resource for partici-· pant~ to structure actions and display understanding (e.g. Auer 1996; Edenstrom 2008, 2009; Schwitalla 2003). In the description of the German sentence brace (Sec.tion 2), I already suggested that adverbs may appear in different syntactic positions. In Section 4 below, I connect structural adverb placement and interactional meaning by analyzing


representative examples of ientz(t) and ientzter in the environment of turn and sequence in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch. This study is based on non-elicited recordings of every-day interactions in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch, a Romanian settlement variety of German. The speakers recorded grew up in different parts of Siebenbiirgen (Transylvania) and now live in Southern Germany or Austria. 6 The recordings include 3.5 hours of telephone and 5 hours of face-to-fac.e interaction at such occasions as family meals and festivities, afternoon coffee, telephone chats, and arrangement--making on the phone. Using Jeffersonian transcription conventions (see Appendix A), the data were closely trdll·· scribed to include such features as audible pauses, simultaneous talk, and characteristics of speech delivery, for example pitch and loudness of voice (Atkinson & Heritage 1984: ix---xvi; Jefferson 1983, 1.985; Sacks et al. 1974). For each line of German data, three lines of transcript are provided: the German original, an interlinear English gloss, and an idiomatic English translation (Duranti 1997). Where the English gloss and idiomatic translation are identica~ the gloss is omitted. Capital letter abbreviations for syntactic and semantic features largely follow Leipzig glossing rules (Comrie, Haspelmath & Bickel2008) and are provided in Appendix B. Embodied actions (eyegaze, gesture, posture) are selectively included in the transcripts and appear as narrative descriptions above the original utterance. In all excerpts, the line containing the target phenomenon is marked with arrows. My data yielded a total of7l examples of ientz(t) and ientzter, with 33 from tele·· phone calls and 38 from face-to-face interactions. 61 were ientz(t) tokens (28 telephone, 33 fac.e-to-face), and 10 were ienttter tokens (5 telephone, 5 face-to-face). The phenomenon presented here cannot be found in Colloquial Standard German interac·· tion (there exists only one form of the word jetzti'now'), but preliminary observations suggests that it exists in other "V--arieties of German as well. One of these - Bavarian German - will be presented in Section 5.2.

4-

Analysis: ientz(t) and ientzterin Siebenbiirger Sachsisch

In this section, I present data segments that are representative of my collection. For each data segment, a brief analysis highlighting how interactants use ientzt (Section 4.1) and ientzter (Section 4.2) in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch is provided. In the analysis itself, each section moves from a distributional analysis focused on individual reus and turns to the analysis of the lexical token in its broader sequential environment. The latter includes a discussion of, for instance, co--participant orientation and topic development Section 4.3 provides a summary of findings that hold for all cases in

6.

The author herself is a native speaker of this variety of German.

422. Emma M. Betz

my collection and discusses apparent exceptions or marked uses. Finally, Section 4.4 discusses two data excerpts in which speakers deploy ientz(t) and ientzter 'strategically' in interaction to construct an extended turn-at-talk, a syntactic 'pivot construction~ 4.1

Use of ientz(t)/'now' in spontaneous conversation

Data examples 5···8 illustrate the syntactic and turn positions in which ientz(t) may occur: TCU- and sentence-initially in a sentential TCU without a sentence brace (example 5), TCU- and sentence-internally in a sentence with strong syntactic closure (example 6) and without (example 7), and in a rightward syntactic expansion, i.e. outside the sentence brace (example 8). The first segment is drawn from a conversation between Maia and her daughterin-law Anke at a family gathering. Maia has been observing an interaction between two family members, Dragu and Dan, both non-native speakers of German and from different native language backgrounds (Romanian and English). She highlights the noteworthiness of this encounter for Anke. At the point at which Maia draws Anke's attention to the encounter between Dragu and Dan, their conversation has come to a halt. What Maia identified as noteworthy is thus no longer observable for Anke. Maia uses the adverbs ientz/'now' and i:nteren!'a minute ago' (lines 3···4) to contrast the current interactional situation with what was observable just previously. Jentz is used at the begitming ofMaia's tum and in the syntactic front-field of the first TCU. (5)

miatden huendjen [5l_avl3.14_24:50.25:29]. 1 Maia: dies zwi:n menschen haesi. these two: people right here. 2

(1.5)

((A: shifts position, leans forward to look at Dragu and Dan))

nau niet miadem. now speaks+he PRT not wit:h+him. now hes not speaking with him.

=> 3 Maia: ientz riate

4 Maia: over i:nteren, (uallebit) but a minute ago:, (both)

miat den huendjen. with their hands.

5 Anke: der dragu uch der dan. the ((name)) and the ((name)). dragu and dan. 6

(0.7)

((Maia nod'> several times, smiling))

In the next data sample, ientz(tj- realized once with and once in the elided form without the final plosive (Schwitalla 2003: 38···9) is used in clause-internal position as part of an insertion to the main telling underway. Maia and 'Hmja, who are friends, are discussing the situation for pastors in their respective parishes. Maia notes that their


long-time pastor, Schober, who had been with the church for 17 years, just recently retired and was replaced by another pastor, Schuster. In her turn in line 2, Maia uses the adverb ientz(t) twice in sentence-internal position, after the subject and finite verb (nii huse!'then they have' and hias/'he has~ respectively), but before the participle gongel'gone (line 3), which constitutes the right brace and thus the possible syntactic completion of the repaired unit-in-progress. (6)

der schober [26_0 03-B_378] 1

Maia:

=> 2

.hhh

ba

der

kirch,

.hhh

with

the

church, seventeenyears.

siven:l.lin gar.

nii husen ientzt-- hias ientz ian then have+they+him now- he+has now in

so they have (him) now- he (has) t1ow retired, pension pension

3

gonge, nau husen undern gone, PRT have+they+a other

so they hired somebody ugestualt,==schu'lter ias uchen sochs? hired,=((name)) is also a saxon?

4

else==schuster (he is) also a saxon? (=-from Siebenburgen) Data sample 7 illustrates another use of ientzt in clause-internal position. In contrast to example 6, ientzt here occurs in a declarative sentence without strong syntactic closure, i.e. without a sentence brace. The topic is a family member's drinking problem. Anna uses the lexical item ientzt in line 3 when, in response to her interlocutor's inquiry (not in transcript), she describes another family member's reaction to the problem. (7)

drinking [12_av1i2_4_19:10] 1

Anna:

0 n0° oPRTo

sai she

drantj drinks

uch too

PRTo

she

drinks

as :W.fJJl

0

2

=> 3

Anna:

(0.3) *(G:gazeshiftawayfromA, unbelieving fadal expression) 0 sa *drantj ja ientzt yQ),0 0 she *drinks PRT now tQ_Q_0

"she 4 5

Anna:

6

Gabi:

7

*drinks PRJ' now as .WJ:.ll0

(0.3) ((A: gaze away from G; G: gaze shift back to A)) [((2syll))] [ ] [ad1 >es]i,< [oh >s]o,
is th]at true,< (0.3) ((A shifts ga:1.e to G))

424 Emma M. Hetz In addition to clause-initial and clause-internal positions, ientz(t) is also used at the beginning ofTCU-expansions, that is, after an interactional unit has been marked as syntactically and pragmatically (though not necessarily prosodically) complete. The following excerpt is taken from a telephone interaction between Anna and her friend Gabi. The topic of conversation is the age of an acquaintance's children. 'Ihis excerpt and its continuation is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2. (8)

nenjtzahn [42_av4/3_56:55] 1 Anna:

2 Gabi:

.H ias ja endjen ohnen uarbet . .H he+is PRT always without work. .H he is (as we knowj always out of work.

e§.i; ~

is that~ 3

(0.4)

4 Gabi:

de kentj sien over g:riS; the children are though biG; the children are

grOWN though;

5 Anna:. 6 Anna:

hhh <de ke:ntj sien nau> gor kliener wa aus hans. all smaller than our ((name)). all younger than hans.

7 Gabi:

m:[hm [(denn der (1 syll)) wor nau -l,nenjot:zehn.0 = [(because the ( )) was PRT J-nineoteen."=

8 Anna:

[(because ())(just) turned -l-nineOfeen.""= 9

=niet, =not, =(right!see).

10 => 11 Anna:

(0.3)

12 Gabi:

tsk! [da WO]RE NENJtziihn.=ientz iam oprial. tsk! [they WE]RE nineTEEN. ::::now in .!!.pril. tsk! [they TUR]NE.D nineTf~N.=just 1ww in gpril. [0 m:hm0 ]

13

(.)

The third party referred to in line 1 is a close acquaintance of Anna's; thus, the informa-tion G-cibi provides in line 4lies in Anna's domain of knowledge and makes confirmation or disconfirmation relevant (cf. Kamio 1979; Labov & Fanshel1977). This is not immediately forthcoming, and after a delay in line 5, Anna provides a comparison to her own children's age (line 6). By describing the children in question as 'younger than' her own youngest son, she effectively disconfirms and corrects Gabi's candidate understanding

Adverbs in German conversation 415 in a non-straightforward way. Research on repair resolution has shown that otherrepairs (especially of assumptions and expectations) tend to be followed in third positions by information and/or action receipts such as ach, acht-repeat, or achso (Golato & Betz 2008). However, the correction in the present example receives only a minimal receipt by Gabi (line 7), and Anna's ensuing pursuit of a clearer action receipt (lines 8---9) evidences that Gabi's response was not sufficient: Anna further specifies the exact age of the children in question, thus supporting her claim to epistemic authority. Her turn is formulated syntactically as a continuation of the prior tum with denn/'because' (line 8), and closes with the tum--final response--pursuit niet,i'(you) see; (line 9; Harren 2001). Again, no response is immediately forthcoming. In overlap with a delayed repeat by Gabi of the earlier minimal response token (line 12), Anna now reissues her earlier age estimate (line 1.1), but specifies the earlier nau/'just recently' as ientz iam opriaL!'just now in april~ 'Ihis specification of the temporal reference is synta

[0 m:hm 0

]

(.)

