Changes Between the Lines: Diachronic contact phenomena in written Pennsylvania German 9783110339505, 9783110339338

The book investigates the diachronic dimension of contact-induced language change based on empirical data from Pennsylva

199 109 6MB

English Pages 335 [336] Year 2015

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Changes Between the Lines: Diachronic contact phenomena in written Pennsylvania German
 9783110339505, 9783110339338

Table of contents :
List of Tables and Figures
Part I: Theoretical and sociohistoric background
1 Theoretical background 
1.1 Introduction 
1.2 Language change 
1.2.1 What is language change? 
1.2.2 Theories of language change 
1.2.3 The role of empirical and theoretical aspects in the study of language change 
1.3 Language contact 
1.3.1 Perspectives on language contact 
1.3.2 Language maintenance and language shift 
1.3.3 The Transmission Phenomenon Model 
1.3.4 Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem compared 
1.3.5 The (extended) Matrix Language Frame Model 
1.3.6 Thomason/Kaufman, Van Coetsem, Myers-Scotton: A synopsis 
1.4 Concluding remarks 
2 The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s) 
2.1 Introduction 
2.2 Historical development of the speech community 
2.2.1 The structure of the speech community 
2.2.2 The plain and the non-plain language repertoire 
2.3 Research review 
2.3.1 Research on Pennsylvania German, 19th to 21st century 
2.3.2 Discussion 
2.4 The three varieties
2.4.1 Pennsylvania German
2.4.2 Amish High German
2.4.3 American English / Pennsylvania German English (PGE)
2.4.4 Summary of the varieties and their functions
2.5 The sociolinguistic aspect
2.5.1 Bilingualism and diglossia
2.5.2 Language as a role attribute in conservative plain PG communities
2.6 Conclusions
Part II: Data analyses
3 The PG data corpus
3.1 Presentation of data corpus and data background
3.1.1 Introduction
3.1.2 Written data: Problems and advantages
3.1.3 The relevance of written data for the development of modern-day PG
3.2 Data origin
3.2.1 Region of data origin
3.2.2 Data sources and authors' backgrounds
3.3 Research interest and general findings
4 Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Contrasts between English and German
4.1.2 Case syncretism in Pennsylvania German
4.2 Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure
4.2.1 Thematic roles
4.2.2 VP shells
4.2.3 Causative alternation
4.3 Changes in argument structure
4.3.1 Preliminaries
4.3.2 Changes in reflexive marking
4.3.3 Transitivity changes
4.3.4 Impersonal constructions
4.4 Conclusions
5 Structural variation and incipient change
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Clause structure in German and English – differences and similarities
5.3 V2 clauses in German and English: A generative analysis
6 Verb position in complement dass-clauses
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Syntactic background
6.1.2 The data
6.2 Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2
6.2.1 The diachronic perspective
6.2.2 The synchronic perspective
6.3 The underlying syntactic structure: V2 or not V2?
6.3.1 Potential syntactic analyses
6.3.2 Underlying V2 structure
6.3.3 Underlying verb-final structure
6.3.4 Interpretation of the findings
6.4 Concluding remarks
7 Extraposition of prepositional phrases
7.1 Preliminaries
7.2 The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German
7.2.1 Overall frequency of PP extraposition
7.2.2 Extraposition of light and heavy PPs
7.2.3 The role of close semantic attachment (in argument structure) between verb and PP
7.2.4 The role of linguistic origin of the verbal lexeme
7.3 Interpretation of results
7.4 Concluding remarks
8 Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German
8.1 Preposition stranding: A brief description
8.1.1 Preliminaries
8.1.2 The range of stranding phenomena
8.2 Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German
8.2.1 Pennsylvania German data
8.2.2 Extraposition preferences
8.3 Preposition stranding and PP-split
8.3.1 Preposition stranding in English
8.3.2 PP-split and the resumptive-pronoun strategy in German
8.4 The place of Pennsylvania German
8.5 One surface -- two parsing strategies
8.6 Conclusions: Structural variation and incipient change in Pennsylvania German
9 General conclusions and implications
9.1 Applying language contact models to PG: Predictions
9.2 Findings
9.2.1 Characterization of text groups
9.2.2 Theoretical implications
9.3 Conclusions
List of analyzed texts

Citation preview

Doris Stolberg Changes Between the Lines

Studia Linguistica Germanica

Herausgegeben von Christa Dürscheid, Andreas Gardt, Oskar Reichmann und Stefan Sonderegger

Band 118

Doris Stolberg

Changes Between the Lines Diachronic contact phenomena in written Pennsylvania German


ISBN 978-3-11-033933-8 e-ISBN 978-3-11-033950-5 ISSN 1861-5651 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany

Acknowledgements This book is an updated version of my doctoral thesis which I defended in 2008 at the University of Mannheim. Many people have supported my research on its way into a dissertation and this publication, and I would like to thank all of them. First of all, my thanks go to Rosemarie Tracy, my supervisor who readily and cheerfully agreed to support my endeavor, together with Elsa Lattey who saw the completion of my doctoral thesis although, due to her untimely death, not the completion of this book. To both of them I owe a great, great thank you for what went far beyond inspiring intellectual exchanges and an untiring interest in topics that were and are relevant to me. My thanks also go to Werner Kallmeyer who agreed to provide the second assessment of the thesis, and to Christine Bierbach, Inken Keim, and Werner Kallmeyer for being part of my dissertation committee. Many friends and colleagues helped me in various ways. I am grateful for the support, among many others, to my former “siblings” from the Graduiertenkolleg Integriertes Linguistikstudium at the University of Tübingen, mainly Petra Gretsch, Laura Kallmeyer, Anke Lüdeling, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Andreas Wagner. They offered lively and critical discussions as well as an occasional babysitting of my young daughter, giving me time and space to work on the thesis and thus helping to make it better than it would have been otherwise. During my time at the University of Mannheim, the Forschergruppe “Sprachvariation als kommunikative Praxis” was a stimulating environment for discussing many different aspects of language contact and language change. Within the project Codeswitching, Crossover & Co., led by Rosemarie Tracy and Elsa Lattey, my colleague Alexandra Münch (now Alexandra Blesing) and I had countless fruitful exchanges and worked together on several topics and publications, enriching my perspective on the matters relevant for this book. I would like to thank Nils Langer, Anja Lobenstein-Reichmann, Nina Janich, and Joe Salmons for support and good advice along the final steps towards this publication. My thanks go to the editors of Studia Linguistica Germanica for including this study in their series. A thank you also goes to Daniel Gietz and Angelika Hermann from De Gruyter for the friendly advice on topics such as formatting and deadlines. Throughout this academic journey, my parents accompanied and supported my enterprise warmly and with great interest. They, and my brother, were there when I needed them. Thank you.

My family had to bear with me, and this work, for a long time. They did so patiently and cheerfully, and they helped me not to lose sight of priorities. I owe them more than I can say. Thank you, Max, Sophie, Moritz, and Leopold for being there.

Contents Note � V Acknowledgements � V List of Tables and Figures � XI Abbreviations � XIII Outline � XV Part I: Theoretical and sociohistoric background  1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3


Theoretical background � 3 Introduction � 3 Language change � 4 What is language change? � 4 Theories of language change � 8 The role of empirical and theoretical aspects  in the study of language change � 15 Language contact � 16 Perspectives on language contact � 16 Language maintenance and language shift � 17 The Transmission Phenomenon Model � 19 Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem compared � 22 The (extended) Matrix Language Frame Model � 24 Thomason/Kaufman, Van Coetsem, Myers-Scotton: A synopsis � 31 Concluding remarks � 33

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2

The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s) � 34 Introduction � 34 Historical development of the speech community � 36 The structure of the speech community � 40 The plain and the non-plain language repertoire � 43 Research review � 45 Research on Pennsylvania German, 19th to 21st century � 45 Discussion � 56

1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6

VIII � Contents

2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6

The three varieties � 58 Pennsylvania German � 58 Amish High German � 77 American English / Pennsylvania German English (PGE) � 79 Summary of the varieties and their functions � 85 The sociolinguistic aspect � 87 Bilingualism and diglossia � 87 Language as a role attribute in conservative plain PG communities � 90 Conclusions � 91

Part II: Data analyses  3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4

The PG data corpus � 97 Presentation of data corpus and data background � 97 Introduction � 97 Written data: Problems and advantages � 98 The relevance of written data for the development of modern-day PG � 100 Data origin � 100 Region of data origin � 100 Data sources and authors' backgrounds � 101 Research interest and general findings � 104 Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships � 110 Introduction � 110 Contrasts between English and German � 110 Case syncretism in Pennsylvania German � 113 Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 117 Thematic roles � 118 VP shells � 122 Causative alternation � 125 Changes in argument structure � 129 Preliminaries � 129 Changes in reflexive marking � 132 Transitivity changes � 140 Impersonal constructions � 151

Contents � IX

4.4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.4 7 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

Conclusions � 176 Structural variation and incipient change � 178 Introduction � 178 Clause structure in German and English – differences and similarities � 180 V2 clauses in German and English: A generative analysis � 184 Verb position in complement dass-clauses � 187 Introduction � 187 Syntactic background � 187 The data � 188 Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2 � 190 The diachronic perspective � 190 The synchronic perspective � 196 The underlying syntactic structure: V2 or not V2? � 198 Potential syntactic analyses � 198 Underlying V2 structure � 199 Underlying verb-final structure � 201 Interpretation of the findings � 205 Concluding remarks � 205

7.2.4 7.3 7.4

Extraposition of prepositional phrases � 207 Preliminaries � 207 The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 210 Overall frequency of PP extraposition � 214 Extraposition of light and heavy PPs � 216 The role of close semantic attachment (in argument structure) between verb and PP � 219 The role of linguistic origin of the verbal lexeme � 223 Interpretation of results � 225 Concluding remarks � 227

8 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 8.2 8.2.1

Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German � 230 Preposition stranding: A brief description � 230 Preliminaries � 230 The range of stranding phenomena � 232 Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German � 236 Pennsylvania German data � 237

X � Contents

8.2.2 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.4 8.5 8.6

9 9.1 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2 9.3

Extraposition preferences � 240 Preposition stranding and PP-split � 244 Preposition stranding in English � 245 PP-split and the resumptive-pronoun strategy in German � 247 The place of Pennsylvania German � 260 One surface -- two parsing strategies � 268 Conclusions: Structural variation and incipient change in Pennsylvania German � 271 General conclusions and implications � 276 Applying language contact models to PG: Predictions � 276 Findings � 278 Characterization of text groups � 278 Theoretical implications � 280 Conclusions � 282

Appendix � 289 List of analyzed texts � 289 Bibliography � 295 Index � 317

List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 1.1

p. 22

Table 1.2

p. 23

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

p. 65 p. 66 p. 88 p. 90

Table Table Table Table

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3

p. 104 p. 106 p. 106

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 6.1

p. 114 p. 115 p. 116 p. 137 p. 143 p. 145 p. 164 p. 165 p. 168 p. 168 p. 171 p. 175 p. 193

Table Table Table Table Table Table

6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

p. 197 p. 212 p. 213 p. 214 p. 215 p. 217

Thomason/Kaufman (1988) / Van Coetsem (1988/1995), overview Predicted outcomes of the two transfer types in contact (Thomason/Kaufman 1988 / Van Coetsem 1995) Categorizing types of lexical interference in PG Estimates of AE influence on the PG lexicon Diglossia in Old Order Amish communities Linguistic role attributes in the domain "Old Order Amish School" PG verbs(type / token ratio) Ratio of German vs. English verb stems (types) in PG Ratio of German vs. English verb occurrences (tokens) in PG Palatinate German case paradigm Pennsylvania German case paradigm Volga German case paradigm Reflexive verbs (PG) Marking of causativization (German / English) Transitive / intransitive use of ferlasse fehle / ferfehle (semantic-syntactic distribution) fehle / ferfehle(frequency) wunnere (argument selection) wunnere (frequency) Complementizers occurring with wunnere gemahne(n) (frequency) dass-clauses with / without V2 (quantitative overview) Matrix verbs(lexical verbs) indass-clauses Distribution of PPs across clause types (PG) Distribution of PPs across clause types (PalG) Position of PPs in different clause types (PG) Position of PPs in different clause types (PalG) Distribution of light and heavy PPs across positions (PG)

XII � List of Tables and Figures

Table 7.6

p. 219

Table 8.1

p. 240

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

p. 242 p. 243 p. 247 p. 252 p. 255

Table Table Table Table Table

Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3

p.7 p.64 p.101 p.106 p.107

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

3.4 3.5 4.1a 4.1b 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 6.1

p.108 p.108 p.123 p.124 p.129 p.137 p.138 p.139 p.142 p.160 p.182 p.183 p.193

Figure Figure Figure Figure

7.1 7.2 8.1 9.1

p.215 p.216 p.273 p.277

Distribution of light and heavy PPs across positions (PalG) Stranding constructions in PG across construction types and time Verbs and prepositions / pro-PPs (stranding data) Prepositions occurring with schwetze Preposition stranding in English and PG Preposition stranding / PP-split in German and PG Paradigm of R-pronouns (PG / StG)

Synchronic variation and language change Possible outcomes of lexical interference Map of Pennsylvania Ratio of German vs. English verb stems (types) in PG German types / tokens and English types / tokens across data sets Lexical language contact phenomena (tokens) English verb tokens in PG Intransitive use of roll Transitive / causative use of roll Structure of a lexical entry Verb occurrences with reflexive marker Verb occurrences without reflexive marker Subjectivization of fiehle / feel Form-function correlation (in causativization) gleich / gleiche(n) (PG) Topological fields / V2 Topological fields / subordinate clause (verb-final) dass-clauses with V2: Quantitative development over time (PG) PP position in PG PP position in PalG Syntactic code-switching in PG Hypothetical distribution of German and English across the PG language repertoire

Abbreviations acc. adv AE AHG AUX

dat. DS E EDS EL G gen. impers. intr L1 L2 ML MLF MS nom. O obj. PalG PD PDE pers. PG PGE pl PS REFL

S SB sg Sim SS StG

accusative adverb American English Amish High German auxiliary dative Es Deitsch Schtick English = DS embedded language German genitive impersonal intransitive first language / dominant language second language / weaker language matrix language matrix-language frame Die Muttersproch nominative object object Palatinate German The Pennsylvania Dutchman Present Day English personal Pennsylvania German Pennsylvania German English plural Pit Schwefflebrenner reflexive (marker/pronoun) subject Der Schnitzelbonk singular Sim Schmalzgsicht's Own Magazine = Sim Standard German

XIV | Abbreviations

subj. tr V V2

subject transitive verb verb-second

Notation for origin of examples source (abbrev.) + date or text no. – year Ex.: [SB2/20-1991] = [Der Schnitzelbonk, Feb. 20, 1991] [PS10-1868] = [Pit Schwefflebrenner, text no. 10, 1868]

Outline Pennsylvania German (PG), a German immigrant variety in the United States, is the result of interaction and levelling among the original settlers' dialects (i.e. geographical varieties of German) and a long-term, ongoing interaction with English. It has been investigated from the two main perspectives of dialect linguistics on the one hand and contact linguistics on the other. The present study complements earlier lines of investigation in three respects. First, a dirachronic approach is taken, comparing Pennsylvania German data over a time range of approximately 130 years. Second, as a consequence of choosing a diachronic approach, written, rather than spoken, PG data provide the base for this investigation. Third, the perspective taken with regard to the analysis and interpretation of the data is process oriented. Muysken (2000:263) points out that in languagecontact research "the focus has been on the supposed outcome, i.e. the elements borrowed and the directionality of borrowing, and not as much on the processes of borrowing, determined by the type of contact situation." [original emphasis] The present study focusses on the processes triggered by the specific type of contact situation of PG, as well as on the psycholinguistic processes underlying the language-contact phenomena present in PG. Models commonly used in the investigation of spoken data are applied to selected aspects of written data in order to gain insight into the underlying dynamics of what has changed in PG and why. Concepts from code-switching and second language acquisition research focus on the speaker as the source of language production, contact, and change. Many investigations of PG have drawn a more or less static, rather than dynamic, picture of this contact variety. The present study explores how the dynamics of language contact can bring about language mixing, borrowing, and, eventually, language change, taking into account psycholinguistic processes in (the head of) the bilingual speaker.

� Part I: Theoretical and sociohistoric background

1 Theoretical background 1.1 Introduction The research goal of the present study was to investigate the diachronic dimension of contact-induced language change, based on empirical data. The data were analyzed with respect to the question of how a specific language, Pennsylvania German (PG), has changed over a period of 130 years. The research interest was to find out whether assumptions regarding contact-induced language change hold when applied to empirical diachronic data, and whether, in this specific case, contact-induced language change is cumulative, as suggested by, e.g., Thomason/Kaufman (1988) (short contact: mainly lexical impact; long and intense contact: (lexical and) structural impact). The research object of the present study is Pennsylvania German (PG), a German variety spoken in the USA that has been in long and increasingly intense contact with English. This contact variety has been studied extensively, but almost exclusively from a synchronic perspective. The results of synchronically oriented studies have been used to draw conclusions about the diachronic development of Pennsylvania German, but a long-term grammatical diachronic investigation has not been undertaken so far. The data base of this study covers a time span of almost 130 years. In order to make a reliable comparison possible, only written data have been used. The specific research topic of this study is contact-induced language change on the syntactic level and at the lexical-syntactic interface. The orienting questions for the study are 1) how to adequately describe certain structural properties of the empirical data; 2) whether the successive stages reflected in the data can be properly described by existing models and theories of language contact and language change; and 3) whether the findings from the Pennsylvania German data provide counterevidence to or require modifications of existing theories and models of contact-induced language change. Chapters 1 and 2 provide the theoretical and sociocultural background for the study, chapters 3 to 8 present data analyses, and in chapter 9 the results and possible answers to the above questions are discussed.

4 � Theoretical background

1.2 Language change 1.2.1 What is language change? Language change is defined as a process of change over time in linguistic elements and language system (Bußmann 2002:638). It can be observed on all linguistic levels, and every language undergoes change over time. The concept of language change refers to change in the language system, not to variation in linguistic performance. Due to the diachronic perspective, the focus is usually on the language system of a speech community (e.g. "English" or "German") and not on the language system (competence) of the individual speaker. The changes in the language system of an individual speaker during his/her lifetime are more often dealt with in the realm of psycholinguistics, but since they are the source of the changes in the speech community's shared language system, they should not be ignored when investigating language change. This point has been captured by reference to the actuation problem of language change (Weinreich/Labov/Herzog 1968) and the recognition that it must be individual speakers who initiate change (e.g. Labov 1972; L. Milroy 1980; Milroy / Milroy 1985; J. Milroy 1992). It must be kept in mind that there is no language (system, competence, etc.) outside of the heads of language speakers. As Haugen (1972:325) puts it, "Language exists only in the minds of its users, and it only functions in relating these users to one another and to nature, i.e. their social and natural environment. Part of its ecology is therefore psychological: its interaction with other languages in the minds of biand multilingual speakers."

This formulation anticipates certain aspects of Chomsky's claim that the only reality of language is its psychological reality in the mind of each individual speaker, as I-language, or internal, individual and intensional language. According to Chomsky's view, only I-language is of scientific interest because the concept of language as an external entity, as "E-language", is too unspecified and vague to make a proper scientific investigation possible (cf. Chomsky 1986)1. �� 1 This viewpoint is specific to Chomsky's approach. Other frameworks consider "E-language", in the sense of "the common-sense concept of a language, the one under which millions of different people may be correctly described as speakers of the same language" (Pullum/Scholz 2001:38), as a useful notion for certain generalizations that cannot be captured by the concept of "I-language", such as the fact that a considerable amount of linguistic structure is "shared between the differing idiolects of the hundreds of millions of people around the world who can,

Language change � 5

Therefore, the notion of a language that changes over time is, strictly speaking, a metaphor that is commonly used to describe processes of change within and between generations as language is transmitted from speaker to speaker. It is in this metaphorical sense that I use the notions of 'language' and 'language change' in this study. Language contact and language change Language change is most noticeable in language-contact settings, i.e. in contexts where plurilingual speakers communicate in more than one language on a regular basis. Changes that are specific to contact settings are generally referred to as contact-induced changes (a cover term for language changes occurring in the context of language contact and presumably caused or triggered by it). In order to assess (the extent of) contact-induced changes properly, however, it is necessary to also take into consideration the common routes of change that are attested in non-contact situations. These types of change are not restricted to non-contact settings and therefore can be expected to occur in contact settings as well. Changes occurring in contact settings, then, can belong to either one of two categories: a) General diachronic changes, i.e. changes observed in both contact and non-contact situations, such as phonological change, grammaticalization processes, parametric levelling, etc. Changes of this type are sometimes claimed to be accelerated by language contact. Since no two language-change settings are alike, however, the speed of one change cannot be precisely compared to that of another. Still, languages that have been in extensive contact with one or several other languages seem to show a tendency towards a reduced morphology (e.g., English, Danish), as compared with closely related languages that have had less contact influence (e.g., Icelandic). Implicational evidence of this kind can help understand accelerating effects of language contact on change. b) Contact-induced changes such as borrowing, certain structural changes, or the formation of fused lects2, i.e. changes that crucially involve the processing of material from two (or more) languages. These

�� in their different ways, be said to use Standard English" (Pullum/Scholz ibid.; cf. also Meyer 2003:251). 2 cf. Auer (1999)

6 � Theoretical background

changes and the respective theories are dealt with in more detail in the Language Contact section below. The distinction between 'general changes' and 'contact-induced changes' exists first and foremost in theory, since it is difficult to determine, in actual languagecontact situations, what changes are due to close interaction with another language, and what changes are internally motivated (cf. McMahon 1994, Thomason 2001, Clyne 2003, Aitchison 2013). In addition, there is an ongoing dispute about precisely what types of change can be due to contact. There is no disagreement on the lexicon being easily affected by language contact, but diverging stands have been taken regarding the effect of language contact on other, more structural, modules of a language (e.g., Thomason/Kaufman 1988, Kroch 1994, Lightfoot 1999, Prince 2001). This discussion ties in with more general considerations about the architecture of language: The question of where exactly to draw the boundary between the lexicon and other components of language is answered differently in different theoretical approaches, and the issue has not yet been resolved. The study of language-contact data can contribute to its resolution by offering insight into differences in affectedness between the various components of a language.