14 Anna: OCHzlihn oder NENJtzlihn >wores=i~nt.~er.

EIGHteen or NINEteen >were+they=nQw. EIGHteen or NINEteen >they turned=(just)m.l't i[ch weis .l chia net< se: sa== I[ know ] PRT not< the:y (look)= I[ don't ] know< the:y (kwk)=

15

16

Gabi:

[0 m:hm,o]

17 Anna: =chia grod gena:u

>wa aulte nau wor.< =PRT just exa:ctly >how old+he PRT was.< =just exa:ctly >how old he (actualM was.< 18 Anna: .hhh wai ich weiss der hanzi wor klein l1hh (cause) I know the ((name)) was little .hhh (cause) I know hanzi was little ((Story about Anna's son follows.)) In line 14, Anna qualifies her earlier statement by combining a partial repeat of elements from the prior turn (the verb phrase and subject, the numeralnenjtziihn, and the temporal reference to the present) with the additional ochziihn as another pos·· sible age estimate. 'Ihe repeated adverb 'noW, however, takes a different shape in line 14 (ientzter, vs. ientz in line 11). We can again note that the two adverbs appear in different syntactic and sequential environments. Ientz introduces an increment to a possibly complete TCU, while ientzteroccurs in TCU-final position and exhibits unitfinal intonation. Similar to segment 11, ientzter appears in TCU-· but not tum- final position. Here, however, we can observe a clearer orientation by the co-participant to a possible transition-relevance point: After ientzter and in overlap with Anna's turn continuation, Gabi provides a minimal response token. Considering the action of the larger sequence (Anna's pursuit of a response) and the placement of ientzter, this example suggests that ientzter contributes to making speaker transition relevant. Let us consider yet another example. Data example 11 is taken from the beginning of a phone conversation between Gabi and her sister Christiane. 'Ihey are coordinating afternoon plans. Gabi was expected to be at Christiane and her husband Dragu's house at the time of this conversation, and she has called to provide an update about her whereabouts. In lines 19-20, she announces that her visit to Christiane's house is still part of her afternoon plans but will come to pass later than expected.

430 Emma M. Betz (11)

gorte [14_0 02_571]

2

3

4

Chr: wli biaste. where are+you. where are you. Gabi: ba der muetter, with the mothe~ at mother's,

a mer kun ient:z do:r. look we come now there. look we're going there now. Gabi: mer hu schin, we have already.

Chr:

( ... )

glider ian de gorte? where gQ-1-youPL into the garden? where are you gjf to the garden?

12 Gabi: wor

13

(0.2)

14 Chr:

no 0 =n f A::i ech hun nau geworte sillt PR'f 0 =niO::i I have PRT wait:ed+youSG should 0 (well/but)" n'i'O::i I waited for you to 0 0

15

hA:r kun nau sieder nimmi kun hE:re come PRT are-tyouPL not any more come come o:ver and you didn't come

16

nau hummer geslit miatem dragu PRT have+we said with+the ((name)) so we, dragu at1d I, said we'll

17

nau e:se mer, t(r)li kummer zer muetter. now e:at we, then come+we to-1-the mother. e:at tww, then we7l go over to mother's.

18

(0.4)

19

=>

Gabi: no: ed1 wul nau km:t.= PRT I wanted PRT _g)_me.= (welJ) I did want to come.

20

::::over nau nie(t) gluad ientzter. =but PRT not just now. =but ttot just)&..

21

(.)

22 Chr:

no 0 trli tkummer osem gor iten har. 0 PR'f 0 then icome+we from+the gariden here. 0 ( weli)0 then we'll i come (back) here from the gar i den. 0


With regard to its placement within the clause and turn, we can note that (nie(t) gluad) ientzter is used in an expansion of the first TCU of Gabi's turn (line 19) to specify the time for her visit as 'not just yet: The adverb constitutes the last element of this tum and exhibits final falling intonation. With regard to the larger sequence, we can note that ientzter is used at a point at which the trajectory of the topic and interaction is determined: After an insertion sequence initiated by Gabi (lines 4-11, omitted from transcript) and related to the circumstances of her call, Gabi steers the interaction back to the 'here and now' of her co--participant (line 12) and then of herself (line 20). In line 1.2, she attempts an understanding check by reissuing previously received infor·· mation (line 3) for confirmation. Christiane's emphatic rejection of this candidate understanding (line 14) marks a mismatch between Christiane's expectations and Gabi's displayed knowledge, and it is followed by detailed accounts (e.g. reiterations of prior arrangements). In lines 19···20, Gabi first responds to the implicit accusation Christiane's rejection carried. She then shifts from past plans to the immediate present, thus effectively marking a sequential boundary. After a short gap in the conversation, speaker change occurs: Christiane aligns with the sequential and topical shift by announcing a revised plan f{)r the afternoon (line 22 ). In addition to providing another example of turn-final ientzter, excerpt 11 evidences that ientzter tends to occur at sequential boundaries, that is, at points at which speakers manage the direction of the topic. 1his observation holds across my collection of unit-final ientzter. Excerpts 12 and 13 provide further examples of ientzter occurring tum--finally at topic and sequence boundaries. In both, ientzter appears as the last element of an announcement tum, at the beginning of either a new topic (as in 12) or a new aspect of a larger topic (as in 13; the topic is health). (12)

elin [25_0-03-B_125]; Lhasaskedabout M'sgeneral well-being. 1

Maia:

o:h marlene. ech ha. ich bian nuer elin ha? o:h marlene. look here. I am only alone here?

o:h marlene. you know. I am all by myself here? 2

::::>

de

kentj

the

children are not now- now

sien niet gluat-· gluat niet

not"

"problem with cough" "J-hajen.==ie-.i==( (cough) )"iientzter,

3

*J-here. =no-J-=((cough)) "i now. (.)

4

5

Maia:

mhhh mtsk mhhh mtsk

ent nau bian ich nuer elin. and PRT am I only alone.

mhhh mtsk so I'm just by myself. 6

Lene:

no ne hiaste PRT PRT have+ you

kom denje friden. at last your peace. well ther1 you ht:zve your peace t:zt last.

432 Emma M. Betz 7

Maia:

.hh chia hehehe

hehehe

.hh yes 8

Lene:

•na.•

•( well/so. )• 9

Maia:

no [nau, PRT [PRT,

well [then, [•(dias• ]der sd1a) wa geideter. [•(it+is• ]PRT nice) how goes+it+for+you.

10 Lene:

[~(thats 0]

(13)

nice) how are you.

zer kor1troB [4_0-02_281.286]; .M's low results on tests for blood clotting indicators and the intervals at which she has regLllar check-ups are discussed. Maia:

2

eli wi [al. he wa[nts (it like that). ((he= M's physician))

Tanja:

[ 00

m:h,••

[oom:h,"" 3

Maia:

chia. chia.=

yes. yes.4

Tanja: ==aha,(.)

m:[hm.

=uhuh,(.) m:[hm. [chia.

Maia:

[yes. (0.4).

6 7

Maia:

si niedrich ias llh h nau giin ich chia wiele PRT because+it so ]QW is llh h PRT go

.hh h (so then) I go because its so .l121¥.

=>

uch endjen nuer ba zwa: wochen=ientzter,

8

also these days on~v every two: weeks=now, 9

(.)

10 Maia:

.H .H

mies must

kontroll ba ich mare giin zer I tomorrow go to+ the check-up for

.H I have to go tomorrow to den (.) darm? the (.) intestines?

11

my(.) intestinal check-up? (.)

12 13

M.aia:

14

Tanja:

maren noch L.;;t[er tomorrow again on[ce

tomorrow once mo

[re [•mmhm• [ 0 m mhm 0


In both examples, Maia's announcement (lines 1-3 and 7-8 respectively) serves as a topic proffer and makes a response relevant. This is evidenced by the subsequent interaction, in which such a response is pursued: In both examples, there is a delay in the co-participant response after ientzter. At this point, the first speaker reissues her initiating action (the first pair part, FPP) (example 1.2) or continues the topic-initiating turn syntactically (example 13). With the respective second try at a topic proffer or redirection, Maia pursues an uptake to the proffer or an alignment with the redirection of the topic. In example 1.2, a response ensues. In example 13, the new topic receives an uptake only after the third try (line 13), and this uptake is minimal and thus dispreferred (Schegloff2007: 173). For both examples, we can note that ientzter is used turn- finally at a sequential and topical juncture, that is, at a place at which speakers do visible interactional work to launch a new topic or a departure from the current topic. A connection between adverb placement and the management of topical and interactional sequences has recently been documented by Edenstrom (2008) in a study of syntactically post--positioned temporal markers in German. Edenstrom argues that temporal adverbials in certain syntactic position systematically function as covert markers of sequential and topical boundaries. In other words, they are used to facilitate a return to a previous sequence or launch into a new action trajectory. Structurally, the temporal markers analyzed by Edenstrom all constitute syntactic right-expansions (see tootnote 3), that is, they are added after a turn constructional unit has reached a projectable syntactic and pragmatic (though not necessarily prosodic) completion point, for example after the right brace in a German sentence. Many of the examples of ientzter in my collection are of this kind: 'Ihey are used in sentences that exhibit a sentence brace and occur outside of this brace (cf. examples 12. 13).1° These ientzter-turns all constitute FPPs and mark sequential and topical boundaries, that is, they are deployed systematically to control or redirect a course of action: With an ientzter-turn, speakers nominate or pursue a topic or action (9 branessle, 10 nenjtzcihn, 12 elin), or they redirect a topic (11 gorte, 13 zer kontroll; see also example 18 drinking). We can now describe the prototypical use of ient.zter in Siebenbtirger Sachsisch. In my collection, ientzternever occurs in turn- or TCU-initial position. Overwhelmingly,

to. Recall that predicate complements may constitute right boundaries, although they provide weaker syntactic closure than non--finite verb elements. Examples 9 and 11 seem less clear examples of syntactic right-expansions, but the larger turns in which ientzter is used as the final element are clearly built incrementally; as continuations of turns-at-talk. In excerpt 10, ientzter is produced as the final element in a TCU v.'ithout sentence brace. Again, however, the syntax of the larger turn (lines 11---14) emerges in a piecemeal fashion similar to rightward e:A11ansions (see also Edenstrom 2009, Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007, Vorreiter 2003 ongiue-ons and Ford et al. 2002 on extensions in English).