Language change � 7 Linguistic variation and language change The development towards a potential change can proceed as follows:  : 'leads to', 'causes'  : 'can lead to', 'can cause' (but doesn't have to)

Synchronic variation ("structured heterogeneity"3)  changed language usage4  change in frequencies5  changed input  change in the system: Language change Figure 1.1: Synchronic variation and language change

Change is not an inevitable consequence of variation. It is conceivable that two variants of expression (or even two languages, as in a diglossic scenario) can coexist for a long time without triggering change. On the other hand, variation is not a necessary precondition for change: Language change can be abrupt and can occur without a period of transitional variation, as in the case of abrupt creolization6. That is, variation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient precondition for change. Often, however, synchronic variation is a catalyst for diachronic change. Since each plurilingual speaker has more than one linguistic system at his or her disposal, the potential for synchronic variation is increased in languagecontact situations. Because of the role variation plays in promoting language

�� 3 Weinreich/Labov/Herzog (1968:101) 4 for various possible reasons, including (but not limited to) change of norms. An example of lexical change in language usage in the recent past is the substitution of gender for sex and of male/female for man/woman in certain (American) English contexts. 5 Cf. Abraham 2011 for a discussion of the (possible) role of changed frequencies in syntactic change. 6 "In this process [i.e. abrupt creolization] the emerging contact language at once becomes the primary language of the community and is learned as a first language (though not necessarily as their only first language) by any children born into the new multilingual community." (Thomason/Kaufman 1988:150)

8 � Theoretical background

change, we can assume that language contact creates favorable conditions for language change.

1.2.2 Theories of language change Language change, in contact and non-contact settings alike, should be investigated from both an empirical and a theoretical perspective in order to lead to fruitful results (cf. Weinreich/Labov/Herzog 1968). Empirical (dataoriented) questions include to what extent different areas (or levels, or modules) of a language are affected by change over time, and what types of change they undergo. A theory-focussed approach is concerned with in what ways language change is systematic, how this systematicity can be formalized, and, more generally, how to explain why language changes. A number of theoretical approaches have been designed and used to explain different aspects of language change and to describe them formally. Some of them were developed for internally-motivated7 language change, i.e. for non-contact situations. Consequently, they were not specifically designed to capture patterns of change typical of language-contact settings. Nevertheless, they are valuable for language-contact studies since the proposed mechanisms of change are understood to describe general characteristics of linguistic change. Therefore, they should be applicable to plurilingual contexts as well. An investigation of language change can take different perspectives: Some studies adopt a system-linguistic perspective, with the main focus on the language system and the changes it undergoes. Other approaches focus more strongly on a sociolinguistic perspective, concentrating on the socio-cultural dynamics leading to language change. A further possibility would be taking a psycholinguistic perspective, concentrating on the individual speaker's competence. Among the system-oriented approaches to language change are generative theories (e.g. Lightfoot's) as well as descriptions of tendencies in language change: grammaticalization (e.g. Lehmann's), semanticization (e.g. Traugott's), natural grammatical change (e.g. Wurzel's). A socio-cultural route is taken by Keller (1994), who models the (potential) actuation and distribution of a change

�� 7 "Internally motivated" means that the motivation for a change lies within a single language, while "externally motivated" can relate to motivational factors that lie either outside this one language (as in language contact) or, more generally, outside of the linguistic domain in a strict sense (e.g., in politics, social conditions, or business needs).

Language change � 9

as the result of social interaction among the speakers by applying the "invisiblehand" model (cf. below) to it. His model deals with the social constraints and conditions for language change, not with the linguistic ones, and is consequently not concerned with any system-linguistic aspects of change. Weinreich/Labov/Herzog (1968) already claimed that a comprehensive theory of language change requires a system-oriented approach that is pursued both from a theoretical and an empirical point of view. It must also include the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives, that is, it must consider the social dynamics of a speech community as well as the contributions of the individual speaker to the processes of language change. Various aspects of the sociolinguistic perspective on language change are taken up by J. Milroy and L. Milroy (e.g., J. Milroy 1992, L. Milroy 2002, L. Milroy/Gordon 2003, Milroy/Milroy 2012). In the following, these different approaches are presented in more detail. Generative views on language change From a current generative perspective, there is no need for a specific theory of language change. It is assumed that a linguistic theory that covers synchronic variation will also be capable of describing diachronic variation adequately. All that is needed are grammars that generate all existing variants. The range of possible variants is limited by universal principles. Instead of formulating a theory of change (in the sense of a mechanism that takes one system as input and another as output), generativists capture different stages in language change by proposing a different grammar for each stage, each such grammar being an abstraction (i.e. a theory) of one of the successive stages. Generative grammars describe the structure of language, and structural (e.g. syntactic) changes are not seen to be gradual but absolute: They are changes in parameter setting8 (Chomsky 1981). As a parameter can be set only at one value at a time, there are no intermediate stages. The strict formulation of the change of parameter setting as an explanation for language change runs into problems when applied to natural data from �� 8 A parameter can be defined as "[a] dimension of grammatical variation between different languages or different varieties of the same language" (Radford 1997:267; cf. also Radford 2004:467). An example of a parameter is the head parameter, determining whether heads (e.g. verbs) govern to the left or to the right. In English, the parameter is set for rightward government (complements follow the non-finite verb), while in German government is to the left (complements precede the verb). The underlying principle that is specified by setting the head parameter is that head government is systematic for each head; it will not vary randomly.

10 � Theoretical background

language change, since individual changes in language take a long period of time before they are completed. Consider, for example, the OV-to-VO change in English which took about 300 years (cf. e.g. Kroch 1994). An explanation based purely on a change of parameter setting cannot account for the long intermediate period in which several variants co-exist. Rather, it would predict a quick qualitative change in structure. An extended version of the explanation of language change within a generative framework includes the notion of competing grammars (Lightfoot 1991, 1999, 2006), i.e., two (or more) grammars with diverging parameter settings can, for a while, co-exist in a speech community.9 While some members of the speech community, e.g. the older ones, are competent only in the one grammar that was earlier the only one that was used, other speakers have two grammars at their disposal. In time, they not only produce both types of structure but also receive increasing input from the new form. The change in input frequencies has a particularly strong impact on language learners, especially children, who have to construct their grammars (that is, set their parameters) based on the input they receive. Depending on the amount of input from each grammar, they may be able to retrieve only the new structure because the older one has become too infrequent to provide them with sufficient cues; that makes it impossible for them to reconstruct an alternative underlying grammar. Ambiguous structures generated by the older grammar will be re-analyzed in light of the new grammar (the new parameter setting). For example, Pennsylvania German shows a strong tendency to extrapose prepositional phrases (PPs), that is, to place them in the right periphery of the clause, rather than in the Mittelfeld (in main clauses the position between the finite verb and the non-finite verb or verbal particle, and in subordinate clauses the position to the left of the verbal complex). Please note that (1) merely serves to illustrate the concept of reanalysis. The topic of Pennsylvania German syntactic structures, including the relevant terminology, is presented and discussed in chapters 5 through 8. (1) [SB2/20-1991] PG alle ebber dos wuhnt [in Barricks Kounti]PP StG jeder, der [in Berks County]PP wohnt English everybody that lives [in Berks County]PP

�� 9 Similar considerations are also taken up by Roeper (1999) in his discussion of 'theoretical bilingualism' where he proposes a bilingualism view of the persistance of parallel, or competing, parameter settings (i.e. grammars) within one language.

Language change � 11

PG= Pennsylvania German StG = Standard German

If the Mittelfeld position is filled, this helps the language learner to analyze the position of the verb as clause-final, i.e. to detect the underlying Subject-ObjectVerb (SOV) structure. For children, frequent extraposition of prepositional phrases in the input makes it difficult to determine whether there is in fact a Mittelfeld position in Pennsylvania German. Syntactically, the consequence is that structures will be reanalyzed as Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) structures, as in English, and no longer as SOV structures. At this point the change from one grammar (one parameter setting), OV, to another, VO, has been completed. Grammaticalization theory A different, but also system-oriented, approach focusses on specific recurring tendencies observed in language change. Grammaticalization theory deals with such tendencies regarding changes in the system status of a linguistic sign. Grammaticalization is a gradual process. Typical formal features of this type of change are the loss of semantic content, a phonological reduction of the affected linguistic elements, and a reduction of their autonomy (Lehmann 1985:306), such as an increasingly fixed position within a clause, or a change from free to bound morpheme. The grammaticalization of lexical elements increases a language's inventory of functional elements. A reduction of functional elements (e.g., inflectional elements), on the other hand, can take place through the (phonological) reduction and eventual loss of e.g. inflectional affixes, as in English. A change in the status of a linguistic element is, e.g., the change from a lexical-semantic element to a functional element. An example for this type of change is the use of the verb go as a future auxiliary (as in She is going to write a letter), with concomitant loss of semantic content and, in the form gonna, a phonological reduction (cf. McMahon 1994). Grammaticalization tendencies appear to be language-internally motivated, but they are not restricted to monolingual contexts. As they result from language use, they are likely to be found in language-contact settings, too. In such settings, the availability of more linguistic material allows for an increased range of possibilities; the general tendencies can be expected to be the same, though. Besides the change from lexical to functional status of a linguistic element, changes in the type of meaning, e.g. from pragmatic to lexical-semantic meaning, also belong in the realm of grammaticalization (Traugott 2003). In previous

12 � Theoretical background

research, these tendencies of change have been considered to be triggered mainly by metaphoric use, as Traugott/König (1991:207) point out. Traugott (1989:34f.) and Traugott/König (1991:208f.; cf. also Traugott/Dasher 2002) identify three main tendencies of semantic-pragmatic change: • Tendency I: A change from externally based meanings (core meanings, i.e. non-contextual meanings) to internally based meanings (i.e., based on the evaluative or perceptual or cognitive situation). As an example of Tendency I, Traugott / König (1991:208) cite the change of Old English æfter from a spatial to a temporal preposition: "A shift from reference to a concrete, physical situation to reference to a cognitive, perceptual situation." This refers to a change in meaning from 'behind' (spatial) to 'after' (temporal) as in 'after lunch'. • Tendency II: A change from externally or internally based meanings to meanings based in the textual situation (relating to the cohesion of a text10). Again, Old English æfter constitutes a case in point: "When æfter became a temporal connective, it underwent Tendency II and shifted to a marker of textual, cohesive relations." (Traugott/König 1991:208) As a temporal connective, after is used to connect two clauses as in 'After he got home, he had dinner.' • Tendency III: A tendency towards an interpretation based on the speaker's subjective belief state or attitude towards the proposition: An example of this tendency at work is Old English siþþan 'since': "Temporal siþþan, which is a textual marker, comes via Tendency III to express the speaker's view of a causal relation between states of affairs." (Traugott/König 1991:209) This is evident in the use of 'since' as in 'Since you have come, you might as well stay', as compared to the temporal use in 'Since his arrival an hour had passed.' Another example of increased subjectivization is the development of epistemic modals, e.g. the use of must in the sense of 'I conclude that' (cf. Hopper / Traugott 2003:92). An example of an item passing through different stages of grammaticalization is while, a noun, developing first into a temporal complementizer (losing lexical content and acquiring grammatical properties, cf. Tendency II), and eventually, by way of subjectivization, adopting a concessive meaning (reflecting the speaker's attitudes and beliefs, cf. Tendency III). In addition, Traugott (1996) finds that semantic change can be caused by the innovative use of implicatures, followed by an increasing conventionaliza�� 10 The meaning of text here is not restricted to written language production.

Language change � 13

tion of these innovations. This is what she refers to as the semanticization of an originally pragmatic means: "Often, utterance-token meanings that are noncemeanings, or individual, idiosyncratic uses, are introduced redundantly in linguistic contexts so that they can be understood. (...) [A]fter extended use in the conventionalized meaning, they may become semanticized, that is, they may become a well-recognized polysemy, a new coded meaning related to the former one." (Traugott 1996:6). As an example she refers to the newly developed use of like as a quotation marker in English, pointing out, however, that the step from individual uses to conventionalization of an expression crucially depends on its (speakers') saliency and social value in the speech community (cf. also Milroy 1980, 2003). Natural Grammatical Change The concept of Natural Grammatical Change, originally designed for the description of morphological change, refers to processes leading to the reduction of markedness in the settings of individual linguistic parameters (Wurzel 1994). Markedness principles are deduced from frequencies of occurrence in the world's languages, i.e. what is common and frequent is assumed to be unmarked. Therefore, it would be circular if these principles, in turn, were used to predict what is likely to occur most frequently. This approach is a description of tendencies of change, rather than an explanation. The Natural Grammatical Change approach deals primarily with morphological change and the interface between morphological and phonological change. According to Wurzel (1994), the principles that lead to the reduction of morphological markedness are motivated semiotically. They are assumed to be universal. The three main principles that were derived in this way are (a) Uniformity vs. Distinctivity: Semantic uniformity/distinctivity and formal uniformity/distinctivity should coincide; (b) (Morphosemantic) Transparency: Complex linguistic signs should be decomposable into simple signs, i.e., they should be (unambiguously) analyzable; and (c) Constructional Iconicity: The simplicity/complexity of a linguistic sign should be in accordance with its semantic simplicity/complexity. Features that accord with markedness principles are considered to be unmarked. Features that clash with these principles are defined as "marked" and they are, under this approach, expected to have an increased potential for change (which would lead to a reduction of markedness). Language change, according to the Natural Grammatical Change approach, shows a tendency towards the gradual reduction of markedness, a process in which universal principles of markedness are assumed to interact with language-specific ones. In this interaction, the reduction of markedness in one

14 � Theoretical background

parameter can lead to increased markedness in another. Thus, while the change of an individual feature or parameter can reach completion, the general process of change is ever ongoing, a prediction that coincides well with empirical findings. A sociocultural perspective: The invisible-hand model From a very different angle, language change is analyzed as an instance of an "invisible-hand" process (Keller 1994). Keller focusses on the sociocultural aspects of language and language use and is concerned with the sociocultural constraints on and determinants of language change. He does not attempt to explain any specifically system-linguistic phenomena. Language change in this model is understood as a by-product of communication and of the ways in which speakers modify language in everyday interactions in order to fit their communicative needs. Language change, in Keller's words, is a special case of sociocultural change ("Sprachwandel ist ein Spezialfall soziokulturellen Wandels." Keller 1994:208). Keller explains the dynamics of language change using the "invisible-hand" model that was originally designed to capture the dynamics of economic behavior. An invisible-hand process takes place when intentional individual actions (in the case of language change, the linguistic actions of individual speakers) accumulate and lead, in sum, to consequences which were neither intended nor foreseen by the individuals involved (Keller 1994:125ff.). The "invisible-hand" model is suitable for describing the overall process of change taking place in language as one among several sociocultural systems. It is not concerned with the explanation of individual instances of change nor with predictions about what changes may or may not occur. Change is not obligatory. Keller claims that we can only identify the (sociocultural) potential for change. Implicitly, he also claims that sociocultural conditions of change are prior to linguistic conditions. He is not concerned with the specification of systemlinguistic factors that could promote or constrain language change. With his focus on "methodological individualism" (Keller 1994:147), Keller investigates the speakers' social-behavioral contributions to language change (but not in a psycholinguistic sense), and not the linguistic characteristics of the change. This is appropriate insofar as language cannot change "by itself", but it leaves out the specifically linguistic contributions and limitations of the individual speaker, just as it does not pursue a system-linguistic orientation. For this reason, Keller's theory of language change is not of central importance for the present study.

Language change � 15

1.2.3 The role of empirical and theoretical aspects in the study of language change A ground-breaking assessment of the study of language change was presented by Weinreich/Labov/Herzog (henceforth WLH) in 1968. WLH postulate that an empirically based comprehensive theory of language change must be able to handle five essential aspects of language change; they refer to them as the problems of constraints, of transition, of embedding, of evaluation and of actuation (WLH 1968:101f.). Regarding the constraints of language change, the theory has to deal with what changes are possible, what the possible conditions for change are, and what the constraints on change are. With respect to the transition problem, the theory should be capable of defining intervening stages that can be observed or that must be posited in the transition between two forms (grammars) of a language. Embedding refers to what other changes (linguistic and extralinguistic) co-occur with the changes under investigation, and how the observed changes are linked to their linguistic and extralinguistic context. The theory should also be capable of evaluating the effect the observed changes have on linguistic structure, on communicative efficiency, on pragmatic factors, etc. Finally, it should say something about how changes come about (actuation), and why specific changes "take place in a particular language at a given time, but not in other languages with the same feature, or in the same language at other times" (WLH 1968:102). This last question is considered to be the essential one, the "very heart of the matter" (WLH 1968:102), in the investigation of language change. Extensive research with regard to the actuation of language change from a sociolinguistic perspective has been conducted by J. Milroy and L. Milroy (Milroy/Milroy 1985 inter alia). The generative approach, on the other hand, leaves this question completely unattended. The present study is primarily an empirical one, with its main research focus on the processes and structural outcomes of (contact-induced) change as reflected in the data. Theoretical approaches to language change provide an important frame for the assessment of the changes found in the data. The socio-cultural context is alluded to wherever it is important for the appropriate interpretation of the data, but it is not the focus of attention. Along the same lines, the psycholinguistic perspective, notably as pertaining to the extent of bilingualism of individual speakers, acquisition order and (diverging) competence in their languages, is referred to where necessary, but it is not a research topic in itself here.

16 � Theoretical background

The following section presents an overview of theoretical frameworks in the field of language contact, the second main area of research relevant to my study.

1.3 Language contact 1.3.1 Perspectives on language contact Thomason (1986:279) points out already that "no language, probably, has developed in total isolation from all other languages", that is, one cannot expect to find a variety that has developed in a completely contact-free environment. Even though language contact need not play a role in language change (cf. above), in many cases it is an important co-determinant of linguistic development. Here, where I am discussing contact-induced language change, the focus is on clear cases of language contact in which two (or more) clearly distinguishable varieties are available to the same speakers, creating the opportunity for interference between the languages involved. These varieties will be clearly distinguishable from each other on different levels of the linguistic system – not only in the lexicon but also in morphology, syntax and phonology. Since it is the bilingual speaker who is the "ultimate locus of language contact" (Weinreich 1953 [1968:71]; cf. also Haugen 1972), there must be at least some speakers who are bilingual to some (however limited) degree in order for language contact to occur. Contact phenomena then may spread within the speech community, i.e. certain contact-induced language features can be taken on even by monolingual speakers. This happened, for example, during the first half of the twentieth century when monolingual English speakers in Pennsylvania without any Pennsylvania German background adopted a local variety of English marked by interference from Pennsylvania German (cf. Tucker 1934). It is therefore useful to distinguish between a focus on language contact (in and) between individual speakers, the micro-perspective, and a focus on language contact within a speech community or between speech communities, where not every single speaker has to be bilingual, the macro-perspective (cf. Thomason/Kaufman 1988:47f.). Furthermore, language contact can be studied with respect to its immediate reflections and results, i.e. with an emphasis on on-going language production, or, from a diachronic perspective, in its longterm effects. In speaker-to-speaker contact, lexical and structural nonce borrowings (especially if mixing is socially licensed in the given speech situation) and proces-

Language contact � 17

sing-determined mixing phenomena11 can occur. In this approach to language contact, mixing phenomena crucially require the speakers involved to be bilingual, at least to some extent. They are analyzed synchronically in the context of individual interactions and in relation to each speaker's individual competence. From a diachronic perspective, it depends on the kind and intensity of language contact whether the effect on the languages involved is of a lexical or of a structural kind (cf. Thomason/Kaufman 1988). Long-term societal language contact can result in effects also on the speech of monolingual speakers. Where this is the case, influence from another language results in a change in the language system, in that the competences of monolingual and bilingual speakers alike include these features. Such features can be classified as instances of interference from another language only diachronically, because synchronically they are perceived to be part of the "recipient" language. Studies on Pennsylvania German usually focus either on the variety (e.g. Frey, Buffington, Buffington/Barba) or on the speech community (e.g. Enninger, Enninger/Raith, Huffines), rather than on individual speakers. A diachronic approach is, to my knowledge, taken by only one study so far. This is the lexicological study by Werner (1996) who analyzes and compares data from different points in time. His study is based partly on the same data that were used for my investigation, but with an emphasis on changes in the lexicon of Pennsylvania German and not on structural changes, which are the main interest here.

1.3.2 Language maintenance and language shift The kind and the extent of change resulting from language contact depend on the direction of transfer, the duration of the contact situation, its reason and motivation, the social setting of the speakers involved, the relative prestige of the languages in this social setting, and so on. Thomason/Kaufman (1988) propose that there are essentially two prototypical scenarios that come out of language-contact situations, corresponding to the two possibilities a speech community can choose between when brought into contact with another language: It can either maintain its own language (its "heritage" language) and use the new language as some sort of additional resource, or it can substitute the contact language for its originally spoken language, i.e. shift to a new first language for future generations. Each of these prototypical scenarios is accompa-

�� 11 "Mixing", or "language mixing", is used here as a cover term for all forms of juxtaposing the two languages at hand.

18 � Theoretical background

nied by a characteristic set of changes and patterns of interference in the language that turns out to be the one used (Thomason/Kaufman 1988:37ff.). In the first type of contact setting, language maintenance, the speech community is in contact with another language and maintains its original (first) language (L1)12. Language maintenance will be accompanied by interference by borrowing from the contact variety. First and foremost, lexical items are borrowed. The extent of borrowing depends on the duration and the intensity of language contact13, i.e. after a long duration of contact and with widespread bilingualism, structural borrowing can occur too. The outcome of the second type of contact setting is language shift: The speech community gives up its original first language (L1) in favor of the contact language, its (former) second language (L2). Language shift usually results in a different type of interference than language maintenance. If the shift to a new L1 is completed rapidly, i.e. within two or three generations of speakers, imperfect learning (the fossilization of structures from the former L1) will often be the result. In this case, specific features of the former L1 are carried over to the speech community's new L1, and interference is then found primarily in the structural domains of language, in syntax and expecially in phonology, while the lexicon will only be minimally affected. The characterization of shiftinduced interference implies that the outcome will be comparable to a learner variety in certain ways. I will briefly come back to this point when discussing the English of the Pennsylvania Germans in chapter 2, a variety that fits into the scheme of rapid language shift. In historical linguistics, and in the context of pidgin and creole studies, the terms substrate and superstrate are traditionally used to refer to languages in a contact situation with an inherent socio-political (and often military) imbalance (e.g., Kontzi 1978: 82, 87ff.; cf. also Van Coetsem 1988:60f., 78, 169; 1995:82). These terms usually demarcate the same linguistic distinction that Thomason/Kaufman's model (1988) captures. The case of a substrate effect corresponds to a language-shift setting with imperfect learning (i.e., interference from the substrate language), while the notion of a superstrate effect is more or less equivalent to language maintenance with borrowing (from the superstrate language). The interference model developed by Thomason/Kaufman is different from the substrate/superstrate approach in that it is more comprehensive in its

�� 12 Note that in this section L1 and L2 are used with respect to the speech community, not to the individual speaker. 13 "Intensity of contact in a borrowing situation crucially involves factors of time and of level of bilingualism." (Thomason/Kaufman 1988:47)

Language contact � 19

coverage of the processes that can be induced by language contact. It does not allude to the socio-hierarchical notion that is entailed in the terms 'substrate' and 'superstrate', with 'substrate language' referring to the indigenous language(s) of a region, while 'superstrate language' usually means 'language of the intruders/colonizers'.14 By way of reference to imperfect learning as a source of structural transfer in language shift, Thomason/Kaufman's model includes a notion of how contact-induced change relates to the linguistic behavior of individual speakers.

1.3.3 The Transmission Phenomenon Model Imperfect learning in language contact should result in the same types of outcome as incomplete second language acquisition in an individual's acquisition situation. In addition, there also seems to be a strong parallel between borrowing and second language acquisition: What is acquired with relative ease (e.g. the lexicon, as opposed to highly structured domains such as phonology) is also borrowed easily (and often early) in a language contact situation. Thus, findings from second language acquisition offer insight into the psycholinguistic processes taking place when speakers (and whole speech communities) are in contact with speakers of other languages. A model that explores language contact from this perspective is the Transmission Phenomenon model by Van Coetsem (1988, 1995, 2000)15. This model describes the same differentiation in language-contact settings as the interference model by Thomason/Kaufman. Both models clearly distinguish between two possible types of linguistic influence leading to two different, prototypical, outcomes in the process of language contact. The two models partly overlap and partly supplement each other. In particular, Van Coetsem focusses explicitly on the individual speaker as the one who is responsible for, and actually carries out, the transfer of linguistic elements from one system to another (Van Coetsem 1995:65), while Thomason/Kaufman focus on the speech community and the effects of language contact on its language system(s) as a whole. Van Coetsem �� 14 Van Coetsem (1995:82) points out that these terms do not necessarily include the notion of language interference but that they "strictly speaking refer only to language stratification within the same community." 15 Van Coetsem (1995) provides a concise and concentrated presentation of the findings and the model developed in Van Coetsem (1988). Thus, I will henceforth mainly refer to Van Coetsem (1995). Van Coetsem (2000) offers an extended approach to this model; its most important aspects are summarized by Winford (2003).

20 � Theoretical background

places emphasis on the transfer process, the individual, specific speech transfer proper; he is not concerned with its diffusion "throughout the speech community and beyond" (ibid.:65). While Thomason/Kaufman do not describe the diffusion process in itself, they are, however, concerned with its end product: They focus on language maintenance (with borrowing) vs. language shift as the result of a contact situation in a whole speech community and in an overall language system. According to Van Coetsem's model, two factors are crucially involved in determining the linguistic outcome of any contact situation: • (the speaker of) which one of the two languages is the agent in the transfer process, and • the relative stability of different language domains (such as vocabulary or phonology). These two factors are understood to interact in a specific and predictable way. Van Coetsem points out that different language domains differ in their disposition for change and are affected by language contact to different degrees: "Though well aware of the fact that viewing stability in terms of domains oversimplifies the issue, we will consider vocabulary the least stable language domain, and phonology and grammar (morphology and syntax) the more stable ones." (Van Coetsem 1988:26; original emphasis)

This hierarchy is referred to as the Stability Gradient of Language. The more stable domains are marked by a comparably higher degree of structuredness and a limited number of constituents (i.e. closed class items), and the speakers seem to be less conscious of them. One may add that the use of certain constituents is often obligatory in these domains, so that speakers have little or no choice in deciding which constituent to use in a given context (Van Coetsem 1995:68). This characterization is particularly true of the phonological component of a language, and to diminishing degrees also of (inflectional) morphology and of syntax. Vocabulary would be at the "low" end of this continuum, being the least stable component of a language. Van Coetsem emphasizes that this is a simplified picture as each component consists of subcomponents (such as content words and function words in the vocabulary) that behave differently from each other (Van Coetsem 1988:26). Even in this generalized form, however, the Stability Gradient of Language -- in combination with the two transfer types -- is a crucial factor for specifying predictions about the outcome of language contact.

Language contact � 21

When a transfer of linguistic material takes place in a contact situation, there is always a source language (the source, or origin, of the transferred material) and a recipient language (the new environment in which the transferred material is used). Based on this distinction, Van Coetsem describes the two transfer types as source language (speaker) agentivity and recipient language (speaker) agentivity. The direction of transfer is, by definition, always from source language to recipient language: Source Language (SL)  Recipient Language (RL) The recipient language in the transfer process is the language that is currently being spoken; otherwise, the transfer would not be detectable. What makes a crucial difference for the outcome of the transfer process is whether the source language or the recipient language (speaker) is the agent of the transfer. (A bilingual speaker combines both of these speaker types in one person. Depending on which language s/he speaks, either one or the other agentivity type applies.) In the case of source language agentivity, material from the more stable components is transferred (i.e., from the phonological and structural domains). According to Van Coetsem, a prototypical case of this transfer type is second language acquisition. (Structural) material from the speaker's first language is transferred to, or imposed upon, the target language, which then is the recipient language in this transfer process. This transfer type is referred to as Imposition Transfer. With recipient language agentivity, elements from the less stable components are transferred, i.e. primarily (open class) vocabulary items. This transfer type is called Borrowing Transfer within the model. For example, if a German-dominant German-English bilingual speaks English, s/he may impose German phonological and syntactic patterns upon her English. English, the language that is currently being spoken, is the recipient language of this transfer. According to the Transmission Phenomenon model, this is a case of source language agentivity. If the same speaker is speaking German, s/he may borrow words from English16. In this case, German is the recipient language, while English is the source language. Within the model, this is the transfer type that is defined as recipient language agentivity. �� 16 Van Coetsem distinguishes further between different degrees of phonological integration in the context of borrowing. I will not go into these details, because they are not crucial for the overview presented here.

22 � Theoretical background

In the context of Van Coetsem's model, 'L1' and 'L2' refer to 'dominant language' and 'non-dominant language'. While Van Coetsem avoids drawing a direct line between agentivity and acquisition order, the correlation between agentivity and transfer type is based on an imbalance in the speaker's linguistic competence. It is the dominant member of the language pair that will be the agent of the transfer. If neither of the two languages is dominant, Van Coetsem points out, no predictions can be made with respect to which language will be the agent of a transfer (Van Coetsem 1995:81).

1.3.4 Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem compared A comparison of the Thomason/Kaufman model with the Van Coetsem model shows that, despite the difference in emphasis, the same processes of contactinduced language change are covered. In a simplified overview, the main points of the two models are as follows (L = language): Table 1.1: Thomason/Kaufman (1988) / Van Coetsem (1988/1995), overview model language spoken: L1

direction of transfer

transferred material

Thomason/Kaufman (1988)

L2  L1: Borrowing (Language Maintenance)

lexical; with intense contact also structural

Van Coetsem (1988/1995)

Recipient L agentivity: Source L Recipient L (L2  L1) Borrowing Transfer

primarily less stable components (lexicon)

Thomason/Kaufman (1988)

L1  L2: Language Shift

structural + phonological

Van Coetsem (1988/1995)

Source L agentivity: Source L Recipient L (L1  L2) Imposition Transfer

primarily more stable components (phonology, grammar)

language spoken: L2

The two models predict specific outcomes for each direction of transfer in a language-contact setting. For Borrowing, i.e. recipient language agentivity and language maintenance, it is expected that the extent of interference, mainly

Language contact � 23

affecting the lexicon, will increase with length and intensity of contact. For Imposition transfer (agentivity of the source language), the transfer type that is typical of language-shift situations and second language acquisition, a roughly complementary pattern to Borrowing is predicted, i.e. structural components are affected the most. Table 1.2 below summarizes the predictions made by the two models. Table 1.2: Predicted outcomes of the two transfer types in language contact (Thomason/Kaufman 1988, Van Coetsem 1995) Borrowing / Language Maintenance first and most affected by interference

Imposition / Language Shift (almost) no interference17

(inflectional) Morphology

no surface interference observable due to lack of congruence between morphological systems

reduced surface marking or no surface interference (due to lack of congruence)18; morphological categories (e.g., the use of determiners) may be transferred and "re-lexified" by elements of the target language


some interference (after long and intensive contact)

considerable interference


no interference

heavy (phonetic) interference


The two models by Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem make predictions about the direction and type of interference in an unbalanced language-contact situation, i.e. in a situation in which one language is the speaker's (or speech community's) first and dominant language. Taking a macro-linguistic perspective, they assess the overall results of language contact for individual speakers (Van Coetsem) and the speech community as a whole (Thomason/Kaufman). The model presented in the following section, developed by Myers-Scotton, "zooms in" on a micro-linguistic perspective, focussing on the structural details of language-contact phenomena. It combines a psycholinguistic approach to bilingual language use with an explicit focus on linguistic structure and makes

�� 17 Cultural loans may occur. 18 There are a number of parallels between languages in contact and learner languages (in second language acquisition, SLA). One of these parallels can be observed in the lack of transfer of inflectional morphology; the SLA equivalent to the above prediction is the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (e.g. Prévost/White 2000).

24 � Theoretical background

detailed predictions about what can be juxtaposed how when a bilingual speaker combines his or her two languages. A comparison with the large-scale predictions made by the above models shows that the three approaches complement each other. This point will be taken up in the summarizing section following the presentation of MyersScotton's model.

1.3.5 The (extended) Matrix Language Frame Model The Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model was originally (i.e. in its 1993 version) designed by Myers-Scotton to describe and explain the structural outcome of on-going bilingual language production in code-switching interaction. MyersScotton (1993:235) claimed that "[s]ocial factors do affect choices in CS, but they do so within a structurally-determined framework". Her central concern was to explore the nature of this "structurally-determined framework", leading to the development of the MLF model. The model draws on findings from psycholinguistic and speech production research (e.g. Garrett 1988, Levelt 1989), and its conceptual starting point is the individual speaker. In more recent versions (Myers-Scotton/Jake 1995, 2000; Myers-Scotton 1998, 2002, 2005), the MLF model has been extended by a number of components (described below), and it is now claimed to be able to explain (structural) language-contact phenomena from a wide range of language-contact settings, such as the structural outcome of second language acquisition (interlanguage), (first) language attrition, convergence, pidgin and creole formation, etc. The model does not make any claims regarding phonology and intonation, and purely syntactic phenomena are not covered, either. With a starting point from the mental lexicon, it focuses on the level of morphemes and lexical entries in its analysis of structural outcomes of bilingual interaction. MacSwan (2005a) harshly criticizes the MLF model, especially in its version of 2002, and argues that "the MLF model [in its 2002 version, DS] should be rejected for both theoretical and empirical reasons" (MacSwan 2005a:1). He points out that in its earliest form (of 1993), Myers-Scotton characterized the MLF model "as a 'production-based model', a fitting description in light of its extensive use of the architecture of Levelt's (1989) Speaking model" (MacSwan 2005a:19). One of his major points of criticism is that the model by now is claimed to provide a theory of competence as well as a theory of production (ibid.), a claim that does not hold, as he demonstrates in his critique. Jake/MyersScotton/Gross (2005) react to MacSwan (2005a) who in turn responds to this

Language contact � 25

reaction in MacSwan (2005b) where he slightly modifies but does not, in essence, change his position as outlined in MacSwan (2005a). For the analysis of my data, the MLF model, especially in its earliest (1993) version, proved useful because it helped to identify diachronic changes in the patterns of interaction between (Pennsylvania) German and English in the corpus of written data I investigated. In the following sections, I focus on production-oriented aspects of the model and on relating the model's claims to the predictions of Thomason/Kaufman's (1988) and Van Coetsem's (1988, 1995) models of language interaction and language change. Matrix Language (ML) and Embedded Language (EL) The MLF model, like the models by Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem, rests on the assumption that a systematic asymmetry is found in the contributions made to bilingual speech production by the lexicon (content items) vs. the grammar (structural items/features) from each of the two languages. In addition, it assumes that contentive and structural elements (morphemes) can be categorized according to their differing (asymmetrical) patterns of distribution in bilingual production. From these asymmetries, two oppositions are derived: the opposition between Matrix Language and Embedded Language, and the opposition between content morphemes and system morphemes. The unit for analysis under the MLF model is the CP (projection of complementizer), more specifically, any CP including material from more than one language. That is, the model focuses on intra-sentential language mixing19 (Myers-Scotton 1993:5) and does not deal with inter-sentential switches. Within the MLF model, the Matrix Language (ML) is defined as the language that sets the structural frame of a bilingual CP or a bilingual constituent by providing all system morphemes that express grammatical relations (Myers-Scotton 1998:292), as well as contributing the underlying structure of the bilingual CP. While system morphemes must come from the ML, content morphemes from the ML can occur in a mixed constituent or CP. The respective other language is referred to as the Embedded Language (EL); its contribution to mixed constituents consists of content morphemes only, and these are embedded within the morpho-syntactic frame set by the ML. During a bilingual interaction, shifts of the ML can occur between (but not within) CPs, in the majority of cases depending on the topic or the participants involved, i.e. for sociolinguistic reasons (Myers-Scotton 1998:291 fn. 3). In that �� 19 'Language mixing' is used in a non-specific sense here, cf. fn.12.

26 � Theoretical background

case, (one of) the former EL(s) becomes the ML, which is indicated by the type of morpheme provided by this language. This assumption is problematic where the (former) embedded language has zero morphemes in the relevant positions, or if, for lack of correspondence (cf. Prévost/White 2000 and above) no morpheme is chosen. In that case the evidence is ambiguous, and one cannot say with certainty that (one of) the former EL(s) has taken the place of the ML. The ML/EL distinction applies to mixed CPs and to mixed constituents. Irrespective of the ML chosen in mixed constituents, there may be monolingual CPs from each language within the same interaction (and monolingual constituents within mixed CPs). These CPs and constituents adhere to the wellformedness conditions of the respective language. That is, the ML, as a structural notion, is identified locally and not for the interaction as a whole (MyersScotton 1998:291). In this strict form, it turned out, the model could only be applied to a specific type of bilingual interaction that is now referred to as "'classic codeswitching', that is, codeswitching by speakers proficient enough in all participating varieties that they could engage in monolingual discourse in any of them." (Myers-Scotton/Jake 2000:1). Two major components have been added to the MLF model since it was presented in its original form in 1993: The 4-M model, elaborating on the differentiation between different types of morphemes under the MLF model; and the Abstract Level model, specifying the make-up of the underlying abstract grammatical structure of surface morphemes and constituents. Content Morphemes and System Morphemes In the original version of the MLF model, "morpheme" meant "surface morpheme", and the ML/EL distinction was based on the language affiliation of surface morphemes appearing in a bilingual constituent or CP. In updated versions of the model, however, the term "morpheme" has been extended to refer to both surface-level morphemes and the abstract entries underlying those surface-level morphemes (Myers-Scotton 2002). Four types of morpheme are distinguished, based on psycholinguistic evidence, e.g. from aphasic speech, speech errors and bilingual speech (MyersScotton/Jake 2000). There is a basic split between content morphemes (roughly, all contentive items from the lexicon, e.g. noun stems and lexical verb stems) and system morphemes (grammatical, or functional, morphemes, i.e. inflections, auxiliaries, quantifiers, etc.). The main theoretical distinction between content morphemes and system morphemes is that content morphemes either

Language contact � 27

assign or receive semantic roles20, while system morphemes do not (MyersScotton 1993ff.). System morphemes are further subdivided into three groups, according to their psycholinguistic accessibility during speech production (MyersScotton/Jake 2000, Myers-Scotton 2002). The characterization of this subdivision is based on speech production models, among others that developed by Levelt (1989), consisting, very simplifiedly, of a conceptualizer (pre-linguistic organization of intended message), the formulator (mental lexicon, linguistic encoding of concepts), and the articulator. Myers-Scotton/Jake (1995, 2000) assume similar but not exactly the same levels: the conceptual level (organization of the speaker's intentions), the lemma level (mental lexicon), the functional level, or formulator (morpho-syntactic encoding), and the positional level (realization of surface forms, i.e. speech) (ibid. 2000:1056). According to the MLF model, one type of system morpheme is accessed already at the level of the mental lexicon (the lemma level), together with content morphemes, and activated by them. These are called "early system morphemes", and typical group members are plural affixes, most determiners, and verb satellite prepositions (i.e. the prepositions of phrasal verbs, e.g. up in Bora chewed up Lena's toy yesterday. (Myers-Scotton/Jake 2000:1063)). Content morphemes and early system morphemes are assumed to be conceptually activated. The remaining system morphemes are, under this model, activated at the level of the formulator, and they are referred to as "late system morphemes". They are structurally assigned, and they express grammatical relationships beyond their immediate environment. Myers-Scotton/Jake (2000) distinguish between "late bridge system morphemes", functional elements that are only activated in specific grammatical configurations (e.g. possessive of, expletive it), and "late outsider system morphemes" which are coindexed with forms outside of the constituent or phrase they are part of (e.g. verbal inflections in subject-verb agreement, case (in most languages), object clitics). Myers-Scotton (1998) points out that cross-linguistically system morphemes do not necessarily belong to the same subgroups; i.e. certain case markers in some languages (e.g. some, but not all, of the Finnish case markers) may be early (rather than late) system morphemes, and the affiliation of prepositions can also vary. For example, in English some prepositions have a grammatical

�� 20 Semantic roles, a concept from generative theory, specify the semantic relationships between, e.g., a verb (assigning semantic roles) and its argument(s) (receiving one semantic role (each)) (cf. Haegeman 1994, Radford 1997 for an introductory overview). The topic of semantic roles in the context of contact-induced language change is discussed in chapter 4 below.

28 � Theoretical background

function and are thus late system morphemes (e.g. possessive of), while other, more contentive-like ones belong to the early system morphemes (e.g. in, under). The example of prepositions reveals the difficulties, even within one language, in the categorization of morphemes suggested by Myers-Scotton: While of very likely behaves like a late system morpheme in all instances, in covers a wider range of senses and may be (used as) an early system morpheme in some cases and a late system morpheme in others. It remains unclear whether there are objective measures that help to determine how such items are categorized. Certainly, it would be desirable not to have to judge them by their behavior in bilingual speech production alone, since this is the context that provides the assumed testing ground for the model. Abstract grammatical structure The Abstract Level model (Myers-Scotton & Jake 1995, Myers-Scotton 1998, 2002), a subcomponent of the MLF model, accounts for grammatical structure beneath the surface level of content and system morphemes. It draws on Levelt's (1989:182) model of a lexical entry where each lexical entry in the mental lexicon consists of a lemma component (containing information on meaning and syntax) and a form component (with information on morphological and phonological properties)21. Within the MLF model, it is assumed that the mental lexicon consists of abstract lemmas underlying all surface level morphemes. Under the Abstract Level model, each lemma contains three levels of abstract grammatical structure: lexical-conceptual structure (semantics and pragmatics), predicateargument structure (mapping thematic structure onto syntactic structure), and morphological realization patterns (realizing grammatical relations on the surface). Significantly, it is assumed that levels from one lemma (in one language) can be split and recombined with levels from a lemma in another language, resulting in a mixed constituent beneath the surface level, while all relevant surface-level morphemes may be in only one language. This form of language mixing was not accommodated in the 1993 version of the MLF model. An example from Pennsylvania German is given in (2).

�� 21 cf. Figure 4-2 in chapter 4 below

Language contact � 29

(2) [SB17-1990] sie hen all grossa gorda un wocksa dale fun ihr ess sacha. they have all big gardens and grow part of their eat things 'they all have big gardens and grow part of their food' The (Palatinate, Pennsylvania, etc.) German lexeme wockse 'grow', in German used as an intransitive verb only, is here combined with the underlying structure of the causative verb grow (in the sense of 'make grow'). I.e., on the surface form level (morphological realization) wocksa is German, while on the syntactic level (predicate-argument structure) it is English22. In this type of language mixing, the grammatical frame comes from two languages, and this is referred to as a composite ML. There are several possible ways, then, under the MLF model, to combine the two languages involved: (a) All system morphemes (and some content morphemes) come from one language, some content morphemes from the other; this is "classic codeswitching", in Myers-Scotton's terms, and a clear distinction between ML and EL is possible; (b) some part of the grammatical frame, surface or underlying, comes from one language, and some comes from the other; this is the case of a composite ML, i.e., both languages interact on the structural level. Depending on the type of language-contact setting, and taking into account the different types of system morphemes, the model allows for certain predictions regarding what type of grammatical structure will come from which language. If there is a composite ML, there are again two possibilities: (b1) either all surface morphemes are from one language only; (b2) or both languages contribute to the surface level of the constituent or CP. Both types are considered bilingual under the MLF model, since the grammatical frame is bilingual. The combination of a composite ML with a "monolingual" surface, (b1), is referred to as convergence. In the second case, (b2), convergence and code-switching are combined. Assessing the applicability of the MLF model The MLF model (in its extended version) offers a detailed account of language interaction in bilingual speech production in various types of contact settings (code-switching, convergence, language attrition, second language acquisition,

�� 22 Chapter 4 offers a detailed discussion of this kind of language mixing and change in Pennsylvania German.