434 Emma M. Betz

ientzter is used in unit-final position (8 out of 10 exarnples), 11 typically in tum-final position outside of the sentence brace and thus of a TCU, and it exhibits stress and terminal intonation (Selting 1996, 2000). The analysis of unit-final ientzter-tums within the larger sequential conte..~ts in which they occur shows that all are sequence-initiating moves (F.PPs). They typically constitute announcements, noticings, or informings, in other words, typical first moves for topic proffers, nominations, or shifts (Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1989; Jefferson 1984; Sacks 1987; Scheglofl.2007). Indeed, all unit-final ientzter··tttrns are used at sequential boundaries to manage topic development Here, they seem to be instrumental in pursuing the uptake of the new topic or topic direction. How can we account for ientzter (but not ientz) fulfilling this function in interaction? First of all, we have noted- based on a purely distributional analysis- that ientzte1' has its 'home' in unit--final position, carrying terminal intonation. It thus syntactically and prosodically marks designed completion and a potential transition point. Secondly, it has been shown that temporal adverbs used in non-canonical position, 12 for example in rightward syntactic expansions, serve discourse functions beyond the level of the sentence. These include the marking of sequential and topical boundaries (Edenstrom 2008). At such boundaries, the distribution of speakership and recipiency and the trajectory of the current topic are negotiated. In my data, ientzter occurs exactly at such sequential places at which speakers do visible interactional work to steer the development of the topic and sequence. Thirdly, it has emerged from my data that in all examples but one (excerpt 9 l1ranessle) of unit-final ientzter, turn·· transition is clearly relevant before or at the point at which ientzter is uttered: V\r'here speaker change does not occur after ientzter, its absence is treated as problematic. and a response is actively pursued by the ientzter-·speaker (see excerpts 12 and 13). 'While ientzter used at the end of a sequence-initiating and topic--directing turn cannot be shown to alone make speaker transition relevant (as, for example, a response pursuit would; Harren 2001), my data suggest tl1at it contributes to signaling this relevance as part of a bundle of features. Different types of sequence initiating moves differ in their 'sequential implicativeness' (Schegloff & Sacks 1973; Scheglotf 2007), that is, in the strength with which they make a (specific type of) response relevant. Hence,

n. I define 'unit-final' as constituting either the last element of a designedly complete TCU or (a part of) a syntactic e>.:pansion after possible TCU completion. Such increments can be prosodically integrated (see excerpt 13) or emerge after a prosodic break (see 12). Note that the two examples in my data in which ientzter occurs in TCU-medial position are discussed in Section 4.3 below. In my data of ientz(t) and ientzter, the adverb occurs in clause-initial or medial position in 61 instances (59 of ientz(t) and 2 of ientzter) and in designed clause-final or turn-final positi.on in 10 instances (8 ientzter and 2 ientz(t)). We can thus speak of the unit-final position as 'marked; or 'non-canonical' for this temporal marker. 12.


actions such as informings, noticings, and announcements that are done as declaratives differ in their sequential implicativeness from the same (and other) actions that are done as questions. In sequence-initiating moves that are not grammatically packaged as questions, sequential strength - and thus the strength of the topic-directing move can be increased by adding, tor example, a response pursuit marker in turn-· final position. Ientzter in w1it-final position seems to function similarly: In my collection, all examples but one (example 18 drinking below) constitute informings, announcements, or noticings that are packaged linguistically as declaratives. The addi-· tion of the two--syllable temporal marker, typically as a syntactic increment and often in a second try at eliciting a response, actually enhances the strength of the sequential implicativeness of a turn and thus the likelihood that the co-participant will take up the new topic or topic departure. 13

13. This understanding of the use of ier1tzter sheds light on a small number of ientzt (2 examples out of 61) that occur turn-finally and thus constitute exceptions in my ientz(t)-collection. Similar to ientzter in its prototypical use, both constitute sequence-initiating moves, but they instantiate actions different from the ones described for ientzter. Grammatically, they constitute wh-questions. Consider data example 14 below:

(14)

dege.siangth!t [4.1_0-02_281.286] 1

Maia:

osi

git

schnieller veiba. (h)

that way it will be 2

WELL: let- >uh< '·">

over faster. (h)

Tanja: NAJA: llis- >lih< llisemer wot- it

3

wa

let~

gidet,~hllh: (.)

what- uh how are,~huh: (.) 4

Maia: =.hh tgitmer niet licht.

=.hh I'm der

nau,"~

dot

not talk about this aey more,'"

i dir nau ientzt?,.~h'·" i J!illl. now?,.Jt,, miat dem

not too bad. with

,~vMASC

gesiangt·-

heal-

gesiangthit?=rnhh

myF&.\1 health?=mhh (.)

6

.H[H

7

Maia:

8

Tanja:

9

Maia: =ech hun nimmi geho:t, da anfltl.le dii?

[ehm.= [uhm.= =l have

rwt f:a:d (them) any more, those attacks (I have)? ((=asthma attacks))

I have described unit-final ientzter as a temporal marker that serves to promote a topicchanging move by enhancing the strength of the sequential implicativeness of the first turn in the sequence: an announcement, noticing, or informing done as a declarative. If we take tb.is as its main interactional function, then the use of ientzter at the end of a topic-initiating

436 Emma M. Betz

4·3

Summary of findings for ietttz(t) and ietttzter in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch

The present analysis is based on 71 examples of a temporal marker in spontaneous interaction in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch, a settlement dialect of German. The adverb occurs in two forms: ientz(t) and ientzter. There is no observable semantic difference between these two lexical variants. 'Ihe variants are not the result of a phonetic reduc-· tion process, whereby ient:zter would be reduced to ientz(t): While -er endings may be reduced in German when the syllable is unstressed, this reduction typically results in an unstressed schwa--sound and not in complete elision of the syllable (Schwitalla 2003: 38-9). 'Ihe preceding analysis has show""Il that the difference between the two tokens is functional: Ientz(t) and ientzter are position-sensitive, that is, the form ofthe adverb depends on its place in the TCU, turn, and sequence-in-progress. The shorter variant occurs overwhelmingly in designedly non-final position in a turn constructional unit, usually in the syntactic front- or syntactic inner field of a sentential TCU. The longer variant never occurs in unit-initial position. It may occur in TCU-medial position (see below for a discussion of those instances), but it typically occurs in turn-final position, either TCU-finally or as an increment. Ientzter occurs much less frequently than ientz(t) (10 vs. 61 instances in my collection). The latter observation confirms that the sentence--initial and sentence--internal positions, described as the canonical places for temporal adverbs in a sentence (Weiss 1975; Frey & Pittner 1998; Pittner 1999), are also the unmarked positions for the temporal adverb carrying the semantic content 'now, at this moment' in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch. In these positions, the adverb appears as ientz(t). The form ientzter, by contrast, is reserved for the marked, unit-final, position in a limited number of well-defined sequential environments. This study has shown that, where such lexical variants are available, speakers use tb.em as a resource for constructing tmits and sequences in conversation, and specifi·· cally for signaling the current status of the larger unit underway: By using ientz(t), a speaker marks this element as designedly non-final and the TCU as still incomplete. By using the variant ientzter, a speaker marks the adverb as a TCU- or turn-final element and thus the larger structural unit as designedly complete. The use of the marked form of the temporal marker can be further specified: Speakers use ientzter in sequenceinitiating moves at sequential boundaries, and they tend to use them in syntactically

move that takes the shape of a grammatical question may not be interactionally necessary; a response (the answer to the question) has already strongly been made relevant. With the caveat that the number of examples of ie,ltz(t) in this position and environment L'> very small, I would argue that the sequential factors that motivate the use of Jentzter in all other examples in my data are not present here; thus, we see le,1tzt. We can maintain that the unmarked positions for ientz(t) in Siebenbiirger S!lchsisch are unit-initial and -medial.


marked positions: in increments. In such positions, ientzter advances the uptake of a new topic or topic trajectory. l-Ienee, ientzter operates on the discourse-level. I have two examples of ientzter in which this form of the adverb does not occur in unit-final position. For this use of ientzter in sentence-internal position, only a few observations can be made. In contrast to all other ientzter in my data, these occur in responsive moves (second pair parts to questions). There is no indication in these examples that recipients orient to ientzter as marking the end of a TCU or turn. In both examples problems in epistemic intersubjectivity surface, and they are addressed through an explicit contrast of a prior state--of--affairs with the immediate 'here and now' ("ientzter"). It is possible that ientzter in medial position appears systematically in turns designed to correct a mismatch in expectations or assumption between interactants. In these turns there is a "heightened focus" (Tanaka 2001: 566) on the current state of atfairs carried by a two--syllable, stressed form of the tem-poral adverb. This suggests that ientzter in medial position serves a function very different from ientzter in final position. However, more data is needed to explore this function. My tl.ndings on the prototypical use of ientzter, specifically its discourse-level function, confirm findings by Edenstrom (2008) on post-positioned temporal markers in Colloquial Standard German. Beyond this, however, my analysis shows that in at least one other variety of German, this systematic interactional use of a time adverb for promoting a new topic or topic direction is actually reflected in the lexicon. That is, there exist two forms of the adverb 'now' (with the semantic content 'now; 'at this moment; or 'just now') that are - in their respective prototypical use - complementary in their distribution and distinct in their interactional use. Thus, the present analysis locates the principled use of ientz(t) and ientzter in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch at the interface of word choice and interaction, of morpho-lexis and pragmatics. In the following section, I present two further examples of ientz(t) and one of ientzter, including another segment in which both variants of the temporal adverb are used by the same speaker in the same turn-at--talk. These excerpts constitute intriguing examples of the 'strategic' use of ientz(t) and ientzter in interaction and thus further support my analysis of their prototypical functions.