30 � Theoretical background

etc.). Its main assumptions are well grounded. The two languages' asymmetrical contribution to many instances of bilingual speech production is a fact that is an integral part of other models of language-contact phenomena, too; e.g., it is a central point in the models of Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem. With respect to the linguistic material the two languages contribute, Prince & Pintzuk (1984/2000), among others, observed in their code-switching data a division between open class items and closed class items, which is not the same but similar to the distinction between content morphemes and system morphemes. What is new in the MLF model is the consideration of language-contact phenomena from a psycholinguistic approach, and the intention to model a mechanism that could explain the structural outcome, and the constraints on it, encountered in different kinds of language-contact settings. It has become clear in the meantime that a straightforward distinction between Matrix Language and Embedded Language, in the way it was suggested in the 1993 version, is possible only in a limited set of bilingual interaction contexts. The concept of a composite ML has been developed to account for the less clear-cut cases. This concept can be plausibly derived from the provisions of the original model; however, it weakens the main claim of the model that "not anything goes" in language contact (Myers-Scotton 1993:237; cf. 1998:291) at the same time. The notion 'composite ML' does not include any structural predictions in the way 'ML' and 'EL' do. It is located at a descriptive level rather than at an analytical or explanatory one, and it has neither predictive nor explanatory power. There is nothing in the concept of a 'composite ML' that could not be derived from the content/system morpheme dichotomy in combination with the Abstract Level model. It would equally well be possible, and plausible, to say that in all those cases where we do not find a clear ML/EL distinction, there is no ML, in the sense of one language being structurally dominant. The MLF model constitutes, in a way, the search for the smallest units that can be combined in language contact (with the exception of phonological units), and it attempts not only to identify these atomic units but also to describe the principles and constraints underlying their various combination patterns. The strict formulation of these principles proved to be the strength and the weakness of the model: the strength, because the predictions were very clear and easily testable; and the weakness, because the principles turned out to be too strict to apply to as wide a range of settings as aspired to. In introducing the (remediating) concept of a 'composite ML' the model has become applicable to a much wider set of language-contact data. On the other

Language contact � 31

hand, the predictions are less precise now, and for that reason they have become difficult to disprove. We have moved closer to "anything goes."23

1.3.6 Thomason/Kaufman, Van Coetsem, Myers-Scotton: A synopsis All three of the models presented above were designed to account for the systematic recurrence of patterns across different language-contact settings. In approaching the same topic from different angles and with (partly) different centers of attention, they complement each other very well in certain respects. All of them include a notion of the asymmetry between the two languages involved: In Thomason/Kaufman's model, the contributions of the two languages differ depending on their diachronic order of acquisition (and use) in the speech community (first language/second language); Van Coetsem distinguishes between Source Language and Recipient Language; and MyersScotton works with a Matrix Language/Embedded Language distinction. It should be clear from the discussion of the three models that these pairs, as theoretical constructs, do not refer to exactly the same "feature bundles". What they have in common, however, is that they recognize the orderly recurrence of the two languages' unequal contributions in different types of bilingual interaction. Another important feature shared by the models is the assumption of a basic split between lexicon and grammar; but this is encoded differently in each. Thomason/Kaufman include the assumption of this split implicitly when characterizing the two basic outcomes of community-scale language contact (language maintenance with lexical borrowing, and language shift with structural, i.e. grammatical, interference). Van Coetsem and Myers-Scotton, on the other hand, assume separate components for capturing the split between lexical and grammatical material; these are the Stability Gradient of Language and the content morpheme/system morpheme distinction, respectively. Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem include the directionality of linguistic interference as a determinant of the (large-scale) structural linguistic outcome of language-contact settings. That is, they deal with the determining factors of what will be the ML, i.e. the structure-providing language, in a given situation. Van Coetsem emphasizes that reliable predictions in this respect are

�� 23 Thomason (2000), in fact, arrives at the conclusion that in language contact indeed anything goes, since it has been impossible (so far) to identify any non-trivial constraints on contactinduced change that apply without exception.

32 � Theoretical background

only possible if there is an imbalance in the bilingual speaker's competence; if speakers have a balanced bilingual competence, there are no linguistic factors determining the direction of transfer (Van Coetsem 1995:81; cf. p.22 above). The effects attributed to directionality are captured in the MLF model by the ML/EL distinction in combination with the content/system morpheme opposition. The function of the ML corresponds to that of the Recipient Language in Borrowing Transfer, providing the structural frame of bilingual utterances. In the Thomason/Kaufman model, it is the L1 (of the speech community) in the language maintenance setting that is assumed to play this role. Reference to a specific direction of tranfer is not made in the MLF model, and at least for "classic code-switching", predictions regarding directionality would not be possible, if one follows Van Coetsem: Myers-Scotton's definition of "classic code-switching" is "code-switching by speakers proficient enough in all participating varieties that they could engage in monolingual discourse in any of them." (Myers-Scotton/Jake 2000:1). This is exactly the setting Van Coetsem (1995:81) refers to as "neutralization of the difference in transfer types." Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem take as their starting point the specific type of overall contact situation: language maintenance vs. language shift, borrowing vs. second language acquisition. Myers-Scotton, on the other hand, starts from empirical code-switching data, and her analysis and modelling is rooted in the structural properties of the data. Her approach is, first and foremost, directed at the language production of individual speakers and not at contact-induced language change in the language of speech communities. This latter perspective is included in the presentation of her matrix language turnover hypothesis (Myers-Scotton 1998), where she covers a setting that is essentially equivalent to the language-shift setting in the Thomason/Kaufman model, but this perspective was not part of the core concept of the MLF model. The models are inherently linked by their shared center of attention, i.e. structural language-contact phenomena. A combination of their perspectives can be achieved by taking the Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem approach to contact-induced language change to provide the "frame", and the (extended) MLF model to fill in the details on bilingual language production and structural properties of the linguistic outcome. For example, the distinction between content morphemes and (different types of) system morphemes spells out in more detail what Van Coetsem refers to as "less stable components" and "more stable components" within the Stability Gradient of Language. (Note that Van Coetsem makes predictions about the transferability of material from all linguistic components while Myers-Scotton explicitly leaves out phonology, the most stable component in Van Coetsem's model.) Also, the differentiation of (at

Concluding remarks � 33

least) three different levels of underlying structure in lemmas in the Abstract Level model allows for more fine-grained predictions regarding the possible patterns of interference in language contact. Clearly, there are also differences between the models, since the MLF model is primarily geared toward bilingual production data while Van Coetsem and Thomason/Kaufman are more concerned with the long-term processes and outcomes of language contact. However, assuming that "[t]he same structural processes figure in all forms of bilingual speech, from code-switching to interlanguage in second-language acquisition, to language attrition, to mixed languages or pidgins and creoles" (Myers-Scotton 1998:291), it is in fact desirable to be able to integrate the different perspectives on language contact with each other in order to arrive at a more complete understanding of the processes involved.

1.4 Concluding remarks This integrated view was the guideline of my diachronic investigation of contact-induced language change in Pennsylvania German. In order to arrive at a more thorough understanding of the processes of change that have taken place, I combined a longitudinal perspective along the lines of the Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem models with a psycholinguistic approach to bilingualism based on the findings of Myers-Scotton's model and its underlying language-production models, such as Levelt's (1989). Synchronically oriented approaches to bilingual language production and language use, e.g. Clyne (2003) and Muysken (2000), are referred to where appropriate; because of the static nature of written data and the diachroniccomparative approach taken here, they are not always applicable. The following chapter introduces the variety investigated here, Pennsylvania German, with its typical characteristics as a language in contact, and provides socio-cultural and socio-historic background information about the speech community.

2 The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s) 2.1 Introduction Preliminaries The research object of my investigation is the language of a German-speaking minority in Pennsylvania/USA, the so-called "Pennsylvania Germans" or "Pennsylvania Dutch"1.The speech community originated in the first half of the 18th century when German-speaking settlers, especially from the Palatinate (in the Southwest of modern-day Germany) but also from Wuerttemberg and Switzerland, emigrated to the USA (Lambert 1924, Springer 1943, Reed 1979, Raith 1982, Seel 1988, Werner 1996, Kopp 1999, Westphal Fitch 2011, among many others). They settled in rural areas, which resulted in isolation from English-speaking settlers and promoted the preservation of their speech variety2 until today. This variety, Pennsylvania German (PG), exhibits Palatinate and Alemannic features and today resembles most closely the modern Palatinate dialect as spoken in the eastern part of the Palatinate. The estimated total number of Pennsylvania German speakers in the USA and Canada is 200-300,000 (Louden 2003a, 2006a). As the name implies, PG first distinguished itself in Pennsylvania. As Pennsylvania German settlers moved on to other parts of the USA, the dialect spread as well. This movement continues to this day among Amish and Mennonite farmers (a subgroup of the Pennsylvania German speech community). Today, all the states surrounding the Great Lakes, including Ontario in Canada, have PG-speaking areas. The language is also spoken in parts of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, North Dakota and Oregon. Luthy (1992:19) reports that in 1991 there were Pennsylvania German-speaking regions in twenty-two American states and one Canadian �� 1 It is sometimes assumed that ‘Dutch’ in this context is derived from the German dialect word deitsch /daitsh/ ‘German’. A more likely explanation refers to the now archaic meaning of the English word ‘Dutch’ as ‘of or relating to any of the Germanic peoples of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Low Countries’ (Webster’s 1989:390). 2 The terms language, dialect and variety are used interchangeably here, assuming that it is not possible to differentiate them on a purely linguistic basis. When I use the term dialect, it is intended to highlight the fact that I am referring to one of a group of different but closely related varieties distinguishable mainly as regional / geographical variants.

Introduction � 35

province (Ontario). For Pennsylvania, Lambert (1924) and Springer (1943) describe a large part of Pennsylvania as settled by the descendants of Germanspeaking immigrants, comprising roughly three-quarters of the whole southern half of Pennsylvania and some bordering areas in Maryland and Delaware. Lambert (1924) notes that in the rural sections of this region PG "is the prevailing speech today, (...) most of the business is still transacted in the dialect, and it is constantly heard on the streets and in business in the cities of Allentown and Reading." He points out that it is even used in court ("the only reason for having it interpreted into English was the necessity of entering the testimony on the court record in English"3). According to his estimates, two-thirds of the inhabitants of the counties of Lehigh, Berks and Lebanon (the core of the Pennsylvania German area) can speak PG, and about one-third of the inhabitants uses it constantly (Lambert 1924:vi). Buffington/Barba (1954) still mark most counties in southeastern Pennsylvania as "distinctively Pennsylvania German counties" (i.e., having a high concentration of Pennsylvania German speakers), with the counties of central and south-central Pennsylvania still showing "Pennsylvania German sections". The geographical extension of the PG-speaking population in Pennsylvania today is considerably smaller, while the total number of PG speakers in the USA and Canada is likely to have remained stable or even to have increased (because large families are the rule among certain subgroups of PG speakers).

Research interest in Pennsylvania German Research on PG began more than 100 years ago and is still going on, from various perspectives.4 As the preserved variety of a historical language island as well as a language in contact with English, PG presents itself as a promising topic of research from linguistic as well as sociocultural perspectives. Enninger (1985b:151) writes:

�� 3 An interesting parallel to the situation described by Lambert (1924) is found in today's language use in the New York City Small Claims Court, the only difference being that the parties' and the judge's shared language is Spanish (and others), rather than PG (cf. Angermeyer 2006, 2007, 2008). 4 For a comprehensive overview of the research on Pennsylvania German cf. Louden 2001 and section 2.3 below.

36 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s) "Das dreisprachige linguistische Repertoire [i.e., PG, AHG, AE5], dessen Varietäten in unterschiedlichem Maße von Entlehnungen und Switching affiziert werden, ist ein fast ideales Labor für den Sprachkontaktforscher, sei er nur an struktureller Sprachmischung interessiert (Entlehnung von Elementen und Regeln) oder auch an der Frage, welchen Einfluß die Funktion von Varietäten auf Entlehnungsrichtung und Entlehnungsumfang hat." ("The trilingual linguistic repertoire, the varieties of which are affected to a varying extent by borrowing and switching is an almost ideal laboratory for the language-contact researcher, regardless of whether he is only interested in structural language mixing (borrowing of elements and rules) or whether he is also concerned with the question of what influence the function of varieties has on direction and extent of the borrowing process." [My translation, DS]).

The sociolinguistic perspective allows us to see the connection between religious/cultural conservativism and linguistic behavior, such as language maintenance vs. language loss and the variable extent of borrowing and mixing. It is important in this respect to make clear distinctions between the different PGspeaking groups (see below for a detailed discussion). Another approach focusses on the investigation of Pennsylvania German speech behavior in an anthropological sense, i.e. speech behavior as one aspect of (socio-)cultural behavior. This aspect will only marginally be taken up here, since the center of research interest in the present study is a linguistic analysis. This chapter presents an overview of the historical development of the PG language island as well as a description of the linguistic and sociolinguistic setting of PG, based on the results of earlier research in this field.

2.2 Historical development of the speech community The Pennsylvania Germans are descendants of German settlers who started immigrating into North America around 1700. They left Germany for different reasons. The devastations caused by the Thirty-Year War (a mainly religious war in Central Europe, 1618 – 1648) had drastically diminished the population in the regions concerned. To prevent a total depletion of the area, the elector of the Palatinate promised religious freedom to anybody who was willing to settle in his electorate. This offer attracted to the Palatinate several mainly Protestant sects that had been persecuted in other parts of Europe. The most numerous groups included Mennonites from Switzerland and the Netherlands, Hutterites

�� 5 PG = Pennsylvania German, AHG = Amish High German, AE = American English. The different varieties are described in section 2.4 below.

Historical development of the speech community � 37

from Moravia and Bohemia (Moravian Brethren), and Huguenots from France. But soon they had to pay dearly for this new freedom, as the elector required them to pay high taxes in return. In addition, French raids weakened the settlers’ economic foundation. When a new ruler finally ended the period of religious tolerance in the Palatinate in 1690, emigration seemed to be the only resort for most of the settlers. At the same time, William Penn was trying to recruit settlers for his land in North America, given to him by the British crown. On his search he traveled up the Rhine river, offering freedom of worship to anyone who was willing to follow him to Pennsylvania. Consequently, several waves of emigration took place from the late 17th century onwards. Until about 1730 the ships’ passenger lists contain mainly Swiss names; after 1730 emigrants from the Palatinate followed. Around 1750, the origins diversified to include Wuerttemberg, the Alsace, Nassau, and Hesse, as well as the Palatinate (all in the southwestern part of the German-speaking region) (cf. Yoder 1980, Grubb 1990). Emigration in large groups from the same or neighboring areas led to fairly homogeneous settlements in the new country. This settlement pattern had considerable relevance for the preservation of the settlers’ original language(s). German-speaking settlements in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia; cf. Häberle 1909) of the same period preserved their original language for the same reason. The emigrants leaving for North America had one thing in common: They were all Christian Protestants. While some of them were referred to as church people because of their affiliation with the Lutheran or Reformed church, others belonged to Amish or Mennonite groups, i.e., Anabaptist sects6. Between 1693 and 1697, in Europe, the Amish split away from the Swiss Mennonites. This move was initiated by Jacob Ammann – after whom the sect is named – because it was his opinion that the Mennonites were not strict enough in the execution of their main principles (primarily the shunning of apostates and ritual footwashing, practiced in accordance with the New Testament). The principle of apostate shunning is linguistically reflected in the distinction the (Pennsylvania German) Amish make to this day: They generally speak Pennsylvania German only to members of groups close to their own religious affiliation, and English with everybody else. – Historical sources suggest that, after the separation,

�� 6 One of the most crucial differences between Lutheran/Reformed Protestants and Anabaptists is that in the Lutheran/Reformed church baptism usually takes place within the first few months after the birth of a child, while Anabaptists are baptized as (young) adults, based on their own decision to become members of the church.

38 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Ammann moved to the Palatinate, where the number of his followers increased. Today, there are no Amish left in Europe. Those who did not emigrate were eventually forced to convert to the religion of their rulers (usually either Catholicism or Lutheran/Reformed Protestantism). In contrast to the Protestant churches, which exhibit an essentially hierarchical structure, all Anabaptist groups are characterized by the explicit goal of following the ideology of early Christian communities. The practical consequences of this attitude are twofold. First, the Christian belief of the members of these groups is expressed immediately in all areas of their lives and reflected, e.g., in their rejection of using modern technology in any way or in their preference for farming as compared to other occupations (to live from what God gives to the people). The second consequence is that the needs of the congregation of believers has priority over the needs of the individual. Another element shared by all of the German immigrants of this time was their motive of immigration; they came in search of land and living conditions that would allow them freedom of worship and a life in peace. The Anabaptist groups in the USA never developed any missionary activity, as their memories of persecution in Europe were still fresh. Being farmers, they settled in rural areas, often in groups, and their life-style guaranteed them a certain amount of isolation from their English-speaking countrymen. The isolation was central to the Anabaptists' value system (to be "in the world but not of the world", in accordance with the New Testament). This theme is still visible in the autonomous way of life of religiously conservative Amish and Mennonite communities today. The principle of separation from the world has become the major principle of their religious life-style and the primary means by which they protect their beliefs and their way of life. Even today the conservative sectarians succeed in maintaining their life-style by strictly isolating their private lives from American mainstream society. Because of their emphasis on an unpretentious life-style they are referred to as the plain people. The church people (members of the Lutheran/Reformed Protestant church) had no such religious commitment to remaining detached from the world. Originally, they settled in the same way as the plain people, i.e. in rural areas, fairly isolated from English speakers, together with other speakers of their own language. Usually they were farmers, which promoted this type of settlement pattern. As industrialization and urbanization of the society in-creased, however, so did frequency and intensity of contact with the English-speaking world. Although they were strongly conscious of their German identity, these societal changes led to a growing necessity for (non-plain) Pennsylvania Germans to speak English from early on in the 20th century. Since for the church people life was less interwoven with their religious beliefs than it was for the Anabaptists,

Historical development of the speech community � 39

the former were far more open to change and adaptation to their environment. Eventually, this led to an overall acculturation of this immigrant group to mainstream society, including consequences for their language behavior. In contrast to the Anabaptists, they are now referred to as the non-plain people (or non-sectarian people). However, plain and non-plain patterns of settlement alike were crucially different from the settlement patterns of the immigrants who came after the War of Independence (i.e., after 1783). These later immigrants preferred the proximity of cities, where they could find work, the main reason for their immigration. An inevitable consequence was the immediate close contact with the Englishspeaking American society and promoted cultural and linguistic assimilation. Early urban immigrants showed the same pattern of linguistic behavior as later groups did: The immigrating generation was fluent in its (original) L1 and had a limited command of English, the second generation was fluent in English and had a limited (often only passive) command of the parents’ L1, and the third generation was monolingual in English. In contrast to this pattern, the selfchosen isolation of the early Pennsylvania German immigrants made a longterm preservation of their original language (or an immediately derived variety) possible. The PG of both plain and non-plain speech communities displays interference from English. The crucial difference between the two language repertoires is such that English as spoken by plain people has been reported to show no significant deviance from the English spoken by monolingual English speakers of other regions of the USA. Non-plain English, on the other hand, differs from standard American English by some characteristics which can be attributed to PG influence (referred to as the "Pennsylvania German paradox", Kopp 1999:279; cf. Huffines 1980b, Kopp 2006, Louden 2006a, b). This is probably due to the functional structuring of the language repertoire as well as the acquisition context of English in both speech communities: The plain community displays stable bilingualism where each language has its unique function, while there is no such clear division in the non-plain community. In addition, plain children receive specific instruction in English within their particular sociocultural setting. The non-plain community, on the other hand, is in the (almost completed) process of rapid language shift (cf. Thomason/Kaufman 1988) which, for several reasons, led to the incomplete acquisition of the speech community's new first language7, English (cf. chapter 1 on the connection

�� 7 Acquisition of the new first language (L1) is only incomplete with respect to the target language. The perspective taken in the Thomason/Kaufmann model (the approach I am referring

40 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

between rapid language shift and incomplete acquisition, and cf. below on PG English).

2.2.1 The structure of the speech community8 The speech community of the Pennsylvania Germans consists of the descendants of German settlers who were speakers of different but closely related southwestern German dialects (mainly Palatinate German, but also Swabian, Alemannic (from the Swiss regions), Alsatian, and Hessian; cf. Häberle 1909, Lambert 1924, Grubb 1990). PG is the result of mixture and levelling of the original immigrants’ dialects. A levelling process often occurs when different dialects are brought in close contact, usually by extralinguistic reasons such as population migration or trade. Motivated by the desire to increase communicability, the most-diverging features of each variety (most prominent among them pronunciation features and specific lexical items9) are changed to or substituted for by forms that are less "marked". The result is a new and fairly homogeneous variety, spoken and understood by all members of the speech community. It is because of this levelling process that Springer (1943:28) notes that "if a colonial language happens to be identical, today, with the speech of a certain region or community of the mother country, that particular region or community in all probability is not to be regarded as the homeland of the colonists in a narrower sense."

While this levelling process applied to PG during the early settlement period, sociocultural factors led to the development of two linguistically divergent groups of PG speakers later on. These two groups are the plain people and the non-plain people. Hostetler (1993) provides a detailed account of the continu�� to here) is that of the speech community, not that of the individual speaker. With respect to the individual, L1 acquisition is always complete. If there is information missing in the input, it is (re-)constructed during the acquisition process (as, e.g., in the development of creoles). 8 I use the term "speech community" in a wide sense here, including all speakers of Pennsylvania German, while acknowledging the fact that from a social perspective they do not form a coherent community. In a narrower sense of the term, one has to distinguish at least between plain and non-plain speakers of PG, as is explicated in this section. My focus when using this terminology is on the shared history of the speakers and on their identification with a specific group by means of PG as a shared language that sets them apart from other US-Americans. 9 These are the features by which (closely related) varieties are distinguished from each other most strongly in the awareness of the speakers (Louden 1988:33,60). Therefore, phonological and lexical "earmarks" are kept where speech is used to mark ethnic, cultural, etc. identity or affiliation.

Historical development of the speech community � 41

um between plain and non-plain in terms of cultural and religious identity. In what follows only an abbreviated description of the complex cultural background is given, focussing on one factor that is of main importance for the diverging speech behavior of Pennsylvania German speakers: the degree of integration into mainstream American society. The term plain people, as specified above, refers to the Anabaptist (sectarian) groups who have maintained a simple and plain way of life and live their lives in (varying degrees of) separation from mainstream society. Their language behavior reflects and protects this separation: English is spoken with all those who are not members of the family or of the confessionally defined in-group. The language situation is characterized by a stable diglossia, i.e. each language is used for a clearly defined, non-overlapping set of functions10. In this speech community PG is the first language acquired. Most plain children are first confronted with English on entering school (usually at the age of five or six), where it is the medium and a subject of instruction. In the most conservative branches of the Anabaptist groups, a special form of High German functions as the sacral language (language of the Bible translation, for hymns and religious services). The Anabaptist groups are spread out over a continuum between strictly conservative groups (Old Order Amish, Old Order Mennonites) and comparatively assimilated groups which still consider themselves plain (Hostetler 1993). Only among the most conservative of the plain groups do the three varieties, Pennsylvania German, High German and English, still have their distinct purposes and adequate functionality (Louden 2006a, b). As traditional rules and principles are adjusted in order to approximate mainstream values, the language repertoire becomes limited to two varieties (PG and English). The majority of the non-plain people, primarily descendants of Lutherans and Reformed church members is by now fully integrated into the Englishspeaking American society, a development that runs counterproportional to their use of and their ability to speak PG (cf. Louden 2003c). Among the non-

�� 10 The term diglossia (referring to the functionally divided use of two languages in the same speech community) was first proposed by Ferguson (1959). Fishman (1967), following Ferguson (1959) in the definition of diglossia, suggested to distinguish between bilingualism, where all speakers of a speech community regularly use two languages (the use of which does not have to be restricted by their functions), and diglossia, a setting of societal (but not necessarily individual) bilingualism with clearly defined and nonoverlapping functions for each variety. The application of the term diglossia (or even triglossia) to the plain Pennsylvania German speech community dates back to Enninger (1986). Cf. further below for details.

42 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

plain today, children do not learn PG as their first language, and only extremely few of them learn it at all from a family member. Today, the youngest non-plain speakers whose first language was PG (either before or at the same time as English) are in their seventies, with very rare exceptions (Kopp 1999, Louden 2003b); younger Pennsylvania Germans, if they speak this variety, acquired it as a second language and often as adults. This speech community presents a case of (former) bilingualism without diglossia, i.e. without a functional division between the languages, which partly explains the instability of PG as part of the language repertoire (Huffines 1980b). The pattern of language use and transmission is the same as that of recent immigrants: The grandparents’ generation acquired PG as their first language, their children grew up speaking English and speaking, or at least understanding, some PG, and their grandchildren are monolingual English speakers. It is remarkable that this pattern only emerged after the Pennsylvania Germans had lived in North America for more than 200 years, making PG a long-term heritage language for this part of the community (cf. Stolberg 2014). The factors responsible for deferring the language shift are a combination of originally isolated settlement patterns (promoting language maintenance) and, much later, profound societal and economic changes caused by industrialization and its consequences, delaying the necessity of intense contact with the English speaking population by two centuries. The rise of a negative attitude towards German in mainstream American society, partly due to the two World Wars, resulted in reprisals against the "dumb Dutch", as they were called, and induced many Pennsylvania Germans to give up PG in favor of the exclusive use of English (cf. Kopp 2000, 2003, Schlegel 2012 on language attitudes among and towards Pennsylvania Germans). In addition, the Nationality Act of 1906 and the two World Wars created a negative atmosphere for the use of languages other than English in the USA (Baker 1996, Tracy 2001). This development also affected the attitude towards PG. The prejudice of the "dumb Dutch" was apparently derived from the fact that by far not all PG speakers were fluent in AE, and many of them spoke AE with a heavy German accent (cf. Tucker 1934, Struble 1935). The social pressure crucially affected the language attitude of non-plain PG speakers and made it appear advisable for many to adjust to mainstream society at least in terms of language behavior (Huffines 1980b:52f.). Parents discontinued speaking PG with their children and raised them monolingually in AE because of the disadvantages of appearing German. These speakers, however, had acquired English as their second language (L2) and had not always mastered it completely. Their children, brought up with an L2 variety of English, exhibited the same features as the parents even though they themselves acquired it as their first language.

Historical development of the speech community � 43

Jordan (1978:30) reports having met descendants of Pennsylvania Germans who speak AE with a heavy "PG accent" even though they are monolingual speakers of AE. This variety of English was (sometimes derogatorily, sometimes jokingly) referred to as "Dutchified English" (e.g. Gates 1987), or Ferhoodled English (Conestoga Crafts (publ.) 1987). It has disappeared almost completely today, due to social pressure, normative control, and a re-ordering of school-districts in the 1960s (changing the ethnic composition of schools and classes; see chapter 9). The consequence of these developments for PG is that it is, by now, a dying language among the non-plain people.

2.2.2 The plain and the non-plain language repertoire Differences in the sociocultural value systems of plain and non-plain Pennsylvania Germans are reflected in the use of Pennsylvania German (PG) and American English (AE) by both groups. The plain speech community in particular has been the subject of much sociolinguistic research. Enninger/Raith (1982) offer one of the most detailed descriptions of the language behavior in an Old Order Amish community, with particular reference to Old Order Amish church services. The Old Order Amish, being the most religiously conservative Anabaptist group to this day, use a third language variety besides PG and AE, namely Amish High German (AHG). The use of Amish High German is restricted to ceremonial and highly formal contexts, which usually co-occur in the Old Order Amish culture. Based exclusively on Luther's translation of the Bible, AHG is distinct from the Standard High German (StG) spoken in Germany today. According to Enninger/Raith, it has a high prestige value11, since it is connected with religion as well as being a written register. In addition, being a variety of German, AHG ranks high as a factor of identification within the community. The identity evaluation also applies to PG; however, the PG dialect, in contrast to Amish High German, has low prestige value. PG is a purely spoken language among the plain people and is not considered appropriate for written discourse or high-prestige contexts such as reli-gious rituals. It serves as the medium of in-group communication, i.e. among family and friends. Other Anabaptist groups are considered in-group (and talked to in PG) if a "fellowship" with these groups exists, i.e. a compatible

�� 11 The concept of "prestige value", "identity value" etc. is based on Fishman (1967) and is discussed in more detail in section 2.5.1 below.

44 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

interpretation of cultural and religious themes (Raith 1982:176; Wandt 1985:22f.). English is the medium of out-group communication. It is used with everybody who does not explicitly belong to the in-group (cf. Fishman 1965), including members of Anabaptist groups with a different religious interpretation. Accordingly, it has a low identity value. It is appropriate as a written register, however, and it is the language of instruction in schools. Therefore, its prestige value is high. In numerous less conservative Amish communities, AE has replaced AHG in church services. It is also the only productively written variety in the language repertoire of Old Order Amish communities. AHG used to be the written register but has been replaced by AE as the command of AHG diminished among the plain people. The role and the functionality of AHG nowadays can be compared to that of Latin in the Catholic church. According to Enninger/Raith (1982), AHG exhibits the characteristics of a dead language. Hostetler (1993:285) describes thirteen levels of religious conservatism among Anabaptist sectarian groups, with the Old Order Amish/Old Order Mennonite ranking as the most conservative. While AHG has been given up in almost all but the most conservative communities, PG and AE are still distinguished functionally (by a diglossic distribution), even throughout the less conservative levels, except for a few cases where external reasons caused a loss of PG. The crucial role PG plays in identifying the locus of cultural identity for plain speech communities is noticeable even when PG is given up. In the case of a particular Old Order Amish group, a fused group which originated by migration of a group from Indiana (speaking Swiss PG, a dominantly Alemannic variant of PG) and one from Pennsylvania, the PG dialects spoken were so divergent that communication broke down (Johnson-Weiner 1989). The speech community decided therefore to use English as its in-group variety to ensure the functioning of communication. This choice led to an involuntary increase in proximity to American mainstream society and eventually began to dissolve the cultural identity of the speech community as a conservative Anabaptist group. In this paradoxical situation, PG, otherwise a crucial in-group marker, promoted the dissolution of the internal group identity. The German immigrants (plain and non-plain) did not speak English upon their arrival in North America (cf. Grubb 1992). Triggered by contact with English-speaking neighbors as well as the necessity of trade, they began to learn English. For the non-plain speech community, the language situation developed differently from the plain speech community, a result of their differing value systems. In the non-plain group, English was acquired to a degree that was equivalent to its functions in the speech community. Such functionally determined competence does not necessarily imply a full, native or native-like,

Research review � 45

command of English, though. Statements in newspaper articles indicate that as late as in the 1940s not every PG speaker was fluent in English12. Apparently, even with an increasing functional value of English – i.e., with increasing contact with monolingual English speakers –, PG remained an important variety in the language repertoire of the German-descended speech community, especially among family and friends, i.e., as an in-group or intimacy variety (cf. Fishman 1965). Today, AE is used whenever a speaker's PG competence is insufficient, and it has taken over most of the functions PG formerly had. This outcome is due to the social reasons described above and was facilitated by the fact that among non-plain speakers PG apparently never had functions and domains of usage which were as clearly defined as among the plain speakers; at least, such a strict distinction is not reported anywhere.

2.3 Research review Documented linguistic interest in PG set in about 140 years ago. By that time, (P)G had been the dominant (if not only) language of a substantial part of the population in Pennsylvania for over 150 years. It had emerged as a distinct variety after a period of mixing and levelling of various German dialects. PG most likely consolidated linguistically around the turn of the 18th to the 19th century (Louden 2003b, Werner 1996:25). Around the middle of the 19th century, it had also begun to appear in writing (the earliest published texts are from the 1860s), reflecting its acceptance as a generally used and usable variety. The following section offers an overview of the route research on PG has taken from its beginnings until today13.

2.3.1 Research on Pennsylvania German, 19th to 21st century 19th and early 20th century: The beginnings of linguistic interest in PG Scientific interest in PG emerged towards the end of the 19th century. The earliest linguistically oriented description of the dialect was presented by Halde-

�� 12 E.g. in "Der Pennsylvaanisch Deitsch Eileschpiggel" of September 1943, published in Bethlehem, PA. 13 For an exhaustive overview of research on Pennsylvania German and its relationship to concurrent developments in linguistics up until the late 1990s, cf. Louden 2001.

46 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

man (1872) under the title Pennsylvania Dutch: A dialect of South German with an infusion of English. Haldeman, like most of the early researchers, was himself a native speaker of PG. According to his interpretation, an "infusion of English" occurred whenever PG appeared to be insufficient to serve its purposes. By combining the best of both languages, viz. English and German, he concluded, PG reached a superior state compared to its South German source dialect. This type of evaluative judgment is typical of early literature on PG. It is not continued in later research literature but it does reflect the attempt to position the speech community sociolinguistically, and it must also be seen as a reaction to existing judgments and prejudice at that time against PG and its speakers. Besides, the very existence of such publications indicates that there was a concern among at least some PG speakers about the status of their language. Soon after Haldeman’s publication, two textbooks for PG appeared, ’m Horn [sic] sei Pennsylvawnish Deitsh Buch by Horne (1875) and Rauch’s Pennsylvania Deitsh Hond-Boch by Rauch (1879)14. Their aim was to provide material for teaching and studying PG, not a linguistic description. Rauch was also the editor of a monthly magazine (The Pennsylvania Dutchman) which appeared in Lancaster in 1873 (and was apparently discontinued after the third issue); it contained PG and AE articles on different topics, both serious and humorous, but also word lists (English to PG) and PG translations of English expressions and idioms. Lins (1887) published the first dictionary for PG, the Common sense Pennsylvania German dictionary (PG to English). The orthography is influenced by English conventions. Horne (1875) and Rauch (1879) included word lists in their works, but Lins' is the first compilation of PG words that appeared as a separate dictionary. Learned (1889) presents The Pennsylvania German Dialect, Part I (part II never followed). It is a work in the neo-grammarian tradition and traces each sound and each grammatical form in PG systematically back to Old High German and Middle High German. In addition, Learned discusses the percentage of English borrowings in the PG lexicon and estimates it at 12 – 13%. This estimation, based mainly on written data, was objected to by later researchers, e.g. Buffington (1942), who argues for a considerably lower percentage (see below). Learned claims that Western Palatinate German ("Westrich") is the German dialect most closely related to PG. Again, other investigators reached different conclusions (cf., e.g., Buffington/Barba, 1954:IV). Nevertheless, Learned is the first to have attempted to classify PG in this way and to determine

�� 14 Cf. Louden 2006c for a detailed investigation of Rauch’s publication.

Research review � 47

its diachronic and synchronic positioning within the German dialect continuum. A purist intention is explicitly pursued by Miller (1904/1911) with his twovolume work Pennsylvania German: A Collection of Pennsylvania German Production in Poetry and Prose. Miller criticizes the strong English influence on the vocabulary of PG and argues strongly for the use of a German-based PG orthography. His intent is to present the dialect to the public in its "pure" (i.e., what he understands to be non-anglicized) form. His second volume contains a word list of 1,212 entries (English/PG/German), as well as a list of about thirty expressions illustrating dialect variations between the PG of Lebanon County and that of Berks County (both in Pennsylvania).

The first half of the 20th century: Describing PG Lambert’s (1924) Dictionary of non-English words of the Pennsylvania German dialect constitutes the first scientific publication in a strict sense in that his work aims at an objective description of PG and avoids subjective evaluations. Lambert suggests that "Pennsylvania-German as it is spoken today is largely German as it was spoken by the peasants and artisans of southwestern Germany and of Switzerland two centuries and more ago and is in no sense debased, except as it has been influenced and changed by English", particularly emphasizing that "[d]ialectic German is not debased German" (Lambert 1924:ix). His dictionary contains 16,438 "German" PG entries and an additional 517 entries which are claimed to be wholly or partly of English origin. Penzl (1938) investigates to what extent PG borrowed and preserved older English word forms in its lexicon. He focusses on idiosyncrasies found in the pronunciation of certain English loanwords in PG (particularly the pronunciation of /a/ as /æ:/ before /r/) and arrives at the conclusion that this pronunciation type reflects an earlier English dialect pronunciation, common at the time when the respective items where borrowed. The first comprehensive description of PG was presented by Buffington in his 1937 dissertation, Pennsylvania German: A grammatical and linguistic study. He provides an extensive account of PG as a whole, and he mentions in passing the existence of regional variants of PG. Buffington (1939) attempts a further identification of the German sources of PG and proposes that it is based on a blend of Franconian and Alemannic dialects. The involved dialects lost their most divergent characteristics over time, and PG evolved as a rather homogeneous levelling dialect. Buffington criticizes earlier publications for frequently overestimating the influence of English on PG. According to his evaluation, only syntax and the lexicon show significant traces of English influence, while pho-

48 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

nology and morphology remain basically untouched by the contact with English. This is an interesting evaluation in the light of the models of contactinduced change discussed in chapter 1 above. Buffington's observation fits very well the Thomason/Kaufman's setting of language maintenance with interference in the lexicon and, after long and intense contact, also in some of the structural areas. In agreement with Van Coetsem's predictions, phonology and morphology, as highly structured components, are affected least. Buffington continues then with a description of typical characteristics of PG and explanations as to their origins. This is the time when a first awareness arises for the fact that differences in PG are not exclusively due to regional variation but also to sociolinguistic factors. Shoemaker (1940) is the first one to acknowledge the special position of the plain people (in particular the Old Order Amish) as different from other PG speakers. He focusses on phonology, morphology and the lexicon of the PG of an Amish community in Illinois. In the appendix he lists 529 PG words not found in Lambert’s dictionary of 1924, thus contributing to a more complete representation of PG. A comprehensive description of the phonology, morphology, syntax, word formation and the lexicon of a regional PG variant is presented by Frey (The German dialect of Eastern York County, PA, 1941). Due to his differentiated and insightful presentation of the data, this work is generally considered to be the pioneering one in PG research. In the following year, 1942, Buffington published an article about English loanwords in PG and argued, as before, against an overestimation of English influence on PG, in this case specifically with regard to the lexicon. According to his own investigations, the percentage of English loanwords in the PG lexicon was at 2.5 – 5% (written PG) and 5 – 8% (spoken PG). Buffington's observation can be linked to the concerns of the present study that deals with written data. The difference between written and spoken PG reflects that in writing more conscious control can be exerted on the choice of words than in speaking. This control was used by PG speakers, I argue, to reduce the amount of English elements in written PG, similar to what can be observed today. This fact leads up to a further question: Why was it desirable to separate English and PG more than to the extent that occurred in unreflected language use? Apparently, conscious monitoring was applied to increase the differentiation between the two languages. This is an early hint that the use of PG was involved in constructing a cultural identity, in the sense that using less English in PG meant taking a clearer position for a Pennsylvania German identity. Also in 1942 Frey published a textbook for PG (A simple grammar of Pennsylvania Dutch), divided into several units (designed for classroom lessons) in

Research review � 49

which grammatical information, word lists and short texts are presented. This textbook was revised in 1949, and a third edition appeared in 1985. It was, and still is, used as a textbook in PG classes organized by local churches and colleges. Classes of this kind are typically attended by people of ethnic Pennsylvania German origin who report that their parents, grandparents or other relatives used to speak PG but they themselves never acquired it (cf. Stolberg 2014). Attendance of such classes is indicative of a "back to the roots" movement, which arises due to an increased awareness that the natural tradition and transmission process has already been interrupted. Buffington/Barba (1954:IV) later criticized Frey’s textbook for being based almost exclusively on the York County dialect, and because of alleged mistakes and omissions. One has to keep in mind, however, that this is a beginner’s textbook and meant to introduce the learner to PG. As such, omissions as well as the restriction to one variant of PG are not only excusable but unavoidable for the book to fulfill its purpose. A comprehensive presentation of research results up to 1943 is Springer's The study of the Pennsylvania German dialect (1943). It is rounded off by an extensive bibliography, including more than 150 references and covering a wide range of topics with respect to PG research.

Mid-20th century: PG in interaction with other varieties In line with a new awareness for sociolinguistic variation, Frey, in 1945 in Amish Triple Talk, for the first time presented an investigation which considers the language repertoire of a PG speech community as a whole and which discusses its sociolinguistic consequences. Even though plain (Amish) PG by itself had already stimulated research interest (cf. Shoemaker 1940), what was new in Frey’s work was that he focussed on the differences between plain and nonplain PG as a consequence of the different sociocultural settings in which the two variants of PG are spoken. With regard to the Amish speech community, his emphasis is on the German varieties in its language repertoire, PG and High German15. Snader (1948) presented a Glossary of 6167 English words and expressions and their Pennsylvania Dutch equivalents. Such an undertaking was not new, and this one in particular is reminiscent of similar word lists published in the magazine The Pennsylvania Dutchman during the 1870s. In both cases the order of listing is English to PG. In the last decades of the 19th century PG speakers �� 15 described as Amish High German by, e.g., Enninger/Raith (1982) and Enninger (1986)

50 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s) may actually have profited from such lists16, as investigations regarding the limited command of English among PG speakers imply (cf., e.g., Horne 1875, Page 1937). Some 50 years later, it was Snader’s explicit purpose to make PG better known and to keep it from dying out. His intention highlights that publications regarding PG indirectly reflect a change in attitude as well as a change in the status of PG: from a naturally spoken and transmitted minority language to one that was threatened and that needed fostering to be saved from language death. During the 1950s only three relevant publications can be named before the linguistic interest in PG seems to have paused for more than a decade. These publications are Reed’s (1953) English Archaisms in Pennsylvania German, Buffington/Barba’s (1954) A Pennsylvania German Grammar and Reed/Seifert’s (1954) Linguistic Atlas of Pennsylvania German. The latter two publications are still valuable works of reference since they document PG in a linguistically informative manner and at a point in time when the variety was still in regular use and comparatively widespread. Reed/Seifert’s project resulting in the Atlas was to document the geographic distribution of PG lexical variants. It failed to consider possible sociolinguistic explanations, especially in cases of apparent free variation between two lexical items. Raith (1982) later emphasized this point, too, and reiterated Springer’s early criticism (1943:6) regarding a purely geographic approach to lexical variation. In his 1953 publication Reed focussed on a rather different aspect of the PG lexicon, namely the aspect of borrowing from English. Like Penzl (1938), he traces a number of English loanwords and their specific PG pronunciation to older English dialect pronunciations, thus providing a means for dating these borrowings. He supports his hypothesis with evidence from Scottish and Irish dialects. This is significant because early PG settlements (17th / 18th century) were indeed frequently located in the neighborhood of Scottish and Irish settlements. The 1960s are a period of silence in PG research. During this time a school district reform took place in Pennsylvania. The aim was to consolidate school districts in order to make administration more efficient and less costly. One of the "by-products" of the reform was that the student population was now much more diverse. Before, PG-speaking children, like everybody else, had been schooled in the local schools of the areas where they lived, together with their Pennsylvania German peers. Now they stood out as a minority. Prejudices against the "dumb Dutch" loomed over them, and they were confronted with �� 16 even though a PG-to-AE list, as the one in Horne (1875), might have been of even more use

Research review � 51

negative reactions against their PG-accented English. This caused an increasing number of PG speakers to try to avoid the dialect and to erase all traces of it in their communicative practice (personal information from PG speakers from the Allentown area, Eastern Pennsylvania, spring 1997). The researchers’ silence should probably not be seen in direct connection with these consequences of a political decision. But the coincidence suggests that there was no particular interest in minority languages at that time; if anything, they seemed to be a hindrance on the way to a homogeneous population.17

1970s to date: Sociolinguistic and structural aspects of PG In the 1970s new publications on PG eventually appeared. Kelz (1971) presented a phonological analysis of PG based on a theory of generative phonology, a work which was followed by a similar one by Rohrer (1976) that was, however, restricted to the PG variant spoken in Waterloo County, Ontario (Canada). Towards the end of the 1970s the frequency of PG research publications increased, exhibiting a change of focus. Several of these publications made use of the relatively new generative framework, as Kelz did. In doing so, they left behind the "word collector’s approach" found in several of the earlier contributions and integrated PG research into the field of theory-based linguistic research. Costello (1978), for example, relied on generative transformational grammar to describe cases of divergence from "standard" PG. He explained such cases as interference from English caused by the bilingualism of the speakers (in the context of language contact). Further publications by Costello followed, also focussing on English interferences in PG, i.e. on language-contact phenomena. He was the first to take up language contact between English and PG from a broader perspective. A new aspect in PG research consisted in the recognition of subsidiary PGbased dialects. They came into focus in the publications of Kehr (1979, 1982) and Van Ness (1990, 1992, 1993, 1994a), among others. Descriptions of PG variants spoken in Virginia (Kehr), West Virginia (Van Ness 1990, 1992) and Ohio (Van Ness 1993, 1994a) were presented. Kehr, describing the plain PG of Virginia, proposed the term "Virginia German" (VG) for proper identification. He discussed distinguishing characteristics of PG and VG as well as dialect variants of VG. Van Ness, ten years later, presented an account of a dying language from this region. The focus was on changes that she found to be indicative of lan-

�� 17 The same attitude was found in Germany at that time with regard to regionally restricted varieties (dialects).