4·4

Additional support: The use of ientz(t) and ientzt-er in syntactic pivot constructions

This section presents further data to support this distributional and sequential analysis of ientz(t) and ientzter as interactionally position-sensitive adverbials: l discuss two examples where something notable occurs in the negotiation of TCU boundaries. In these examples, it can be said that ientzter is used strategically to promote the specific interactional goal of extending a turn in progress beyond a point of possible syntactic

438 Emma M. Betz and pragmatic completion. In order to do this, speakers rely on the basic functions of ientz(t) and ientzter as indicators of the status of the unit underway. Turn extensions in German rely on various syntactic and prosodic mechanisms, one of which is the withholding of prosodic signals of turn completion (Betz 2008: 40···44; cf. Local & Walker 2004). Examples 1.7 and 18 below illustrate that speak·· ers of German may also withhold the signaling of completion (and thus, of transition relevance) through lexical means: by uttering ientz(t) and not ientzter at a point of possible syntactic--pragmatic completion. Three examples in my collection appear at first pass to constitute examples of ientz(t) uttered in unit-final position. However, in all these examples, a close analysis reveals that within the unfolding unit ientz(t) is used in a position which is not designed to signal completion: Ientz(t) is followed by a turn extension, or is part of a syntactic pivot construction (c[ Betz 2008; Noren 2007; Scheutz 2005; Selling 1998: 239-240; Walker 2007), that is, it occurs in a construction in which two potentially independent structures are connected (or merged) by way of a shared element to form an extended TCU. In pivot constructions, signals of designed completion are withheld at the points at which a transition from one syntactic construction to the next occurs. The shared element can then syntactically and prosodically be part of two different constructions. Example 15 illustrates the basic structure of a syntactic pivot construction in English: Here, the NP the bone can, based on syntax and prosody, be said to belong to two difterent syntactic constructions (it is an object NP in lmt l('d) lo:ve the bone and a subject NP in the bone was so:: beautif) and thus constitutes the structural center of an extended TCU. Prosodic. design, notably the lack of prosodic breaks at the potential syntactic boundaries, is essential in allowing the whole construct to be uttered and understood as one unit. (15)

the bone [NB.IV.3-185s;··pJV005] 1 Emm: but I('d) l:ove the bone was so:: 2 beautif eh the pink was exquisite

(taken from Walker 2007: 2219)

The central element of a syntactic pivot construction can also be a prepositional phrase. Consider example 16, in which the temporal expression 'every sunday' can be heard as belonging to two different constructions, 'but she goes every sunday' and 'every sunday she goes to church: (16)

rosi [O 03_344)

Lene:

et kl:d=over en jAde suandje kidedande Kirch. she cO:mes=though on Every sunday comest·shet·int·the CHURch. but she gO:es gvery sunday she goes to CHURch.

We now take a closer look at some such constructions that involve the use of ientz(t) and ientzter. I show that the choice between ientz(t), which indexes 'unit-in-progress'


and ientzter, which signals 'designed unit completion: is a lexical strategy that contributes to making possible syntactic pivot constructions actually bearable as one unit. In excerpt 17, Bert and Maia are discussing the weather in their respective hometowlls. Maia's turn in lines S-6 is the focus of analysis here. Built to be contiguous with her prior turn in which she announces that it rained last night (HA hodet he:ntj gerent., line 3), Maia's turn is potentially complete after ientzt with respect to syntax and pragmatics. It is, however, not prosodically complete. Moreover, the potentially last element in this construction is the adverb ientzt, the lexical item which, as I have shown, indexes the current TCU as incomplete. Maia's turn continues with a closely latched-on verb, the second element in a German declarative sentence. (17)

tv.•adder [2___ 0 05--B..JJOS] 1 Bert: 0 esi0 ko[mesch, et wor] esi lidrt, ~so 0 str[ange, it was] so bad, 2

Maia:

3

Maia: HA hodet HE:ntj gerent. HERE has+ it l!!.;§.t. night rained. HERE it rained l~;M. night.

4

Bert: chia? really?

=>

=>

[hhh

Maia: .h enta HEtj !niet. h and-1-then today !not. atul then todt:ty (it did) not. bes I e>j=.J,i~tzt--=(h)odet ugefongen.=ech.< until> ilook=.J,nQw.=(h)as+it r.tarted.=look.< (rain) until >just=now=it started.=look.
(no en danj)< [>(PRT a thing)

]

*(A: gaze to G)

2

Gabi: [>no nau ien]tz< wot .1!P.I~:~.;~;htse nau ientzter, hh* [ >PRT PRT no]w< what ~m;.r.sshe PRT now, hh [ >PR't PRT tw ]w< what" does she sa:y PRT tww. hh

3

Anna: 0 no 0 sai drantj ud1 •PRT0 she drinks .f.Q.!l. •(we0.) 0 she drinks as well

4

(0.3) •·(G: ga7j! shift away from A, unbelieving fadal expression) Anna: 0 sa *drantj ja ientzt .Y~;h0 0 she *drinks PRT now .t.QQ.0 "she *drinks now as ~11·

After emerging from overlap with Anna in line 2, Gabi continues her turn. 'Ibis turn continuation could either be a syntactic continuation or a new beginning (cf. Scheglotl1987). No pause, cut-off, or other prosodic break occurs that suggests that wot/'whaf constitutes the beginning of a new TCU: Contrast 'no nau ientz, wot spdichtse'/'so now, what does she say' with the actual data: no nau ientz wot spri:ichtse!'so now what does she say'. 'Ihus woti'what' constitutes a prosodic continu-ation of the unit that was initiated in overlap. It can also be a syntactic continuation: In Siebenbiirger Sachsisch (as in English), a wh-question may take additional elements (other than conjunctions) before the question word; that is, it may have a filled, prosodically integrated pre-front-field (cf Eisenberg 1989: 411-12). The question pronoun, therefore, is a syntactically possible next element after ientz in the linear progression of the turn. The use of ientz over its variant ientzter contributes to marking this syntactic place as non-TCU-final. Gabi's turn reaches a possible syntactic and pragmatic, but not prosodic, comple·· tion with ~i:i:chtse!'says she' (line 2). No terminal falling or rising intonation (both are possible here) occurs at the end of 5P-.ri:i.:chtse. Thus, wot .$J.J.ti:i.:chtse is bearable as the last constituent element of the TCU ientz wot Wt.ii:chtse/'now what does she say' and


also as the beginning of wot ~ii:chtse nau ientzter!'what does she say now'. The clause wot wra:chtse is part of two possibly independent constructions and therefore a pivot element (see 19). 14 (19)

Pivot strudure and shape of adverbials: drinking >no nau ientz< wot §P.l~_;!;;btse wot sprJ:chtse nau ientzter, hh >no

nau

ientz< no-w

(.~o)

wot ~ra:chtse nau ientzter, hh -what does she say no-w? hh 15

I argued in Section 4.1 and 4.2 that ientz(t) is marked as a non-final token, while ientzter is marked as a unit-final element. In the present example, both the particle nau and the adverb ientz are recycled in post-overlap (after ientz), post-pivot position (after the verb) in this tum (see 20), but the temporal adverb now takes a different shape: Jentz is recycled as ientzter. (20)

Shape of recycled elements: drinking nau ienster, hh ientz< wot sprii:chtse (so) no-w -what does she say now?hh

>no nau

This example allows for the following general observations to be made: 1.

Jentz occurs at a point at which the TCU could be complete but is prosodically not

2.

marked as such. If the goal of the speaker is to suppress signals of unit completion, the choice of ientz over ientzter contributes to withholding such a marking. 'Ihe choice of ientz over ientzter is a choice not to mark the TCU as complete and wot as a new beginning. The first part of Gabi's talk is uttered in overlap. The elements in overlap (except fi.)r the position-sensitive no that connects this tum to prior talk) are recycled. The sentence--initial ientz is recycled tum--finally as ientzter, the variant marked for designed completion. The speaker thus marks the turn as complete after ientzter, and it is also understood as such: Speaker change occurs.

Both excerpts presented in this section constitute examples of a 'strategic' use of ientz(t) and ientzter in interaction. This use relies on the systematic difference that the two forms of this temporal marker exhibit in indexing the status of the unit-in-progress. Excerpts 17 and 18 thus lend further support to the preceding analysis of the basic interactional functions of ientz(t) and ientzter.

14.

For a more extensive discussion of this data example, see Betz (2008: 56-61).

15. I translate the idiomatic gloss here more freely. Specifically, I deviate from the original German stress pattern in trying to convey the syntactic pivot in English.

442

Emma M. Betz 5·

Summary and implications

This section offers a short summary of my findings and a discussion of their implications tor the study of syntactic and lexical regularities of spoken interaction (Section 5.1). I place the phenomenon of position-sensitive adverbials in its broader context by, on the one hand, pointing to other adverbials in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch that possess le.xical variants, and, on the other hand, taking a closer look at Bavarian German as another variety of German that exhibits a similar phenomenon (Section 5.2 ). In this section I also ask how the lexical variants documented in the present study should be linguistically classified: Should they be viewed as two fonns of one word or as two separate lexemes? Furthennore, I problematize a semantics-driven understanding of temporal adverbials and call for an inclusion of syntactic--pragmatic aspects into the definition of adverbials (Section 5.3).

5-1

The interface of morphology, word choice, and pragmatics

Certain temporal adverbs in Siebenbi.irger Sachsisch possess two position--sensitive lex-ical variants, a one-- and a twn--syllable variant: ientz(t)l'now' and ientzter!'novl. These are nearly complementary distributed and convey information about the stalus of the current turn-at-talk as well as the larger interactional sequence. The use of ientz(t) signals that a TCU is designedly incomplete, while ientzter used within a TCU signals that it is designedly complete. Moreover, ientzter is used at spedfic sequential junc-tures at which it promotes the uptake of a topic-changing move. 1hus, the placement of the adverbs ientz(t) and ientzter at a specific point in a sentence is determined by the regularities of turn and sequence design rather than by syntactic rules. When looking exclusively at the distribution of ientz(t) and ientzter in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch, 16 we can maintain the view gained tb.rough traditional sentence field analysis as well as the generative view that the unmarked or base position of temporal adverbs in a German sentence is in the inner field. However, only a sequential analysis reveals that in the case of ientz(t) and ientzter tb.is is due to a specialized use of the adverbs in interac-tion: lentzter is limited to sequence--initiating moves at sequential junctures at which a speaker sees the need to employ additional strategies for promoting a new topic or topic departure. Here, the adverb typically appears outside the sentence brace. Thus, ientzter functiom at the discourse rather than the sentence level. My findings add to existing interactional linguistic research that documents the complex connection between linguistic form and interactional demands. More specifically. it lends further support to studies that view syntactic increments as a

16. A repeat of the nu.nibers for convenience: My data yielded 61 examples of ientz(t) and 10 of ientzter. 10 of these (8 of ier1tzter, 2 of ier1tz(t)) appeared in unit-final position.

Adverbs in German conversation 44.1 systematic practice that fulfills describable functions in spoken discourse (cf Auer 1996, 2006; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Edenstrom 2008, 2009; Ford et al. 2002; Kern & Selling 2006; Vorreiter 2003 ). In addition to showing a connection between the ordering of elements in a turn (syntax) and the local interactional goals a speaker pursues (pragmatics), this study establishes a connection betw·een pragmatics and word choice in Siebenbti.rger Sachsisch. Two observations are important here: 1.

2.

While previous studies have focused on the importance of prosody and syntax for the construction of units in conversation, this work is a first step toward expand-ing the discussion to the area of lexis/word choice. 'Ihe findings trom this study thus have general implications for the study of units in conversation. They offer insights into how word choice signals the status of a unit underway and thereby provides interactants with important infi.)rmation f()r negotiating turn-taking. If we view ientz(t) and ientzter as tw-o forms of one word with one of the nvo as the 'basic' fonn, l"l this work also has implications for the study of morphological processes in Gennan: By documenting how the status of a discourse unit can be indexed through the choic.e of one lexical variant over another, the discussion of ientz(t) and ientzter illustrates that the process of affixation serves not only to mark lexical category or add grammatical information but also to add functional-interactional information to lexical items. The meaning of such a le.lC:eme can thus only be grasped by combining a description of its semantic referent with a description of the constructions and intemctional contexts to which the lexeme is bound (cf. Deppermann 2006). My findings on the typical use ofientzterin particular corroborate findings by Edenstrom (2008) on adverbs of time used in right-expansions in Colloquial Standard German. Edenstrom shows that post--positioned temporal markers are crucially different from their homonyms in clause-internal position. The former function at the discourse level: They promote new action trajectories and thus secure intersubjectivity (ibid.). Aspects of sequential placement thus create different 'meanings' and functions for one lexical item and lead to 'functional polysemy: 18 My analysis

17. The existence of two adverbs in Siebenb!irger Slichsisch with the semantic content 'now' and different functional-interactional roles raises questions of grammaticalization and lexical

classification of these items. Outlining a grammaticalization path (Ban & OhlschUiger 1998; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Traugott 1997; Wischer & Die\\--al.d 2002) or pragmaticali:l.ation path (Auer & G\i.nthner 2005; Streeck 2002) for ientz(t) and ientzter is beyond the scope of this paper; however, the near-complementary distribution and the functional specialization of the two forms suggest that they sbould be analyzed as two forms- or functional variants- of one word rather than as two different lexernes. For a similar argument regarding the context-bound description of the 'meaning' of response particles, see Betz and Golato (2008) for German and Sorjonen (200 I) for Finnish.

18.

444 Emma M. Betz

shows that, for at least one variety of German, this systematic interactional use of a time adverb for marking sequential and topical shifts is actually reflected morphologically. That is, there e..xist two forms of the adverb 'now' (with the semantic content of'now') that are nearly complementary in their distribution and distinct in their interactional use. 'Ihus, this study sheds light on a phenomenon that lies at the interface of morphology, word choice, and pragmatics.

5.2

Lexical variants in different varieties of German: A broader view

This shtdy presented a detailed analysis of the adverbials ientz(t) and ientzter in Siebenbi.i.rger Sachsisch. This lexical item was selected because it was the first for which I noted the existence of functional variants that had no equivalent in my Colloquial Standard German data. In Siebenbii.rger Sachsisch, however, such lexical variants exist for a number of adverbials. They include the following 'pairs: The members of each pair differ in the number of syllables.

1. 2. 3. 4.

ist and ister ('once') 19 ualdist and ualdister ('sometimes; 'every now and then') irest and irester ('somewhere') nirest and nirester ('nowhere')

The examples in my data include adverbs of time and place. Preliminary analyses of small collections for these tokens show tendencies similar to those described for ientz(t) and ientzter in terms of a complementary placement within turn-constructional units. However, although a preliminary distributional analysis yielded similar results to ientz(t) and ientzter, it stands to reason that a sequential analysis would uncover different or additional interactional functions for these adverbials. A larger collection is necessary to carry out such an analysis. Further research is also needed to determine if such variants exist in other varieties of German and to uncover the functions they serve. Below, I present data from Bavarian as a first step toward this goal. In Bavarian German, there exist two temporal adverbials with the semantic content 'now:' eytz and eytza(t). Data example 21 exemplifies their use in spontaneous Bavarian German interaction: 20

19.

See example 13 zer kontroll, line 13, for an instance of turn-final

ister.

20. I thank Veronika Drake and Derek Drake for making data segments from their Bavarian telephone data available to me. 'Ihe data I had available (four conversations, approximately 1 hour in total), yielded 44 analy1- Rainer is aber sdJ,kcht (0.2) >(for) ((name)) (it) has though ]2ru,lly (uhm) (0.2) Rainer was in b_{!d.

ehm (uhm/the) gange gone

2

vor ner woch.< 0 ::::eh0 a week ago.< 0 ::::(uhlhuh) 0

shape a week ago.< 0 =(uh!huh) 0 (0.1)

3

=>

4

5 6

Hans:

wei cause

S·· (i!:htS

cause

it- [is he well ttow.

em i-· [goes+ it him

Om a: Oma:

na

PRT

_ey.t:za.] now.] ]

[ja::

wos: I(.)

Lvea::

what:] (.)

eigentlich scho wieder gWANdert. actually already again WALKed.

(he was) actually already out and aBOUT again. (0.6)

7

=>

8

Oma:

hhh

9

Oma:

eytz giiits=em fai wieder ganz guet; now goes+it=him PRT again pretty good;

10

Oma:

=[kaffee derf er (bi ]ssla) trinke. oi tass, ]ttl e) =[coffee can he Oi drink. one cup,

11

Han.'>:

now he5 actually quite well again;

[~!Ji?e

hes allow]ed a (little). one cup,

[mit

seim :l.ahn,]

[with his (0.2)

12 13

Hans:

kaffee trin [kt e]r au scho wida. coffee drin[ks h]e also already again.

coffee he's 14 15

tooth,]

[also ] already drinking again.