52 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

guage death. An inevitable conclusion one had to draw from these publications was that by now a time span of only ten years could make the difference between an existing and an (almost) extinct dialect of PG. A further branch of PG research developed in parallel to the general development in linguistics: sociolinguistic research. In the mid-seventies a new project was launched in Essen, that proved to be quite productive: the Essen Delaware Amish Project Team (EDAPT), with W. Enninger as its head. The original focus of the project was the Old Order Amish speech community in Kent County, Delaware. Later it was extended to include the language situation of the Old Order Amish in the USA in general. The description of the different varieties in the Old Order Amish language repertoire is put into context, first and foremost with respect to the particular cultural and religious position of the group. The distribution of the different linguistic varieties with respect to different roles and domains constitutes a central research interest (cf. below for a detailed discussion). Publication of research results began in 1979. Among the most salient publications of EDAPT are Studies on the Languages and the Verbal Behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans I (Enninger, ed., 1986) and II (Enninger et al., eds., 1989), as well as An ethnography-of-communication approach to ceremonial situations. A study on communication in institutionalized social contexts: the Old Order Amish church service (Enninger/Raith 1982). In addi-tion, EDAPT established an Old Order Amish PG word list based on the language use in Kent County, Delaware, which was intended as a modification and extension of Lambert’s PG dictionary of 1924. The interrelation between social factors and language (in acquisition and use) was further explored by Raith and Huffines. Raith, who was a member of EDAPT, investigated the language behavior of different groups of PG Anabaptists (i.e., plain people) in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, first with respect to PG interferences in their English (1981) and then from a broader perspective in his dissertation (1982), a thorough and informative presentation focussing on the connectedness of linguistic and sociocultural data. Raith considered differences in life-style according to religious group association and their consequences for acquisition contexts, linguistic competence and amount of interference between the relevant varieties PG, American English and Amish High German, including a discussion of theoretical models of bilingualism (e.g. Fishman 1967; Weinreich 1953; cf. Raith 1982:67ff.) and the sociolinguistic structure of multilingual speech communities (e.g. Fishman 1971; Gumperz 1968; Blom/Gumperz 1972; Haugen 1972; cf. Raith 1982:30ff.). Huffines (1984, 1986, 1989, etc.) concentrated on similar matters. She recognized the differences between plain and non-plain PG speakers in Pennsylvania and emphasized the importance of sociocultural factors for the extent

Research review � 53

of the bilingualism found in different speech communities. The difference between plain and non-plain PG is, according to her, most manifest in the degree of influence of English on PG – she found more English influence in plain PG. Huffines (1980a, 1984a, 1986a) furthermore presented research on the English of plain PG speakers. Kopp (1999) replicated Huffines' results on phonological interference in the English of plain and non-plain speakers of PG. Comparing the English of plain and non-plain Pennsylvania Germans and of non-PG Americans from the same geographic region, he found that the English of plain PG speakers exhibits considerably less phonological interference from PG than that of non-plain speakers (with non-PG speakers showing the least amount of interference), a seeming paradox that is solved by considering acquisition patterns, functions of and attitudes towards the two languages within the different speech communities (Kopp 1999:279; cf. below). Two further publications of the 1980s focus on the lexicon of PG: a new PG dictionary (English to PG) by Beam (1985) and an investigation of PG word formation processes (Seel 1988). The order of languages in Beam (1985), English to PG, may be indicative of changed language dominance (among the majority of non-plain PG speakers): In 1887, when PG was the first language of plain and non-plain speakers alike, Lins' dictionary listed the items in PG-to-English order (cf. above, however, for a brief discussion of earlier English-to-PG word lists). Seel (1988) explored the contributions of German and English to the PG lexicon and their relative proportions, concluding that PG must be seen as a mixed language (Seel 1988:208). The study has been criticized for being based mainly on written data and thus not being representative for PG as a whole (Beam, p.c., 1989). Seel’s restricted approach may be problematic for general, especially quantitatively based, conclusions on PG since register differences (e.g., between written and spoken PG) coincide with a varying amount of English interference and borrowings. On the other hand, precisely because of this register-based variation, taking one register (or one type of data) at a time yields more informative results. The restriction to one type of data has to be made explicit but does not diminish the validity of results in that domain. Furthermore, a qualitative evaluation of English and German word-formation processes is untouched by the restriction to written material. What is more critical is the classification of lexemes as unambiguously English or German. This is a methodological problem which in my opinion cannot be solved satisfactorily as long as only two categories (German/English) exist. Seel approaches this problem by listing ambiguous items as homophones or homonyms when German source dialect forms coincide with semantically equivalent AE forms (e.g. filling 'filling', cf. Post 1989:75, Seel 1988:69). In addition, one should include a category for items that cannot be identified unambiguous-

54 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

ly because clear distinctions are not possible. Whether preservation of a cognate has been supported by its English parallel or a borrowing has merged with the form of a German cognate can sometimes no longer be determined18. The notion of "mixed language" has to be taken with caution if based on the lexicon alone. Most of PG (including the lexicon) is still German. The changes that can be observed in PG today are changes of concepts and conceptualizations rather than changes of surface forms. These "changes between the lines", as I call them, mirror the intertwined cultural identities of PG speakers as traditional American citizens of PG descent. Werner (1996) takes up Seel’s (1988) approach of lexicological research. His work is also based on written data, and he, too, is concerned with word formation, but in addition he includes a frequency word list with information on the type of category the word belongs to (English, German, or a range of contact phenomena). One of the critical points to note about this approach is, again, that it is often not possible to determine with certainty how a lexical item has come to reflect interference from AE. This is true in spite of Seel’s (1988) and Werner’s (1996) careful classification of lexical items into categories of language contact phenomena. Recent investigations of PG focus on its structural and syntactic properties. Among these are Louden (1987ff.) and Börjars ([no date]; & Burridge 2003, 2011), analyzing plain PG data, and Fuller (1997ff.), who investigates non-plain PG. All of them are concerned with structural features of PG. Louden investigates syntactic developments in plain PG (198819, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 2003a, 2011), but also discusses in what ways PG syntax shows the strong resilience of a typical German syntactic feature, namely the clause-final position of the lexical verb (e.g. Louden 1992a). Generative syntactic models are applied to PG data to analyze its syntactic structure, with a special focus on verb position (e.g. Louden 2011), verb raising (e.g. Louden 1990) and extraposition (e.g. Louden 1994). Börjars ([no date]; & Burridge 2003, 2011) reports the results from her research project on "Modelling syntactic change in Pennsylvania German" (as spoken in Waterloo County, Canada). In this project, the spread of a specific infinitival construction in PG was investigated, the fer…(zu) ('for ... to') construction. Börjars established that the use of this construction spread from �� 18 A case of similar complexity are "lexical doppelgängers" (Adams 2000) in PG English. These are instances of what looks like calques from German into English, but they can be shown to appear in the same form in certain British dialects that are not in contact with German. Cf. below. 19 Louden 1988 (esp. 9ff.) considers, among other approaches, the applicability of Van Coetsem's (1988) model (cf. chapter 1 above) to syntactic change in PG.

Research review � 55

its original contexts to a much larger number of contexts. What is particularly interesting about this syntactic change is that it cannot be a direct consequence of language contact with English, because English does not use this construction in the contexts found in PG. On the other hand, the new type of distribution is not found in any of the source varieties of PG, implying that it indeed is a new syntactic development. Interestingly, this construction is also typical of pidgins and creoles (E. Lattey, p.c., 2004). Fuller (1997) approaches PG from a new angle, investigating its make-up from the perspective of Myers-Scotton's (1993 ff.) Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model (cf. chapter 1). Among other structural aspects she investigates morphological change, specifically the reduction in the morphological participle marking in PG (declining use of ge- prefix). She also finds that the use of AE (nonce) borrowings opens the door for structural change in PG (Fuller 1997) in cases where argument structures are transferred together with lexical items. Under the MLF model, this can be analyzed as a combination of a structural frame that is partly English, but "filled" with PG lexical material. Within the model, then, PG constitutes a case of matrix language turnover, as its structure is increasingly built on the basis of an English framework (Fuller 2000). An investigation of discourse markers in PG (Fuller 2001) shows results that are comparable to data from first-generation immigrants in the USA (cf. Münch/Stolberg 2005): English discourse markers have largely replaced the original German ones, a process that is eased by the fact that English discourse markers usually occur at clause boundaries, i.e. outside of clauses (in contrast to German ones), and do not require structural integration (cf. Salmons 1990 for an analysis of the replacement of German discourse markers by English ones in other US-German varieties). The most recent research focus on PG and comparable varieties introduces a heritage language perspective on language island varieties, as in, e.g., Hopp/Putnam (2015) and Stolberg (2014). Hopp/Putnam compare data from a long-term speech island of similar linguistic origin as PG, Moundridge Schweitzer German, to heritage language data from recent immigrants. They aim at shedding light on the question of affectability of word order and other features under conditions of attrition, incomplete acquisition, and continued language contact. Stolberg (2014) takes a look at how the acquisition setting of non-plain PG has changed, in what respects it is comparable to that of a recent heritage language setting, and what linguistic changes can be linked to this development. The link between sociolinguistic factors and structural features is also taken up by Keiser (2012) who, focussing on plain PG in the American Midwest, investigates linguistic variation in phonology and the lexicon and its correlation with ethnographic and social factors (cf. also Stark 2014).

56 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

2.3.2 Discussion It is, I argue, necessary to make clear what type of PG group an investigation deals with; at least the differentiation between Anabaptist, or plain, PG and non-plain PG should be made. Some authors are not informative in this respect. Inconsistent information is offered e.g. by Costello (1985b). He refers to children who begin to acquire English when beginning school, which implies that the focus of his investigation is on conservative Anabaptists (e.g., Old Order Amish) since children from all other types of PG background start acquiring English before entering school. On the other hand, he claims that English interferences can enter PG because PG is losing its functionality, and parents are less concerned with their children’s speaking "proper PG", i.e. they exercise less normative control (1985b:119). Loss of functionality implies that we are dealing with a progressive plain group or a non-plain group. In this case, however, children are frequently fluent in English before beginning school. Furthermore, Costello proposes that an important entrance point of English interference into PG is when PG children begin to learn English, i.e. via child bilingualism. The assumption that child language interferences directly affect adult PG is questionable. Children do not have sufficient linguistic prestige to have this kind of penetrating effect on adult language. What may happen is that these children, under the absence of strict normative control, preserve their interferences, carry them over into their own adult language, and pass them on to their children one generation later. An even stronger effect is exerted by the acceptance of English influence on PG among plain PG speakers that results from the need to keep PG functional for communicative purposes in the domains it is assigned to. This interrelation is pointed out by Enninger/Raith (1982) and mentioned in passing by Costello (1985b:111). Kopp, in discussing what he calls the "Pennsylvania German paradox", refers to Enninger/Raith's (1982) domains-approach and concludes that "sectarian Pennsylvania German is an example of a language variety reaching functional stability through structural instability." (Kopp 1999:279f.) The identification of loanwords and borrowed material in PG poses another problem in PG research. Post (1989) points out that the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch (Palatinate Dictionary) and the varieties of Palatinate-based linguistic minorities in Eastern Europe (Romania, Hungary) are important sources of lexical information when making claims about lexical borrowing in PG. Any lexeme that is found in PG and a non-American Palatinate source cannot be considered a loanword; at best it is homophonous with an English word and by that circumstance stabilized in its use. Caution is also required with respect to morphological changes in PG, which are frequently attributed to English influence, e.g.

Research review � 57

loss of case marking (Huffines 1989a). Palatinate dialects in contact with Russian have undergone a highly similar morphological development (Keel 1994), so the change cannot be attributed to the influence of one specific language but seems to hold for the language-contact situation in general. Van Ness (1996) connects the PG tendency for loss/reduction of case marking with the more widespread tendency for the reduction of case marking found in various Germanic languages, including English and German (cf. chapter 4 for more details). To identify changes in PG, it is possible, though not unproblematic, to compare PG to modern Standard German (StG). In syntactic respects the comparison is legitimate, taking into account that the basic syntactic structures of PG and StG (subject-object-verb (SOV) word order, verb-second (V2) effects in finite clauses) are the same (Springer 1943, Reed 1979, Louden 1992a). Phonologically, systematic correspondences are the rule and have to be taken into consideration. Lexically, one has to be careful when drawing conclusions regarding preserved or borrowed lexical material; in this respect a Palatinate German (PalG) source offers more reliable information (e.g., Henn 1980, Post 1992, Pfälzisches Wörterbuch). Costello (1986) equates Amish High German with StG, which is problematic considering the specific characteristics of Amish High German and its deviances from StG as discussed in Enninger (1986) and Raith/Lehmann (1989). A different type of difficulty when studying PG is the selection of informants. Moelleken/Wandt (1984) present a questionnaire designed to secure the comparability of collected data. Among the information asked for to assess the sociocultural background of an informant are place of birth, place of residence, education, occupation, religious affiliation, and language(s) used in different contexts. In addition, Moelleken/Wandt discuss the question of how many informants constitute the "critical mass" to make the data representative. What can also be problematic in this respect is that conservative plain groups (especially Old Order Amish) refuse to work with technical equipment (sound recordings, microphones) because it is in conflict with their religious beliefs and convictions. Huffines (p.c., spring 1997) was very successful in being accepted into plain communities and in using modern technical devices in her interviews, but the necessity of such devices can cause complications which must be dealt with in order to investigate conservative plain PG. In sum, while approaches to PG were at first dominated by the desire to describe this variety's lexicon and phonology and to locate its position in the continuum of German dialects, the focus shifted during the second half of the 20th century towards an investigation of PG under sociolinguistic aspects, mainly those of language contact and bilingualism. While these topics remain of interest, given the position of PG as a language in contact, more recently they

58 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

have been combined with and complemented by investigations of the structural properties of PG from different theoretical perspectives, as researchers try to find an answer to the more general question of how much of an impact language contact can have on the structure of a language. It is within this field of research that the present study is located. In the next section the three varieties PG, AHG, and English/PGE will be presented and briefly described.

2.4 The three varieties PG cannot be dealt with in isolation. This variety is crucially characterized by its contact situation with English, a natural consequence of its historically determined language-island position, i.e. isolation from its original linguistic context and its status as a minority language. In addition to the linguistic trichotomy of the language repertoire (PG, AHG, English), the sociocultural division of the speech community (the distinction between plain (Anabaptist) and non-plain PG speakers) also bears on PG language behavior. The linguistic consequences of a speaker's affiliation with one or the other of the two groups for the make-up of his/her language repertoire as a whole (mono-, bi-, trilingual) have been mentioned above, but this affiliation also affects the nature of PG and AE individually. The distinctive characteristic of all PG speakers as compared to American mainstream society is the knowledge and use (however limited) of PG, and therefore this will be the first variety to be presented here, followed by Amish High German, the second German variety in the repertoire, and finally by English in its specific role and shape(s) as part of the language repertoire of the Pennsylvania Germans.

2.4.1 Pennsylvania German Early research on PG focussed mostly on a (mainly lexical) description of the variety while more recent publications cover a wider range of perspectives, particularly the development of PG under specific sociolinguistic conditions. In the following sections, features of PG are described by comparing them to their corresponding StG forms. Note that this is by no means intended to imply that PG (or PalG) is derived from StG through processes of change. StG simply serves as a point of reference.

The three varieties � 59

PG today most closely resembles the dialect spoken in the Eastern Palatinate and around Mannheim, as Buffington/Barba (1954) and Haag (1956) have established. Morphologically and syntactically, PG in general displays the same paradigms and structures as Palatinate German (PalG). Within the (phonologybased) German dialect continuum, PG (like PalG) is considered a Middle German dialect, since it shows High German as well as Low German phonological characteristics; e.g., /t/ > /s/ in das "that", Wasser "water" -- as in High German; but not /p/ > /pf/, cf. parre "minister" vs. High German Pfarrer. Buffington/Barba (1954:138) refer to PG within Pennsylvania as a homogeneous variety. There is evidence, however, that the situation is different when PG varieties spoken in different states of the USA are compared. Here, divergences may be so profound that unintelligibility results (cf. Johnson-Weiner 1989), due to the primacy of either Alemannic or Palatinate/Franconian dialect features. Less distinctive regional variants exist also within Pennsylvania, as Reed/Seifert (1954) show, reflecting the conserved traces of original dialect divergences. These variants do not generally present a problem for communication within Pennsylvania, though they may be disruptive occasionally (cf. Bowie 1997b). Dialects of PG within Pennsylvania can be distinguished by the use of specific lexical items (e.g., eemer [StG 'Eimer'] vs. kiwwel [StG 'Kübel'] for ‘bucket’) or diverging phonetic features. Louden (1989) points out that these variations also may reflect sociolinguistic distinctions (i.e., different registers within one group). Geographical distance has led to diverging developments in secondary settlements, as can be observed by comparing, for example, the Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia varieties of PG. A different kind of dialectal divergence, caused by sociolinguistic factors rather than by dialect origin or geographical distance, is due to the cultural differences in the speech communities that use PG (plain vs. non-plain). Sociolinguistic factors lead primarily to differences in the acceptance of English influence on PG and the overall use of PG as part of life-style and cultural identity. This point is discussed below. The phonological properties characteristic of Pennsylvanian PG are described in Frey (1941, 1942), Buffington/Barba (1954), Haag (1956), Kelz (1971), Post (1992), among others. PG phonology closely resembles that of Palatinate German (cf. Post 1992:82ff.) and, like PalG, exhibits general characteristics of southwest German regional varieties. Examples of these more wide-spread features are unrounded vowels (/e/, /i/) where StG has rounded umlauts (/ö/, /ü/), the frequent omission of word-final /n/ after a vowel (e.g. in verbal infinitives and plural nouns) and the lenition of the plosives /p/, /t/, /k/. Among the features PG shares with PalG are the use of an epenthetic vowel between a liquid and a following consonant (e.g. PG karrich ↔ StG Kirche 'church'; PG millich

60 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

↔ StG Milch 'milk'; this is the rule in some, but not all, regional variants of PalG; cf. Post 1992:87); a change of vowel quality to short /a/ before /r/ (as in PG karrich ↔ StG Kirche 'church', PG barrik ↔ StG Berg 'mountain'); the deletion of /r/ if it is preceded by a vowel and followed by a dental (e.g. PG fatt ↔ StG fort 'away', 'gone'); and an "unshifted" /p/ where StG has /pf/ (a feature PalG and PG share with Low German varieties), as in PG peif, abbel (< appel) ↔ StG Pfeife, Apfel 'pipe', 'apple' (cf. Post 1992:46f., 99f.). These details of phonological characterization serve to illustrate the position of PG within the German dialect continuum. They are less important in this study, however, since the data base consists of written linguistic data, which makes it impossible to assess phonological changes properly. PG phonology is therefore not taken up further here. In contrast, morpho-syntactic characteristics and changes can be traced well in diachronic written data. Typical morphological and morpho-syntactic features of PG include: • No genitive form; the functions of StG genitive are fulfilled by dative forms (StG genitive prepositions take dative in PG) or by a different construction (e.g., by a prepositional phrase) (as in PalG, Swabian, etc.; cf. Post 1992:119ff.) Example: (1) [EDS14/8-1978] Meim VadderDATseinre MudderDATihre LeitNOM henn Eberly gheesse, (...) my fatherDAT his motherDAT her peopleNOM were Eberly named 'My father's mother's family was called Eberly, (...)' • Nominative and accusative forms are not distinguished morphologically (as in PalG, cf. Henn 1980, Post 1992:119f.) Example: (2) [PD1/3-1954] net tsway Sie hen der alt rumlaiferACC they had the old trampACC not two 'They didn't have to call the old tramp twice.'

mole times

haisa call

breicha. need

This is also the nominative form. In StG, the corresponding form would be den alt[en] RumläuferACC.

The three varieties � 61

• increasing morphological case merger of dative and accusative to a common (objective) case (cf. Huffines 1987) (not found in PalG or other southwestern German dialects) • (Almost) no simple past tense forms; past reference is expressed by present perfect verb forms (typical of PalG and Swabian and other southwestern German dialects [cf. Post 1992:132, Louden 1992a] as well as of colloquial German more generally). Post (1992:132) reports that in PalG, simple past tense forms are only used of the verbs sein 'be', wollen 'want, would like, will', haben 'have', sagen 'say', können 'can'. The data I investigated showed that PG seems to go even further than that; at least in some of its variants, only for sein 'be' simple past tense forms are used. Example: (3) [SB20/9-1989] Ich hob's dat I have it there 'I had it in there.'

drin there-in

k'hot. had

There was not much research focussing on PG syntax before the end of the 20th century; characteristic word order patterns were mentioned among other typical features of PG but they were not in the center of research attention. One of the earliest studies with a specific emphasis on (plain) PG syntactic structure is Louden (1988). Two of the syntactic characteristics of PG are20: • An infinitive-of-purpose construction with fer / fah / fa 'for' as its complementizer and an infinitival clause following (a lexical correspondence of StG um (zu) 'for (to)') (as in PalG, cf. Post 1992:136; cf. Börjars ([no date]; & Burridge 2003, 2011) for research on this construction). Example: (4) [Sim 67-1913] ich hob my gnorrerloch pass gernooma un bin ob nuch Ellensdown I have my knothole pass taken and am off to Allentown gonga fer en bolla game tzu saener. gone for a ball game to see 'I took my knothole pass and went off to Allentown to see a ball game.' �� 20 PG syntax is discussed in much more detail in chapters 5 - 8 below.