[() ]

Oma: (0.3)

Similar to Siebenbii.rger Sachsisch, the placement of eytz and eytza(t) within TCUs in Bavarian German follows describable rules: Eytz is used in TCU-initial and medial positions, while eytza(t) is used overwhelmingly in TCU-final and also tum-final position (see lines 4 and 9 in Example 21). Eytza(t) also performs interactional tasks similar to ientzter: It occurs in sequence-initiating turns, and specifically at topical boundaries at which speakers pursue a new topic or the departure from the current topic. In the above example (21 kaffee), Hans proffers a new topic in lines 1···2 by

446 Emma M. Hetz

proposing talk about the health of a common acquaintance. After a lack of uptake in line 3, he continues his turn grammatically ('cause, line 4), abandons this continuation, and then makes a second try at topic proffering. This second attempt, uttered in overlap with Oma's delayed response to lines 1.-2, takes the shape of a polarized yes/ no--question (note the falling final intonation that adds epistemic polarity and gives the question the character of an assertion; cf. Koshik 2005), with ey_tza (line 4) as the unit-final element. This temporal adverb contrasts with the earlier post-positioned temporal reterence vor ner woche (line 2), and, similar to turn--final ientzter, it seems to increase the sequential force of the FPP. Speaker change occurs after eytza, and Oma embraces the new topic (lines 5-l 0). 1he function of the two-syllable variant of the adve.rb 'now' as a turn-final lexical element that promotes the uptake of a new topic or topic departure holds across the two varieties investigated. However, my data suggest that eytza.(t) in Bavarian can serve additional functions not observable in Siebenbiirger Sachsisch. In my data, three examples of eytzat seem distinctly different with respect to phonetic shape and sequential placement from all other instances of eytza(t). 'Ihey appear between dif.· ferent, topically related sequences, but they constitute the only turn element or are at most preceded by a conjunction ('buf or 'and'). The token itself exhibits level intonation and lengthening on the second syllable, and in all three examples, silence follows (and may also precede) the eytza- turn. After this silence, the same speaker continues. Consider the tollowing excerpt: (22)

besuch [2007--10--20... H0.5 ___04:17], tabout Hans' sister's upcoming visit to Oma 1

Hans: wefs zu mir gsagt hat se: hoat vor dass

because she said to me she: is planning to 2

bloB ze dir kummt, wefs sonst immer so lang

only vi~"it"you, because she usually stays 3

bei die gro<ern is, dass du dich

with the grandparents so long, that you 4

scho:

(0.2) .hh dass scho angst hat dass du:

alre1idy: (0.2j .hh th1it she5 1ifraid you 5

dich nich iih:: ausreichen:d besucht fi.\hlst. feel like you're not uh:: (being) visited enough.

6

haha [hahaha] [ha iih ]==(tz) .HH= haha [h,lhah!l] [ha uh .l=(tzj .HH=

7

8

Oma:

[aso. [J see.

.l lhm m:,] ] [hm m:,]

Hans: =drum hat's goar net Y.Qrghabt.=ne, .hh

=that'S why she didn't even plan to do it.=you know, .hh

Adverbs in German conversation 447 9

Oma:

m[hm. m[hm.

10 Hans:

(0.5)

11

=>

[ [

Hans:

<e:ytza:> <no::w>

13

(0.7)

14

Hans:

.h ja no isst(s) dann NAmittoch da:tm,

12

.h yeah so she71 eat then in the afterNOON then, (.) bei die groBeltern. (.) with the graruiparents. Due to the small number of examples, the function of this 3rd position eytza. cannot be described here. Additional data may reveal a specific function within the achievement of sequence and topic closing (e.g. Button 1987, 1990; Holt & Drew 2005; Schegloff 2007) or in the management of silence in turn-taking at points where a topic has come to completion and no new topic has been proposed (cf. Golato 2006; Sacks et al. 1974). 5-3

Defining and classifying position-sensitive lexical tokens

I conclude by contextualizing the phenomenon of interactionally position··sensi·· tive adverbs within its broader linguistic context. In this context, the classification and definition oflexical items such as ientz(t)!ientzter and eytz!eytza(t) as adverbials merits further discussion. Both ientz(t) and ientzter carry the semantic value of 'now' and they overwhelmingly appear in syntactic positions that have been described as typical tor adverbials. 'Ihe analysis of ientz(t) and ientzter, however, has shown that the meaning of the two words, especially of ientzter (and in particular ientzter in the syntactically marked post-position), cannot be described without reference to its systematic use in interaction. Hence, the description and classification of such a lexical item needs to include discourse-pragmatic features. 'Ihe additional observation that a number of adverbials in German- includingjetz(t)/'now' in Colloquial Standard German- may appear as sentence particles (Helbig 1988; Weydt & Hentschell983; Auer & Giinthner 2005) raises the question whether ientzter should be analyzed as a particle rather than as an adverbial, at least in certain functions. 21

21. See, e.g. M51lering (200 1) and Diewald and Fischer (1998), who show that particles in German are definable via tb.eir interactional functions. See also Sorjonen (200 1), who call'> for an understanding of the semantics of particles and response tokens as inherently interactional.

448 Emma M. Betz In my Siebenbiirger Sachsisch data, however, all ientzter and most ientz(t) clearly retain the semantic quality of the adverb, that is, they explicitly refer to matters of time, for example by establishing a contrast between 'then'/ 'a long time ago' and 'now'I 'just recently: Moreover, Siebenbii.rger Sachsisch uses a separate lexical item, nau, which is etymologically connected to other Germanic words for 'now; as a dis-course particle. The present study thus classified ientz(t) and ientzter as adverbs of time, with the understanding that this classification cannot be based on semantics and syntax alone. A description of their meaning needs to include the discourse-pragmatic level. This view reflects the complex connection between form and inter-actional placement that emerged from investigating the use of temporal adverbs in German in every-day interaction.

Appendix A Transcription conventions used Based on the Jeffersonian transcription system (Jefferson 1983, 1.985; Sacks 1.974: Appendix; Atkinson 1.984: ix----:xvi), with some additional conventions taken from GAT and GAT 2 (Selting et al. 1998, 2009).

(0.5) (.)

.hh hh haha (h) (hh) word

WORD owordo

i J.. iwordi (word)

start of overlap (simultaneous talk by two/more speakers) end of overlap latching between turns (i.e. two utterance by different speakers follow each other without an intervening beat of silence) or continuation of a speaker's turn across trmscript lines silence; length of silence timed relative to the delivery of the surrounding talk micro pause (less than 1/10 of a second). audible inbreath audible outbreath laughter; different vowels (i.e. e, i, a) indicate the quality oflaugh tokens laughter within a word emphasis, usually higher pitch higher volume relative to the surrounding talk enclosed passage quieter than the surrounding talk rising pitch on following syllable falling pitch on following syllable enclosed passage markedly higher in pitch than surrounding talk transcriber's uncertain hearing

Adverbs in German conversation 449 ( ) (( ))

>word< <word>

? word!

unintelligible stretch of talk. transcriber's additional comments/ transcription of events increase in tempo relative to surrounding talk slowing down in tempo relative to surrounding talk lengthening of the sound before the colon abrupt ending or cut-off (glottal closure) TCU-final falling intonation TGLJ--final intonation, falling to mid TCU-final continuing, slightly rising intonation TCU-final rising ('question') intonation accentuated delivery marks location of or the beginning and end of embodied actions (described above the frrst line of speech)

AppendixB Category abbreviations and other abbreviations used DIM

FEM FPP MASC NP 0 p

PL PPT PRT

s SG SPP

v VP

diminutive form feminine inflection first pair part of an adjacency pair (e.g. the question in a questionanswer sequence) masculine inflection noun phrase object person plural form past participle form (modaV response) particle subject singular form second pair part of an adjacency pair (e.g. the answer in a questionanswer sequence) verb verb phrase

References Aim, Maria. 2007. A.lso darUber liisst sich }a streiten! Die Analyse von 'also' in der Diskussion zu DL. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Respotlditlgin Conversation: A Study ofResponse Particles In Fimlish [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Streeck. Jurgen. 2002. Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and llke. Journal of Communlcatiotl 52(3): 581-596. Taleghani-Nlkazm, Carmen. 2008, Nov. How and when are new conversational matters brought into the conversation? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Tanaka, Hiroko. 2001. Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: Toward a demystification of the "telepathic" mode of communication. Language in Society 30: 559--87. Traugott, Elizabeth. 1997, July. The discow'Se connective 'after all': A historical pragmatic account Paper presented at the lOth International Congress of Linguists, Paris, France. (16 July 2009). Vorrelte~. Susanne. 2003. Turn continuations: Towards a cross-linguistic dassl.fi.cation. Interaction and Linguistic Structures [InLiSt] .39. (7 December 2007). Walker, Gareth. 2004. On some interactional and phonetic properties of increme.nts to turns in talk-in-interaction. In Sound Patterns in Interaction rrypological Studies in Language 62], FJizabeth Couper- Kuhlen & Cecilia Ford (eds ), 147-169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Walker, Gareth. 2007. 0 n the design and use of pivots in everyday English conversation. journal ofPragmatics 39(12): 2217-2243. Weiss, Andreas. 1975. Syntax gesprochener GespriidJe. EinjlUsse von Situation und 1hema aufdas Sprachverhalten. Dusseldorf: Padagogischer Verlag Schwann. Weydt, Harald & Hentschel, Elke. 1983. Kleines Abtonungsworterbuch. In Partikeln und Interaktion, Harald Weydt (ed.), 3-24. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. New Reflections on Grammatlcalization [Typological Studies in Language 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger, Strecker, Bruno & Ballweg, Joachim. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, 3 Vols. Berli.n: Mouton de Gruyter. Zimmerman, Don H. 1993. Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. RRsearch on Language and Social interaction 26(2): 179-194.

Texas German discourse pragmatics A preliminary study of the English-origin discourse markers of course, see, and now Hunter \.Yeilbacher University of Texas at Austin

This article seeks to clarify the role that English-origin pragmatic discourse markers play in the speech of Texas German (TxG). The data in this study reveal that these elements function to lighten the cognitive load of the speaker by pragmatically indicating that the speaker is processing the upcoming utterance. This observation may be taken to indicate that for many TxG speakers English is (or has become) the pragmatically dominant language, however it does not rule out that these discourse markers are lexical items found in a unified mixed-code system.

1.

Introduction

Although the many Texas German communities represent various Spmchinseln, they have by no means been isolated: 1exas German (hereafter TxG) developed in contact with :English, its remaining speakers are bilingual, and so the existence of English words and phrases in TxG is hardly surprising. A striking characteristic ofTxG speech is the prevalent use of English-origin pragmatic elements such as discourse markers (hereafter DMs) including well or you know, as well as other discourse--pragmatic phrases or 'particles' from English (Salmons 1990, Goss & Salmons 2000, Boas & Weilbacher 2007). Data from sociolinguistic interviews collected by the Texas German Dialect Project (TGDP) (Boas 2006) reveal a multitude of DMs and similar discourse regulating devices from English that are regularly used by TxG speakers. Bilingual DMs have been the focus of many studies because their use fulfills a conversational purpose and a cultural convention simultaneously (see Brody 1987; Salmons 1990; Serra 1998; Fuller 2001; Hlavac 2006, among others). The analysis of English-origin pragmatic elements in TxG raises a number of important questions for research into borrowing, code-switching, and discourse particles because certain usages do not

456 Hunter Weilbacher

easily fit into existing theoretical paradigms. Consider (1), which contains two Englishorigin pragmatic elements: (l)

So meine Kusine von Dallas und wir gehen zu Industry, die erste so my cousin from Dallas and we go to Industry, the first

deutsche Stadt, un sure enough, das war unser Ur-urgrossvater. German dty and sure enough. that was our great -great -grandfather. 'So my cousin from Dallas [and I] went to Industry, the first German town, and sure enough, that was our great -great -grandfather: (1-60-l-4 -a) i

In (1), the speaker has been talking about researching her genealogy and found an important piece of infonnation warranting further investigation. She uses so, which in this case is most likely English so, 2 to move the topic onto what she and her c.ousin did as a result of receiving this new information (going to a particular town). She then uses sure enough to express that they were able to verify that information, namely that their ancestor had been a part of that community. This example points to the central question of this study: are these cases of emblematic code--switching, which has often been viewed as a linguistic behavior that indexes a certain social identity (Auer 1998, 1999, 2005; Muysken 2007), are these borrmvings because of their frequency and degree of integration (Myers-Scotton 2002) or convergence (Salmons 1990), or is this evidence tor a mixed--code system (Maschler 1998; Serra 1998)? Perhaps what is most relevant about these data are that they show just how complicated the situation is. 'Ihis study first discusses code-s\vitching versus borrowing and then examines the use of English see, now, and ofcourse in TxG to see what their use can tell us about bilingual discourse prc:tgmatics. This study is structured in the following way: in the second section, I offer a brief overview of Texas German and the TGDP. I then turn, in Section 3, to a discussion of previous work on language contact situations, focusing primarily on studies that deal with the integration of pragmatic elements from one language into another.

TxG data are cited in the following format: the first number is that of the interviewer (1 is Hans C. Boas); the second number is the speaker; the third is the number of the interview \\oith that speaker; the last number is the segment of the interview; 'a' indicates an audio file, V indicates a video file. Thus ( 1-1-1-14-a) is Hans Boas interviewing speaker# 1 for the first time, and this is the 14th segment of that interview. See Boas (2006) for detaiL 447 l\ffrkates 36-38, 40, 43, 46, 55-57 .-\greement hierarchy 77, 84, 96,101-103 .-\lemannic dialect (s) 2, 50,173,205,237,249, 257··258 Allative 385, 394, 400, 406 Allomorphs 33--36, 40, 43"·-44, 46, 48, 53> 55, 58-)9, 60-61, 348, 351, 356 t\mana German 5,111-112,122 Ambisyllabic structures so Animacy 5, 67-69, 77, 81, 83---88 Auslautverharumg 5, 13, 15, 52 see final devolcing

B Bersntol 5, 31

c c. artography

277 Cimbrian 3, 5--7, 233---238, 240-249, 251, 253-267, 269--272, 279--282, 284-285,289-297 Clitic--Doubling (CD) 3.52--353. 355-356, 359-361 Cliticization (TP-, CP-, pronotm-) .238, 249-251, 319 Code-switching 2, 16, 30, 455, 456, 458--461, 464, 470--"471

Complementation 279, .280-281, 292, 392, 394, 399, 402 Complementizer 6, 279, 280-284, 286-287, 290--292, 296--297, 302--303, 310, 313--314, 316--325> 327> 334> 336, 342· 348, 350---352, 356, 362, 372, .392, 403 Constraints 33-35, 47-48, 52-53, 55-56, 58, 60-61, 113-114, 117-123, 12)-126, 135-136, 2 71, 465 Violable constraints 113,117 Conversation Analysis (CA) 5, 7, 78, 133, 415, 420

D Dative-object Dttferentiation (DOM) 257 Defmite article 70, 79-80, 82, 89, 91-92, 10.2-103, 109, 153> 155, 193,196, 203, 205 Deflection 70, 76---78, 83, 88--90, 92, 108 Discourse Marker (DM) 7-8, 76-;8, 83, 88-90, 92, 108 Do-support 193,196, .203-.204, .206, 208, 2ll-2:13, 215, 21.8-2:10, 222, 224--·225, 227 Dominant language 2-3, 127, 134, 144> 45.5, 461, 464, 471 Double Base Hypothesis 3, 6, .261, .263, 266 Dutcll 5, 14, 50, 68-76, 78, 8o, 83, 85, 89, 92, 99, 107, 108, 111-119, 122-123, 126-127, 165--·170, 172--183, 239, 246--·250, 253> 256, 2.59, 296, 387

E Eastern \Visconsin 13-15, 30-31 English 6-8, 13-16, 18, .20-22, 24-25, 27, 29-31, 40, 68---jO, 75, 78, 80, 92, 99, 105·--106, 108, 111·--114., 116--117, 120·--122, 126--127, 129, 131·--141, 142·--144> 146, 151-161, 1f2, 177, 192-19+ 196, 197, 202, 234> 238, 242, 247-248,253,267,270, 293-294, :10:1, 308, :120, 323, 326, 391 396-397, 399-402, 404-407, 417--418, 421--·422, 433, 438, 440-441, 455-459, 461--471 Epenthelic vowel 42-45 Event-related adverb 7, 371, 377-379 Rxtraposition 7, 170, 184, 249, 371-377

F Feature geometry 69, 77, 81, 86 Final devoicing 5, 13--15, 50---52 see Auslautverhartung Final laryngeal distinctions 13-15 Finallarynge al neutralization ;, 13-16, 24--31 Finnish 129, 443 First (Ll) language attrition 1-4, 30, 147, 281 First language (Ll) 2--4, 14, 30, 70, 372 Flemish 69, 71-75, 166, 247, 2)0, 256 Fricatives 15-16, 21, 34-44, 46, 49---53, 55--58, 6o, 152 Frisian .5o, 69, 71--73, 165--166,387

476 Index

G Gender 5-6, 67-90, 92-94. 96-108, 151-161, 187-188, 19J, 197. 201, 203, 205-209, 211-2.25, 252, 340 Attrition (gender) 78, 83, 92,103, 108 Common gender 76, 158 Feminine 67---69, 71---~, 76, 78-82, 84-90, 92, 94· 97··98, 100, 102···104, 106, 151-161 Granunatical gender 5, 67-70, 72-74> 76-78, 80-81, 83-84> 87-88, 90, 94. 96, 102-103, 106-107, 151-152, 154> 156-158 Hybrid gender 67, 69, go, 96,100 Masculine 6, 67-69, 71-~, 76, 78-79, 81-82, 86-90, 92, 94-95. 97-98, 104> 106, 151-160, 196-197. 203, 205 Neuter 67-69, 76-82, 85-90, 92, 97-102, 106, 1o8, 151·-153. 155·--160, 348 Semantic gender 5, 67-69, 76···78, So, 82---84, 87--88, !)0, 96, 101-103 Strong grammatical gender (SGG) 5, 74, 76, 78, 90, 1o6-107 Weak grammatical gender (WGG) 78, So, 82-83, go, 92·-gJ, 96---97, 102, 104, 108 Generative syntax 238 German 1-7,13-22, 24-·25, 27-31, 33. 36-37. 40, 42, 44-45. 47-48, so, 52, 61, 67-75. 78, 81, 89-90, 99. 105-108, 111-114> 116-120, 12.2-124, 126-127, 129-147· 151-156, 158-161, 165-170, 172-173. 177-178, 181-182, 187-189, 191-208, 210-212, 214-217, 219-227, 233"-241· 243. 245-263, 265-267, 269-271,281-282,295-296, 301-303, 305-308, 31.0-311, 313. 318, 322-324. 334> 336,338,342.347-348, 352, 355···3.59. 361·-364.