62 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

• In dependent clauses with compound tenses, the auxiliary appears between two past participles, not sentence-final as in StG (cf. Louden 1990) (as in PalG, cf. Post 1992:139ff., König 1992:163). Example: (5) [PD5/26-1949] grawd wie die leit als iena fartseelt (1) hen (2) katta (3) just as the people always to-them told have had 'just as the people always have (2) had (3) told (1) them' In StG, the word order would be erzählt (1) gehabt (3) haben (2).21 These morphological and syntactic features characterizing PG are reported by Buffington/Barba (1954) and Haag (1956), except for the dative/accusative case merger. All features except for this one are also common to PalG (and some of them also to other southwestern German dialects). The merger of dative and accusative case to one oblique case is the only true structural innovation. While common in northern German dialect areas, it is not attested in the southwestern German dialect continuum, the origin of the source varieties of PG (cf. König 1992:154 map 2). It has been attributed directly to influence from English, e.g. by Huffines (1988a, 1989a). This specific feature is also displayed by more recent German immigrants to the USA from various dialect origins, e.g. from Bavaria (cf. Tracy & Lattey 2001), which seems to support the point of English influence. However, it is also found in non-US language island varieties of southwestern German origin: Keel (1994) shows that PalG-related dialects spoken by Mennonites in Russia show a very similar development. Thus, English influence is not a sufficient explanation. Loss of inflectional endings and morphological case merger in general are not new to Germanic languages as a whole; English is one of the most prominent examples, but the same tendency is also present in various German dialects (cf. Van Ness 1996). What can be stated, though, is that case merger in German varieties seems to progress faster when they are in contact with other languages (independent of the number of cases in the other language(s)).

�� 21 Properly speaking, there would be no gehabt (3) in this sentence, if the clause adhered strictly to StG norm. If it had to be inserted, however, it would appear in this (i.e. second) position of the verb cluster.

The three varieties � 63

The most salient feature distinguishing PG from other German dialects is, of course, the influence English has had on this variety. It is most visible in the lexicon, but its traces are also found in syntax (see chapters 5 through 8 below), in morphology (cf. Fuller 1997, 1999, especially regarding the use of German participles without the prefix ge-), and possibly even in phonology (Bowie 1997a).

Lexical interference Seel (1988) is the first to undertake a thorough assessment of the influence of English on the lexicon of and word formation processes in PG. Knodt (1986) and Werner (1996) also deal with this topic, the former from a mainly quantitative point of view (with a focus on the Delaware Amish use of PG), while Werner (1996) takes a diachronic approach. Both Werner and Seel base their observations mainly on written data (non-plain PG), which is inevitable for a diachronic approach. Different types of interference can be identified in the lexicon (cf. Seel 1988): transfer (result: loanword), partial substitution (result: hybrid), complete substitution (result: calque/loan translation, loan transfer, borrowed meaning), and pseudo-borrowing (Scheinentlehnung) by word formation from PG material but in analogy to an existing English pattern (Seel 1988:134). These contact phenomena can lead to adlexification (adding words to the lexicon, e.g. to bridge an accidental or culturally conditioned gap in the lexicon) or relexification (replacing individual words, cf. Knodt 1986). Relexification can be complete, with the replacement of an "old" (i.e. German) lexical item with a new (i.e. English) one, for example for reasons of linguistic economy because the new word may be shorter or easier to pronounce. Or it can be incomplete (cf. Enninger 1985e:9, cit. in Werner 1996:85); this latter case leads to alternatives or word doublets. Incomplete relexification can either be a step to complete relexification, or it can result in a semantic redistribution, where early synonyms become distinct in one or more features, the original meaning of one of the synonyms being narrowed down or extended, etc.22, eventually resulting in adlexification rather than relexification. The following figure (summarizing Werner 1996:81ff.) illustrates graphically how these categories, as results of lexical interference, are interrelated.

�� 22 as in English pig / pork, veal / calf etc.

64 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

lexical interference





alternatives / word doublets

semantic redistribution

complete relexification

Figure 2.1: Possible outcomes of lexical interference (cf. Werner 1996:81ff.)

In Seel's (1988) approach to lexical interference, PG and AE appear as two separate "states," with AE being the point of departure (of interference), and PG being the "landing site" of the new lexeme. In Van Coetsem's (1988/1995) terms, this setting constitutes a case of recipient language agentivity, with AE being the source language and PG the recipient language. The specific focus of Seel's research, i.e. investigating word-formation processes in PG, favors this approach. In addition to the classification of the products, however, the perspective of speaker activity is essential for an understanding of the dynamics of these processes and for capturing their psycholinguistic reality. This perspective, I argue, is neglected in Seel's account. The categories Seel works with can be described as (a) the mode in which a new lexeme enters PG, and (b) the status of the new lexeme in PG. I propose to add 'speaker activity' as a third category to include the psycholinguistic processes leading up to a specific type of word formation. The activity of the speaker entails activation of the languages in his/her language repertoire and an active use of elements from both languages (cf. Van Coetsem 1988/1995). Adding the category 'speaker activity' to Seel's paradigm results in the following correspondences:

The three varieties � 65

Table 2.1: Categorizing types of lexical interference in PG (adapted from Seel 1988) mode of speaker activity interference

status of new lexeme (in PG) loanword

contributions of the languages involved AE (lexical item) + PG (phonology/ infl. morphology)


partial mixing substitution


AE + PG (equal contribution possible, e.g. in compounds)

/budšerai/ "butcher+ei" 'butchering' /hingel+bisnes/ "hinkel+business" 'business with chickens'24

complete covert switch, substitution crossover25

loan translation, calque

AE (semantic content) + PG (word form)

/bu:we+fraind/ "buwe+freind" 'boyfriend'26


new lexeme AE (pattern) + PG (form + content)


(lexical) switch + (morphol./phonol.) integration


/kaundi/ 'county' /(sih) inšuere/ "(sich) inšuer+e" 'insure (oneself)'23

/gša:+weš-meši:n/ "geschirr+wasch+machine" 'dish washer'27

Only in an analysis of the speaker's activity does his/her involvement with both languages become visible. Taking a closer look at how a speaker generates new words offers valuable insights into his/her affiliation and commitment to the language repertoire as a whole, an essential part in his/her creating a bilingual and bicultural identity. There is a lively dispute among past and present researchers of PG as to the percentage of English material in the PG lexicon. As can be concluded from the discussion above, an estimate depends not only on PG-internal reasons for variation (written vs. spoken, type of speech community, time, topic, context, author/speaker, addressee, etc.), but also on what is actually counted as English material. It is impossible to draw an accurate line between German and English in the PG lexicon if all possible combinations and phenomena are taken into account. On the other hand, limitation to a strict count of English loanwords

�� 23 Seel (1988:149) 24 Seel (1988:153) 25 cf. Lattey/Tracy (2005) 26 Seel (1988:173) 27 Seel (1988:196)

66 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

does not tell much of the story either, as the complicated classification system above (proposed by Seel 1988 – except for the 'speaker activity' column – and adopted by Werner 1996) illustrates. This situation is further complicated by the fact that researchers usually do not specify what exactly they counted when presenting percentages. It is not unlikely that the count has been restricted to face-value borrowings, i.e. words used in PG which appear in the same form in English (not necessarily with the same pronunciation or semantic content, though). With these caveats in mind, the estimates are as follows28. Table 2.2: Estimates of AE influence on the PG lexicon Research publication Learned (1889)

Estimated percentage of AE material in PG lexicon 12% - 13%


Buffington/Barba (1954)

2% – 8%

• non-plain PG • B/B note that variation depends on region, topic, age of speaker, etc.

Enninger (1985a)

2,5% - 7%

• plain PG

Knodt (1986)


• plain PG (Old Order Amish / Delaware) • based on 1983 EDAPT word list (27,630 entries)

• based on mainly written data • most likely non-plain PG29

The distribution of word categories among the English loanword portion is typical of any borrowing situation: Nouns are most frequent, next are verbs, considerably fewer are borrowings of adjectives and functional categories (prepositions, complementizers, etc.). Enninger (1985a) suggests that this borrowing hierarchy is a consequence of the number of steps that must be taken to

�� 28 Werner (1996:95) provides a similar comparison of eleven different researchers' estimates of AE influence on PG, starting with Rauch (1879) and ending with Van Ness (1994a), with estimates ranging from 0% to 20%. With respect to comparability of data and estimates, Werner highlights the same problems I mention above. 29 In plain Pennsylvania German speech communities, PG is not a written register, but only a spoken one (cf. further below). Therefore, the information that mainly written data were analyzed implies that they were non-plain PG data.

The three varieties � 67

adapt the borrowed word morphologically to the borrowing language system. More steps are necessary for a verb than for a noun in PG, since verbal morphology is richer than nominal morphology. Appealing as it may seem, this line of reasoning becomes rather vague, though, when applied to functional categories: Neither prepositions nor complementizers have to be adapted morphologically. Their integration, in contrast, tends to require a structurally more fundamental re-ordering of phrases and clauses, necessitating a different but more demanding process of adaptation. It is difficult, if not impossible, to define criteria for comparing the cost of adapting functional elements to that of adapting lexical content elements to a borrowing language system. It was mentioned above that the distinction between plain (Anabaptist) and non-plain PG speakers has proven to be significant with respect to linguistic diversity. Louden (1989), e.g., differentiates between plain PG (PPG) and nonplain PG (NPG), particularly based on the diverging extent of English influence on each of the two varieties. While non-plain PG behaves conservatively (few innovations, limited influence of English), plain PG demonstrates greater flexibility and more openness towards borrowing from and adjustment to English. Louden shows that this is true for some syntactic areas (word order), and the same tendency can be observed in the lexicon. Regarding morphological developments, the merger of dative and accusative case to a common (objective) case proceeds faster in plain PG than in non-plain PG (e.g. Huffines 1987). A possible explanation for the observed facts is that plain PG, which is in diglossic opposition to English, must be kept functional in all areas of communication to maintain diglossia. Borrowing from English increases the functional availability of PG by bridging (lexical and other) gaps, thus guaranteeing the continued identification of concepts in PG. Furthermore, we must not overlook the fact that borrowing adds to language economy within the diglossic repertoire by adding to the parallels between the two varieties, English and PG. Even though the structure of plain PG may seem 'destabilized' by increasing interferences, the process does not lead to language death but, on the contrary, is an indicator of its functional vitality (Knodt 1986). This does not contradict the idea that plain speakers keep the two languages apart – they do so when speaking them, i.e., they speak either English or PG and rarely switch between them. Local borrowings, however, are acceptable and, because of their phonological and morphological integration, do not disrupt the perceived characteristic structure of PG. The plain speakers' strategy of integrating AE elements into PG to keep their variety functional results in "functional stability through structural instability" (Kopp 1999:280; cf. Enninger/Wandt 1982). The opposite tendency is noted for non-plain PG. The language is falling out of use because its existence is not necessitated by a diglossic situation, as for

68 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

plain PG. Non-plain speakers of PG tend to switch to English when they reach their limits in PG, i.e. whenever (their command of) PG is insufficient to fulfill the functional needs of the communicative context. Plain speakers often do not have this option, as PG, for them, fulfills various clearly defined functions. Therefore, there is less AE interference in non-plain PG than in plain PG. Borrowings and interference from English occur in non-plain PG, too, but they are less frequent than in plain PG. Here language economy causes a reduction of the language repertoire to one variety, namely English, which today is used even in domains originally strictly reserved for PG (e.g., family). As a consequence it is no longer necessary to keep up the functionality of non-plain PG, and the pace of its development has slowed down. A reflex of the (reduced) role non-plain PG has been assigned by now is visible in the purist efforts of several non-plain PG speakers/authors. They can afford to keep the language 'pure' (i.e. comparatively free of surface loans from English) because it no longer fulfills vital communicative functions for the speech community. Its role as a cultural identification factor, on the other hand, is unaffected by a restricted functionality, because cultural identification is not linked to diglossia here, in contrast to the plain PG speech community. As a language island PG has preserved certain (Pal)German archaisms in its lexicon, such as wammes 'blouse, jacket'; genischt 'waste of grain and straw', lann 'shaft (of a horse-drawn carriage)' (Post 1989:77). This is demonstrated by comparison with the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch (Palatinate Dictionary) as well as with East-European (Hungarian, Romanian) PalG-based language islands originating from the same time as the PG language island. PalG dialect features that are found in Eastern Europe and in North America but not or no longer in the PalG speaking areas in Germany can be considered to be archaisms (Post 1989:75). They are identified as PalG dialect features in comparison with older stages of German (PalG and other dialects) and because they cannot be derived from the contact language. Another type of archaism in PG is English archaisms as investigated by Penzl (1938) and Reed (1953). Through contact with neighboring Scottish and Irish settlers in colonial times (before 1800), a number of English words were borrowed into PG which are no longer used in today’s English and/or stand out because of a peculiar pronunciation. Reed shows that a number of these items can still be found in regionally or socially restricted registers, e.g. in Scottish English and Irish English, or in archaic or non-standard registers. Contact of PG with these varieties of English is also reflected in PG-influenced English. This is confirmed by Adams' (2000) investigation of "lexical doppelgängers", lexical items found in apparently PG-influenced English (apparent loan translations or

The three varieties � 69

borrowings from PG) that can no longer be traced back unambiguously either to German influence or to the continued use of non-standard English items. For several of these cases Adams shows that such alleged mistranslations are of the same form as indigeneous British expressions still found in non-standard regional varieties in Northern England. They were most likely brought to America by immigrants from Scotland and Ireland who were frequently neighbors to Pennsylvania German settlers, so that it is impossible to tell today whether their use is an incidence of PG interference in English or the result of influence from pioneer-time British dialect speakers. Among the examples Adams cites is the use of want + adv. as in The cat wants out and the use of leave (instead of let) in the sense of 'allow, permit', almost a shibboleth among Pennsylvania Germans and usually interpreted as a typical case of interference from German (especially in popularistic presentations of Pennsylvania German English, e.g. Gates 1987). Two peripheral varieties of PG shall be touched upon in passing. One of them is a regional variant of PG spoken in certain regions of Virginia; Kehr (1979, cf. above) refers to this variety as Virginia German, since it shows some developmental tendencies that are different from PG. The (formerly) Germanspeaking areas in Virginia were settled during the first half of the 18th century; the settlers came partly from Pennsylvania (secondary settlers), partly from the German-speaking parts of Europe (primary settlers). Virginia German is, in some respects, more archaic than PG, since it has kept features that were lost during the levelling process PG went through. Besides, the number of English borrowings is fairly low, which seems to be due to a decrease in the use of Virginia German, similar to that of non-plain PG. Virginia German is even more threatened by language death than non-plain PG. The speakers of the last bilingual generation, i.e. those who were able to understand Virginia German but did not speak it fluently, were between 50 and 70 years old when Kehr studied the language in the late 1970s. The second variety is not a regional but a sociolinguistic variant of PG and belongs in the plain PG language repertoire. It is referred to as "sermon PG" by Enninger/Raith (1982) and is used in Old Order Amish religious services. Appropriate to the context of its use, it is a "careful and formal" variant of PG (ibid.:59) with special prosodic characteristics. A casual listener would not be able to identify any borrowed (English) elements in this PG variant. The reason is that, first, the percentage of English borrowings is particularly low in the domain "religion" in general; and second, the borrowings that do occur are morphologically and phonologically fully integrated into PG (e.g., to figure out → ausfiggere) so that they are no longer identifiable as foreign elements.

70 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Orthography Even though PG is not only a spoken but also a written language (literary works in poetry and prose have been produced since the middle of the 19th century), a standardized orthography has never taken hold (cf. Lambert's 1924:xff. overview of the diverging stands taken on this matter even by the earliest scholars of PG). Among the attempts to establish an orthographic norm for PG are (cf. Costello 1985c:121ff.; Schlegel 2012): • a German-based dialect orthography (oriented on German standard orthography with adjustments to reflect PG pronunciation) • an English-based orthography • a phonemic orthography • an "autonomous orthography" combining German and English elements Linguistic literature usually makes use of the orthography suggested by Buffington/Barba (1954), which is in line with the "autonomous" model. The discussion regarding a suitable orthographic system is more than 100 years old. Early examples for contrasting positions are found in Rauch (1873) and Miller (1904), Miller arguing for a German orthography because PG is a German dialect, while Rauch, the editor of the Pennsylvania Dutchman, proposes an English-based orthography: "About four years ago we received a letter from our esteemed friend, Professor Haldeman, expressing his opinion in regard to the "Pit Schwefflebrenner" papers, in which he remarked that ‘In order to read your Dutch, a German must first learn to read English.’ Very true. But we then reminded the Professor of the fact that, as a general rule, German is entirely ignored in the common schools of our State, and that the rising generation, in all the Dutch sections, learn to read English only, but talk Dutch. It is quite natural for the youngster to learn his a-b abs and b-a ba’s [sic] in school, and immediately on reaching home from the school to ask, De mommy for a shtick brod. [sic; italics in original] Therefore, to enable these to read their own language, as written by such scholars as the late Rev. Doctor Harbaugh, Prof. Tobias Witmer, or Professor Haldeman, who have written some very excellent specimens, it would become necessary first to teach them the pure German. On the other hand, our foreign born Germans [i.e., Germans who were born outside of the USA, DS] all, or nearly all, learn to read English immediately on reaching this country, and these can have no difficulty in reading and correctly pronouncing the Pennsylvania [German] as we write it. (...)" (Pennsylvania Dutchman, January 1873:31)

Costello (1985c), in a similar vein, puts forth that by now most PG speakers no longer understand or speak StG/High German, while all of them are fluent in English. He concludes, from a different perspective but to the same effect, that

The three varieties � 71

the use of an English orthographic system is more feasible than a German-based one. It is interesting to note that the same arguments seemed in place a hundred years ago, even though the sociolinguistic facts have changed over the past 100 years. The contrast between Miller’s and Rauch’s/Costello’s argumentation illustrates that the situation of PG cannot, and could not, be settled by a onceand-for-all solution, but that the changing needs require a flexible approach. This seems to be an important factor regarding the question of why none of the suggested orthographic systems prevailed. To circumvent the problems of the German-based and the English-based orthography, one can opt for the use of a phonemic orthography. It avoids the problems of an English-based system regarding the correlation of graphemes and phonemes; but one must then be prepared to put up with considerable orthographic variation since the same word can be pronounced, and accordingly spelled, differently. Costello (1985c) advocates the use of the autonomous orthographic system. Like Buffington/Barba (1954), he seems to hope that an established orthographic system will consolidate the use of PG as a written language and thus will help to preserve it. This expectation does not seem realistic, though, since the survival of a language depends on the functions it fulfills. An orthographic standard may be useful for PG textbooks. It will not be able to strengthen the functions of PG, however. The Old Order groups, the most conservative groups among the Anabaptists, are those who use PG most regularly and for whom PG has the highest degree of functionality and stability in use, as compared to other PG speech communities. These groups, however, use PG only for face-to-face communication; they rarely write it. On the other hand, the less conservative plain and the non-plain groups, who (occa-sionally) do write PG, do not use it consistently anymore. A standardized orthographic system would not help to increase the functionality of PG for these groups either (cf. also Schlegel 2012 for a thorough discussion of the implications of using (non-plain) PG in writing, and of the orthographic choices and resulting complications for speakers and learners of PG, and Hans-Bianchi 2013 for a summarizing overview of different approaches to spelling PG). Generally it can be established that the orthography an author uses reflects his or her attitude with regard to the cultural identity associated with the use of PG. Richard Druckenbrod (non-plain PG data, 1978-85) and Noah Good (New Order Mennonite, plain PG data, 1986ff.) use an orthography which is surprisingly close to StG norms. Only mild modifications have been made, in agreement with lexical and pronunciation differences between StG and PG. This orthographic choice is congruent with explicit statements, especially by Druckenbrod, reflecting a purist attitude with the focus on preserving PG as a German variety. Interestingly, earlier texts (e.g. from Pit Schwefflebrenner, 1868, and Sim

72 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Schmaltzgsicht's Own Magazine, 1913; both non-plain PG) present a rather different picture. They are clearly oriented along an English orthography, in seemingly free interaction with German rules, leading to inconsistencies which can result in some difficulty when one tries to deduce the pronunciation of a word merely based on its spelling. Since these spelling patterns coincide with liberal language mixing practices in these texts, a tentative interpretation could be that interaction between (Pennsylvania) German and English was formerly considered more natural than it is (by non-plain speakers) today, due to an earlier everyday practice of using both languages side by side. Today, where the use of PG is so much more restricted, it automatically carries more symbolic weight. As a result, speakers are aware of the cultural identification value attached to it and tend to make conscious choices about the identification content they want to transmit. The encoding of the identification value in written language production takes place via language mixing practices as well as through spelling. Another example in this respect are the PG texts by Carl Arner (non-plain PG data, 1989-1992). The texts appeared as a newspaper column once a week and cover a limited but not severely restricted range of topics. They illustrate how unimportant an orthographic standard is for PG. The orthography Arner uses is quite idiosyncratic. It is based on English orthography but not consistently so; besides variable spelling patterns even of the same word, typographical errors are frequent. Apparently, at a time when competence in PG is considered a marker of cultural identity and an "ornamental register" (Franceschini 1999) rather than a functional instrument necessary for communication, a standardized orthography does not contribute much to the functionality and the survival of this variety. Raith/Lehmann (1989:86) point out that English orthographic conventions influence the pronunciation of written Amish High German (when it is read aloud), which illustrates the fact that linguistic practice has led to the expectation of an English-based grapheme-phoneme correspondence. English is the only variety that is used productively as a written and spoken language in all PG speech communities. For practical purposes, then, an English-based orthography seems to have certain advantages. However, practical considerations are only a minor point in a context where the use of a specific orthographical system is closely linked to the identificational value of the language it is related to.

PG as a language in contact PG is in close contact with English because all PG speakers are also fluent in AE, except for very young children in the most conservative groups, where PG is still the first language acquired. In religiously conservative, plain communities,

The three varieties � 73

Amish High German (AHG) also has to be considered as an available contact language. Since it is a non-productive variety, though, the only direction of interference is from PG into (reproductive) AHG; PG is not influenced by this highly formalized variety. AHG has no relevance for the non-plain speech community, but several of the non-plain community's members who write and publish in PG (as compared to those who speak it but do not use it for writing) had formal education in Standard High German (StG) in high school or college. Thus contact with or interference from StG has to be considered, in particular for written PG, which, as explicated above, does not have a prescriptive or generally accepted standard (while StG does). A long coexistence of PG and English can be assumed for PG speech communities, even though for most of this period full bilingualism apparently was not the rule. A reflection of long-term contact, as Reed (1953) observes, is the fact that PG has preserved English archaisms in the lexicon and in pronunciation from times of early settlement when PG speakers came into contact with their Scottish and Irish neighbors (cf. above). On the other hand, the rather isolated life-style in rural areas made it possible for many settlers and their descendants to remain more or less monolingual in PG for several generations. This is witnessed by discussions in newspapers published in Pennsylvania during the 19th century, such as the Bauernfreund (Sumneytown/Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, 1828 - 1916, cf. Wood 1939) and the letters of Pit Schwefflebrenner (1868) in the Father Abraham, a newspaper from Allentown. The German settlers' contact with English was triggered by interaction with English-speaking neighbors as well as the necessity of trade, and they acquired English to a degree equivalent to its functions in the speech community. Up until the first decades of this century, this did not necessarily imply a full, native or native-like, command of English (cf. Lambert 1924, Tucker 1934, Struble 1935, Wood 1939). Statements in magazine articles imply that even around World War II not every PG speaker was fluent in English. In September 1943, one contributor to the Eileschpiggel, published in Pennsylvania, comments on this circumstance, apparently feeling the need to justify it: "Ich kann aa weenich Englisch schwetze. Mir breiche uns net schemme. Es leit genunk hinne uns as schwetzt in re Schtimm as alle Leit verschteh kenn, waer un was mer sin." [I, too, can speak only a little English. We don't have to be ashamed. Enough lies behind us that speaks in such a voice that everybody can understand who and what we are. (My translation, DS)].