371-383, 385-389, 391, 394-395.401, 403. 405, 415-42.2. 433. 436-439. 441-445· 447-448. 455-459. 461-470 see Standard German Gramrnaticaliza.tion 6-7, 26:;, 279-280, 285, 290-291, 296, 356, 363"-·364. 386, 396-398,401-402, 406---407, 420, 443

H Henderson Plaut:d.ietsd1 4-5, 67-81 Hybrid Nouns 69,96-97, 99-104, 106,108 Gender 67, 69, 90, 96, 100 I Identity function 114-115, uo Incomplete acquisition 2 Indefinite article(s) 69, 76, 79-80, 82-83, 89, 91-92, 96---97· 102---103 Infinitival marker 7, 315, 38.5·--386, 394···398, 400, 405-406 Inflllitivus pro Participio (IPP) 166-167, 170-171, 173-175, 178-181, 184 Intensifiers 5, 111-114, 116-117, 126 Italo--Romance (IR) J, 233---234 Ivy Hypothesis 2

Low Franconian 69, 71-72 Low German 6, 31, 68-69, 72-74. 78, 187-188, 191-192, 194> 197. 208, 215,217 I.use.rr1a 6, 235, 240-24.2, 245-246, 248-251, 253. 257> 262, 280-281, 284-285, 301--304> 306·-JOS, 310, 336,347 M Manitowoc 13, 16-19, 21, 23-26 Mennonite I.ow German (MLG) 6, 166,187, 192, 194-202, 204-207, 210-211, 213, 217-219, 2.21, 225-226 Middle Field!Mittelfeld (MF) 168, 238-240, 242, 253.255. 260, 270, 350, 352, 356, 362, 373, 379- JSO, 382,417 Minimalism I Minimalist Program (MP) 262, 334> 358 Minority language 166, 218, 26,5, 279··-280, 284,291, 388, 465 Mod1eno (Fersentalerisch) 4-5. 33-51, 53. 56-61. Morphology 3, 5, 92, 101-103. 152, .238-239. 264. 282, 286-287, 2!)0, 348, 357> 420>442>444

0 K Kiel 15-17, 23-24, 26 L

Left periphery 241-242,244, 246, 266-267, 284> 286, 289,301-303,310, 320, 322-323. 326, 328-329. 338-341354.356-359. 361-362, 364 Lexical borrowing 5, 129-130, 133-135,139-140,147 I.e:xical erosion 130, 144, 146,148 I.e:xical Functional Grammar (LFG) 7, 402, 407

Object pronouns 7, So-81, 347-350, 353> 356-357. 362-363 Old English 129, 242, 267, 270, 293-294.308,399.4o6 Optimality Theory 5, 113 OV (Object- Verb) 234-235, 241-242, 246-247> 249, 253-254· 261, 26J, 265-2~, 3~. :;82 Ozaukee (Wisconsin) 13, 16, 19-21, 27-29

p Palatinate German (PL) 7, 155, 371. 374··382, 394

Index 477 Past p-articiple(s) 33"··34, 36···48, 5J··56, 59·-61, 177-178, 180 Pennsylvania Dutch (Pennsylvania German) 4> 15:1, 160-161, 1();-169, 172-183, }~2-383 Phonetics 5, 13-vh 190 Phonology J··s, 13, 52, 138, 190, 407 Plautdietsch 4---5, 67--70, 73-75, 78-83, 8;, 89-105, 107-109, 166 Pomerania 15-16, 19, 27, 198 Pragmatics 7, 291, 420, 437, 439, 442-444 Predicates Self-directed 5, 111 Other--directed 5, 111--112, 114, 125 Prokosch's Law so-;2 Prosody 415, 417-418, 438, 44:1 455-456 Purposive 7, 385-387, 389, 391-399, 401, 405-407, 409

R Reanalysis 7, 180-181, 184, 254> 277, 289, 293, 385-386, 395-397' 405-406 Reflexives 5, 111-114, 122, 126 Romance 7, 14, 38-39, 233-234, 236, 238·-·240, 246·-·247, 249> 252···25_5, 257···258, 260---263, 267, 2j'l···272, 281, 286, 302, 310, 321, 324-> 327> 333···334, 336, 342, :147-349, 351-:153, :155-357, 359-.364

s Second language (L2) 3, 30,372 Semi-speaker 2, 4, 144-145, 218,279, 284···287, 290-291, 348

Semantics 3, 36, 96---97, 99, 103,112···113,152, 155, 172, 1}7, 407, 418, 442, 447-448 Siebenbiirger Siichsisch 7, 415-416, 419-421, 425, 433, 436-437, 440, 442-446, 448 Sociolinguistics 1-4, 6, 34, 112, 127, 133, }40, 16;, 187··188, 190-191, 201, 210-211, 213, 221, 223, 227, 264··265, 4.55, 460,463 Sonorants 37, 40-41, 43-44, 46, ;o, 52, 57-58, 6o Sprachinsel 1-8, 111-112, 127, 151-152, 284-285, 455 Standard German 7, 13---14, 16, 19, 24, 27··30, 36·-37· 42, 44···45> 47-·48, 70,124, 133,138, 145> 151, 153···154, 156, 158-160, 166, 1il:1, 189, 192-207, 210-212, 216-.217, 219-227, 237-238, :.!.40, 243, 246, 256, .259-260, 266, 270-2j'l, 373, 375-382, 39.5, 403, 4}6, 421, 437· 444, 447 see German Structural borrowing 129, 134-135, 139-140, 147> 188 Subject inversion 6, 240, 243> 245-246, 254, 270, 302-325, 327, 335, 336, 342, 35 356--3.59. 362-364, 372, 375> 378, 407, 416·-·418, 433, 438··439, 443, 448

T Texas German (TxG) 5, 7, 129-133, 137, 455-459, 466-468, 470 Texas German Dialect Project (TGDP) 132, 455, 458 Topics 196, 239, 244 246, 254, 260, 26;, 2j'l, 28,h 288, 291··298, 301--303, 305, 308, 318-322, 324-326, 332··342, 3.54, 415--·416, 418, 420-421, 423-424> 426, 431, 433-435, 437, 442, 444-447> 463 Trentino (dialec.t) 33, 38-40, 235, 280, 282, 301 Turn Construction Unit (TCU) 7, 415---416, 419, 436, 444 1)'Iolean dialects (Meran, Passe.ie.r, Upper Vinschgau) 40-42, 234-236

v VO (Verb-Object) 240-243, 236-219, 253-254> 263, 266--267, 269, 272, 372 Verb cluster 6, 165-167, 170, 173-184, 192-196, 199,372 Verb-last (Vlast) 235, 238-239, 242, 247> 249-250, 261, 263,269-270 Verb--second (V2) 5, 234. 301, 316, J22, 325· 350, 352, 357, 37.5··-376, 417-·418 Verbal fran1e (Verbalklammer) 168

w Wackernagelpositio11 347, 352, 356, 362-364 West Germanic dialects/languages 50, 69, 165-166, 173,181, 357 l\Tn--items 292,294, 301--302, 322,332-334,338,340,342

Studies in Language Companion Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers' website, www.benjami 124 MALCHUKOV, Andrej and Anna SIEWIERSKA (eds.): Impersonal Constructions. A cross--linguistic perspective. Expected .Marcl12o11 123 PUTNAM, Michael 1'. (eel.): Studies on Gemtan-Language Islands. 2011. xii, 477 pp. 1.21. Cl-ANCY, Ste11en J.: The Chain of Bc.ing and Having in Slavi•- 2010. xvi~ 1.97 pp. 1.21. BRII.,habelle (ed.): Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Syntax and pragmatics. 2010. viii. 632. pp. 120 ROTHSTEIN,Bjom and Rolf TlllEROFF (eds.): Mood in the Languages of Europe. 2010. xvi. 647 pp. 119 STATffi,Katerlna, Flke GRHWEII.F.R and Ekkebard KONIG (eds.): Grammaticalization. Current views and issues. 2010. vii, 379 pp. 118 M"OHLEISEN, Susanne: Heterogeneity in Word-Formation P..rtterns. A corpus-based analysis of surTJXation with-ee and its productivity in English. 2010. xiii, 245 pp. 117 SI1EVAK, Olga: Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. 2010. xv, 318 pp. 116 NORDSTROM, Jackie: Modality and Subordinators. 2010. xvii, 341 pp. 115 HASKO, Victoria and Renee PERELMUTTER (eds.): New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. 2 X, 392 pp. 114 ROBY, David Brian: Aspect and the Categorization of States. The case of ser and estar in Spanish. 2009. xiii, 191 pp. 113 COMRIE, Bernard, Ray FABRI, Flizabeth HUME, Manwel MIFSUD, Thomas STOLZ and Martine VANHOVE (eds.): Introdudng Maltese Linguistics. Selected papers from the 1stinternational Conference on Maltese Linguistics, Bremen, 18-20 Octobet; 2007. 2009. xi, 422 pp. 112 DUFTER, Andreas and Daniel JACOB (eds.): Focus and Background in Romance languages. 2009. vii, 362 pp. 111 POLGUi!RE, Alain and Igor A. MEL'CL'K (eds.): Dependency in Linguistic Description. 2009. xxii, 281 pp. 110 DIMMENDAAL, Gerrit J. (eel.): Coding P..utidpant Marking. Construction types in twelve African languages. 2009. xvi. 389 pp. 109 NARROG,Heik~ Modalil'f in Japanese. lhe layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional •.ategories. 2009. xxii, J.77 pp. 1.08 BARDDAI., J6hanna and Shobhana I. CHEI.I.IAH (eds.): The Role of Semantic, Pragmatk. and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. 2009. n:, 432 pp. 107 BUTLER,

Studies on German-Language Islands

Studies on German-Language Islands (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Islands

Islands

Islands

Islands

Islands

Islands

Caribbean Islands

Caribbean Islands

Islands (Landforms)

Aran Islands

Plants on Islands: Diversity and Dynamics on a Continental Archipelago

Plants on Islands: Diversity and Dynamics on a Continental Archipelago

The Far Islands

Islands Of Space

02 - Islands of Space

The Floating Islands

The Floating Islands

The Andaman Islands

Islands of Privacy

The Pacific Islands Cookbook

Top 10 Greek Islands

Frommer's Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands

The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (Malvinas Islands)

Studies on German-Language Islands