74 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Even with the growing functional value of English, due to, e.g., increasing contact with monolingual English speakers, PG remained an important variety in the language repertoire of the German-descended speech community until fairly recently, especially among family and friends (as an in-group or intimacy variety, cf. Fishman 1965). In the plain speech communities, this process resulted in a functionally divided bilingualism, i.e., diglossia, as mentioned above. To remain functional within the language repertoire of the community, plain PG has borrowed extensively from AE, mainly but not exclusively into its lexicon. For non-plain PG, the situation is different today. In interviews I conducted with a group of Pennsylvania Germans in Allentown in the spring of 1997 (cf. chapter 3 for details), statements of these PG speakers about their parents' language behavior implied that a certain degree of diglossia existed in non-plain speech communities as well. This impression is supported by occasional remarks found in newspaper articles of the late 19th century. PG was probably the intimacy register while AE was spoken with non-group members, i.e. with people of non-PG descent. By today, however, the number of non-plain PG speakers has decreased considerably. I could not observe any clearly functional distinctions, nor were such distinctions reported to me by the interviewed non-plain PG speakers. Besides other reasons, this has to do with the limited number of speakers today. One of the non-plain PG speakers I interviewed, GH (cf. chapter 3 for details), mentioned that he tried to speak PG as often as possible (for example, with Amish people in his area), but since his wife (who is also of PG descent) was not brought up with PG, he never speaks the dialect in his home, and none of his children speaks or understands PG. The two World Wars were the major reasons for discontinuing the use of PG in non-plain speech communities (cf. above; Kopp 1999:36). PG has, for non-plain speakers, a sentimental value rather than a functional one. PG is a symbol of their German heritage and ethnic identity. As the non-plain use of the language has become ritualized, however, the speech community tends to take on a preservationist attitude resulting in a rejection of extensive borrowing from AE. Thus, a word count of lexical items borrowed from AE arrives at a lower percentage for non-plain PG than for plain PG (Louden 1989). Parallel to the outspoken resentment against borrowing from AE, I observed a subtle move towards StG in the written data. PG speakers who write the dialect in newspapers and magazines today do so explicitly in order to keep PG alive30 (this was certainly much less, if at all, a factor in the 19th century). However, a �� 30 Cf., e.g., Es Deitsch Schtick, Allentown Morning Call, issue of Feb. 13, 1978.

The three varieties � 75

number of them had formal training in StG, resulting in spelling "normalization", such as capitalization of nouns and tendencies towards a StG (rather than AE) orthography, to an extent not found in articles before World War I. Such formal training is mentioned already in September 1943 in the Eileschpiggel: "Ich waar gewehnt 's echt Deitsch zu gebrauche in alle Schtick, un dann wie die Hoochgelehrte mer uf der Barzel g'schlagge hen, dann waar ich gans verschowe un bin alls noch!" ("I was used to using the real German [i.e., PG] at all times, and then as the high scholars hit me on the back, then I was all confused, and I am [confused] still." [My translation, DS])

Regarding orthography, the author of the September 1943 article continues selfconsciously: "Wann mei Schpelles lausich iss, dan gratzt die Leis raus un hockt annere Keffer nei di basse." ("If my spelling is lousy, then scratch the lice out and put other bugs in that are more fitting." [My translation, DS])

Interference and language change in PG Most researchers have focussed on plain PG so far, restricting their comments about non-plain PG to the observation that it is more conservative (i.e. more resistant to AE influence) than plain PG for sociolinguistic reasons (cf. Louden 1993:169). Nevertheless, any spoken language is changing constantly. Given the fact that the PG speech community is by now a subgroup of the AE speech community, the general direction of interference can be expected to be from AE to PG, and this has been confirmed by numerous earlier research results. Phrase books like the (mock) dictionary of Dutchified English by Gates (1987), listing English words as they are pronounced with a heavy "Dutch" accent, show that PG also influences English. However, it does not influence the grammar of Standard AE but only the performance of a subgroup of AE speakers, while the AE influence on PG affects the PG grammar and the underlying structure of the dialect, no matter where it is spoken and by whom. The greatest AE influence is attested for the PG lexicon. In addition, Louden (1989) describes morphosyntactic changes due to AE influences for plain PG, stating that non-plain PG, being more conservative than plain PG, may offer a useful comparison and a hint as to what plain PG syntax used to be like. It does not seem justified, though, to assume that non-plain PG syntax has not changed at all. The changes are subtler than in plain PG, and less consis-

76 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

tent, since non-plain PG is not much spoken anymore, and since it is the subject of preservationism. Reed (1979) points out that PG (without distinction) has basically the same syntactic structure as spoken StG. Note that this structure may differ from the norm of written StG, which is in line with the fact that PG is first and foremost a spoken language. Reed's claim appears to be true as far as the purely syntactic (structural) component of the language is concerned. Lexically based changes in syntax (e.g., changes in argument linking/subcategorization frames) and frequency changes in the choice of word order options (e.g., an increasing preference for the extraposition of prepositional phrases) are observable, however, and it will be a central point in this study to discuss whether these changes have already been fundamental enough to cause or trigger a change on a more abstract syntactic level (e.g., word order rule) in non-plain PG (see chapters 4 through 8).

Two in one: The make-up of PG PG originated as a mixture of German dialects. At the time when the German settlers arrived in America, no English elements whatsoever were part of their language. Today, PG includes a number of solidly integrated English elements, particularly in the lexicon. By differentiating between "German" and "English" elements I do not imply that there is a "pure" form of PG, without any traces of English influence, and that the English elements can be isolated, identified and removed from PG. As a language used and spoken, with its own history of linguistic development, PG clearly includes material from both languages, German and English, and this is one of its main characteristics. In the course of integrating material from two languages, it has developed as one language and is not a spontaneous mixture of two languages put together differently each time it is used. In other words, PG is not a code-switching variety in the sense of "codeswitching as the unmarked choice" (Myers-Scotton 1993:12). What PG has in common with a code-switching variety, however, is that it is a contact language, accommodating material from two languages. What happens in a code-switching context within each conversation has been happening in PG over a period of almost 300 years – much more slowly, but the outcome should be comparable since the underlying psycholinguistic processes can be assumed to be the same. Just as code-switching, as an instance of immediate language contact, occurs when speakers communicate, so does long-term language contact develop out of communication among speakers. This is the motivation and justification for applying a psycholinguistic model of code-switching to diachronic PG data, with the consequence of treating the variety as dynamic rather than as being in a fixed state.

The three varieties � 77

It only makes sense to speak of borrowing if we consider it feasible to distinguish between "native" forms and "foreign" or imported forms. The term in itself implies that it is possible, in a given context, to identify a "borrower", a receiving language (more precisely: a speaker of the "receiving" language), and borrowed, or (historically) non-native, material in this language31. Certainly this is not the case in extreme examples of contact languages, like pidgins and creoles, but in a case like PG, and any other language that has not been relexified or fundamentally changed by interrupted transmission (in the case of what Thomason/Kaufman refer to as "multiple ancestors", 1988:12), this concept is applicable, and therefore it is conceivable to try to identify every form (or its parts) as belonging to one language or the other in the bilingual setting (notwithstanding my criticism of Seel 1988 and Werner 1996 above). There are cases where this identification is no longer possible because forms and functions have intertwined in a complex manner (as in a fused lect, cf. Auer 1999). However, as a thread to guide us this approach is useful and will be pursued. I now move on to the second German-based variety in the trilingual Pennsylvania German language repertoire.

2.4.2 Amish High German The particular variant of High German used by PG speakers, especially the Old Order Amish, has received considerably less attention than PG. The first linguist to note that this variety exists as a part of the Old Order Amish language repertoire was Frey (1945). On the basis of its use, the variety is defined as a sacral language. Enninger (1986) refers to this variant of High German as "Amish High German" because it has taken its own developmental route and differs from other variants of High German in certain respects (mainly phonological). Nevertheless the relationship to High German / StG32 is clear, and Amish High German in general follows the same structural patterns as StG. Deviances can be explained based on the characteristics of the function(s) Amish High German has to fulfill within the Old Order Amish language repertoire: In most contexts �� 31 "Borrowing" is a metaphorical term, of course, and the limitations of this metaphor are obvious as "borrowed" elements (in a linguistic sense) are not returned. 32 "High German" and "Standard German" are used as synonyms here. "High German" expresses a focus on dialect geography, specifiying the place of the variety within the German dialect continuum (mainly based on phonological criteria, and including a diachronic component). "Standard German", on the other hand, while referring to the same variety, highlights the fact that it is the (current) standard variety in use in Germany, e.g. in the media.

78 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Amish High German is no longer used productively but only in reproduction and reception (reading / listening). During the 19th century Amish High German was the common medium of written communication (e.g., in letters). Even today the Old Order Amish use fixed Amish High German formulas to open and close a letter, but the body of the text, requiring productive competence, is written in English (Enninger 1984, 1986). Today Amish High German is used for Bible readings (the Old Order Amish Bible, if in German, is in High German33) and ceremonial songs; only exceptionally is it used productively, and then its use is restricted to the domain "religion". Thus, for most members of the speech community it is sufficient to have a passive command of Amish High German. With a selective language competence of this kind, interference from the productive varieties PG and English can easily enter Amish High German whenever it is read aloud or used reproductively in other ways. Such interference is particularly evident in the (reading) pronunciation of Amish High German: as in PG, 'ö', 'ü', and 'oi'/'eu' are pronounced unrounded as /e/, /i/, and /ai/ respectively, and /st/ is always pronounced /šd/ (cf. the description of phonological characteristics of PG above). The retroflex /r/ and the velarized /l/ are frequently transferred from English into Amish High German (Raith/Lehmann 1989:86). When Amish High German is used productively (i.e., in specific ritual and ceremonial contexts), lexical elements are borrowed to a limited degree from English and PG, and occasionally English syntactic structures are paralleled (e.g., tag questions of the type es ist …, ist es nicht? 'it is …, is it not?', which otherwise do not occur in German in this form). The original source of Amish High German is the German of Luther’s Bible translation of the year 1522. Amish High German has preserved a number of lexemes that have disappeared from StG (Enninger 1986:91). Besides, lexical elements from Southern German dialects are used, which is presumably due to PG or Alemannic influence on Amish High German (Enninger ibid.). A number of semantic shifts and changes have occurred, related to the reduced functionality of Amish High German and its contact with PG and English. Two main characteristics of Amish High German are the specific patterns of its prosody, and its alphabet. Both serve to mark Amish High German acoustically as well as visually as being different from other varieties, and to emphasize its ceremonial character.

�� 33 In addition, PG translations of the New Testament exist and are in use among sectarians (Johanna Jansson, p.c., April 2014).

The three varieties � 79

The prosodic characteristics can be understood as a consequence of the situations in which Amish High German is typically used: in ritual and ceremonial roles during religious services and for the singing of hymns. The close connection of Amish High German with such contexts has led to the adoption of certain features that were the vehicles of intent in specific situations, so that these features (e.g. specific intonation patterns, originally making a speech identifiable as a sermon; Enninger/Raith 1982) have become an inherent part of the variety. The alphabet reserved for writing Amish High German is Gothic typescript (Fraktur, for handwriting the corresponding Kurrent). Historically, it was a characteristic of the Reformation to use this alphabet for the writing of sacral and ceremonial texts. The fact that the Old Order groups have retained this tradition to this day illuminates in a characteristic way the consciously preservational attitude that marks their approach to life and religion. By now, however, command of the Gothic alphabet is decreasing even in these groups, so that errors occur which are identifiable as a confusion of letters caused by lack of training (e.g., ſ (= s) is confused with f; Enninger 1986:73f.). In conclusion it can be stated that Amish High German is approaching the status of a classical (dead) language (Enninger 1986:102). It is no longer used productively except on rare occasions, and the typical linguistic and behavioral patterns preceding language death can be observed in Amish High German. Among these behavioral patterns is the use of bilingual Bibles (Amish High German / English) even in conservative speech communities, rather than monolingual ones in High German (Enninger 1986:98). This was confirmed by a plain Mennonite (Lancaster County, PA; summer 1989) who told me that it was easier and faster for her to read the English Bible text, and that she had to take some more time to read the German version; nevertheless she insisted that the German text was more expressive than the English one, an indication of the undiminished prestige value High German enjoys among the conservative part of the speech community.

2.4.3 American English / Pennsylvania German English (PGE) The language of American mainstream society, English, is part of the language repertoire of PG speakers. Again one has to differentiate between plain and nonplain PG speakers when discussing the role and form of English in the respective PG speech community. Roughly, we can say that plain PG speakers speak standard English while non-plain speakers (used to) display interference from PG. Kopp refers to this fact as the "Pennsylvania German paradox":

80 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

"Contrary to all expectations, the sectarians, who live in strictly regulated religious communities and strive to keep apart from the surrounding mainstream society, are characterized by comparatively little Pennsylvania German interference in their phonology of English. At the same time, their variety of Pennsylvania German has been found to show a high degree of interference from English. By contrast, the English phonology of the nonsectarians, who are fully integrated into American mainstream society, is marked to a far greater extent, at least in the older generations. Those nonsectarians, however, who have a good active command of Pennsylvania German show comparatively little English interference." (Kopp 1999:279)

Considering patterns of language use, acquisition contexts and speakers' attitudes helps to explain this paradox.

The English of plain Pennsylvania Germans At first sight it may come as a surprise that the plain people, with their emphasis on separation from mainstream society and their persistent use of PG, should be the ones who adhere most strictly to the linguistic standard of this society. In keeping with this consideration, Frey (1945) still assumed that it is the English of the Old Order Amish (the most religiously conservative of the plain groups) that can be described as "American English built on a framework of Pennsylvania Dutch phonemic patterns and interjected continually with whole or part loan-translations from the dialect." (Frey 1945:86).34

Why this assumption is not (or no longer) correct can be explained if the acquisition contexts of PG and English are taken into account (cf. Kopp 1999:137ff.). Old Order Amish children acquire PG as their first language, and they learn no or little English before they start school around the age of six. In school, English is the medium of instruction, but it is also a subject of instruction. This means that the acquisition of English for these children takes place under normative control; they receive their input from role-models who are fully bilingual in PG and English and whose English is indistinguishable from that of monolingual English speakers. In a study investigating the English of adult Old Order Amish PG speakers, monolingual English speakers were asked to identify the English of Old Order Amish speakers in contrast to that of monolingual non-PG English speakers in tape recordings (Enninger 1985a). The results show that it was not �� 34 Frey’s description matches the concept of the matrix language frame (MLF) model (MyersScotton 1993ff.) with AE being the matrix language (although with structural influence from PG) and PG providing embedded language islands.

The three varieties � 81

possible to differentiate between the two groups of English speakers to a significant degree (Enninger 1985a:14). Variation in the English of Old Order Amish speakers corresponds to that of monolingual English speakers in the same social and regional environment. A close linguistic investigation showed that a quantitatively reduced English vocabulary among Old Order Amish speakers could merely be attested for topics that these speakers typically treat in PG (e.g., home, farm, religion). Qualitatively, it could be observed that those expressions and compounds were preferred that are either etymologically related to PG expressions or that are transparent if translated into PG. Similarly, PG words have a particularly high chance of being preserved (in PG) if (near-) homophonous cognates exist in English. These preferences are a reflex of language economy. Nevertheless their effect on the English of Old Order Amish speakers is so small that it cannot be identified in natural communication, as Enninger (1985a) has shown.

The English of non-plain Pennsylvania Germans The English of non-plain PG speakers used to present a different pattern, and this pattern is still displayed in the speech of some (older) speakers. Today, all members of the non-plain PG speech community are fluent speakers of English. This is the result of a language shift which took place over the past three to four generations. In its process, the transition from PG as L1 to English as L1 has been almost completed. Only older members (above 60–70 years of age) of the non-sectarian PG speech community are still L1 speakers of PG. The younger generations consist mainly of monolingual English speakers. If younger Pennsylvania Germans have a command of PG at all, it is an L2 competence and often severely restricted. This shift did not take place without leaving traces, however. Beginning in the 1930s, researchers remarked repeatedly on the peculiar quality of the English spoken in traditionally PG speaking areas, cf. e.g. Tucker (1934), Struble (1935), Page (1937), Kurath (1945). As Huffines (1986a) points out, a number of these investigations report observations of a variety of English spoken by PG L1 speakers for whom English was their L2 which they never completely mastered. Thus, the phenomena observed are examples of fossilized learner varieties and show the same characteristics as the learner varieties of recent German immigrants (Huffines 1980a). The features found in the speech of these Pennsylvania Germans were, as Huffines (1980a, 1984b) demonstrated, not passed on to the following generation, except for cases in which extraordinary circumstances restricted native-speaker English input to such a degree that no adjustment to a standard variety of English was possible. Particularly when non-native speakers

82 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

of English decided to speak English with their children, the acquisition of English was not normatively controlled, and a certain amount of interference was acquired early and often kept as an integrated part of the (regional) language. Pronunciation was affected most, sometimes resulting in a heavy accent. This outcome is precisely what is predicted by the Thomason/Kaufman model (for the setting of language shift) and, as a generalization, captured by Van Coetsem's effects of the Stability Gradient (cf. chapter 1). Typical substitutions were the devoicing of word- and syllable-final /b/, /d/, and /g/ (German Auslautverhärtung), monophthongization ([ou] → [o:], [ei] → [e:]), mutual substitution of /w/ and /v/. Of a different quality are characteristics which are still found in the English even of monolingual English speakers born and raised in traditionally PG speaking areas. Huffines (1986a) shows that certain intonation patterns which constitute an established part of the local variety of English are very likely to have their origins in PG. She points out that "[a]lthough Pennsylvania German influence on phonological segmentals in English does not persist in the speech of younger Pennsylvania Germans, the intonation patterns are found in the speech of both younger Pennsylvania German speakers and monolingual English speakers." (Huffines 1986a:25)

These intonation contours, particularly a falling intonation at the end of yes/no questions, are less frequent but by no means lost even in the speech of former residents of the area who have been living in other parts of the USA (surrounded by other dialects) for a substantial period of time. Raith (1992) suggests that this persistence may be due to acquisition order35: "Prosodic features of a language are the first to be acquired and remain with speakers even if they have lost all other relevant levels, e.g. segmental phonemes, morphology, syntax and lexicon. […] Thus the patterns of convergence (between PG and AE) are nicely mirrored by the chronology of language learning – the first features to be acquired and therefore the most deeply embedded […] show the greatest resistance to AE interference. Conversely, these speech habits are also the ones most readily transferred from PG into AE." (Raith 1992:162)

Further characteristics of PG English (PGE) are a noticeably high frequency in the use of certain adverbs (once(t), already, still, yet) accompanied by a (minor) semantic shift, increasing the analogy to the PG use of these adverbs. Word

�� 35 The regression hypothesis Raith alludes to is also investigated in L1 attrition contexts; cf. Keijzer 2007.

The three varieties � 83

order may be affected, too, displaying a preference for postposing adverbs and particles. Examples are: (6) [Buffington 1968:39] I've been at places already where they did that. (7) [Huffines 1984a:179] Mabel just puts potatoes and smoked sausage, parsley and regular sausage in. Analogies to German proclitic prepositional adverbs may occur: (8) [Huffines 1984a:179] I don't know if there's any flowers on. The use of tense and aspect is sometimes affected too, a feature which is also found in the speech of recent German immigrants (cf. Lattey/Tracy 2005). The interference consists of a substitution of present tense for present perfect when referring to actions or settings beginning in the past and continuing into the present. Cf., for example: (9) [Huffines 1984a:179] We're five years here. (10) [Huffines 1984a:179] She quilted several already now since she's here. (11) [Buffington 1968:40] This is the first time he did it since I'm here. In certain ways, the general language behavior of non-plain PG speakers parallels that of recent immigrants (Huffines 1984c:95f.): The first generation (grandparents) is fluent in PG but has a limited command of English; the second generation (parents) can understand PG and has a limited speaking command of it, and is fluent in English; the third generation (children) are monolingual English speakers with – possibly – some "trophy words" of PG in their linguistic repertoire. A frequently mentioned example of such "trophy words" (in the absence of any further knowledge of PG) is the following exchange: "Konnscht du Micke fonge?" – "Wann se hucke bleiwe!" ('Can you catch flies?' –'If they stay in place!'). It is interesting to note that in the case of Pennsylvania Germans, PG interference in English is not dependent on PG/English bilingualism of the indi-

84 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

vidual. As such, it is appropriate to speak of a substrate effect, with PG being the substrate to AE (cf. Kopp 1999:287). PG interference is less frequent in monolingual English speakers from a PG background than in bilingual Pennsylvania Germans, but it does not necessarily disappear completely (and occasionally it even spread and was taken up by non-PG monolingual English speakers in the region, cf. Tucker 1934, Huffines 1986a). Two factors help to explain the persistence of these interference phenomena: • Ethnic group identification, expressed by linguistic means: While the identificational function does not suffice to keep PG alive as a functional variety, the mainstream variety, AE, is marked in order to express ethnic group affiliation. • Absence of a normative control: Up until the school district reform of the 1960s (cf. above and chapter 9), Pennsylvania German children went to school together and were rarely mixed with non-Pennsylvania German children, so that this particular variety of English was shared by all of them and in this way reinforced. The delayed "immigration effect" with regard to language behavior is related to the increasing urbanization of American society in the 20th century: While PG speech communities were relatively isolated and self-sufficient for a long time, their contacts to the English-speaking environment have increased rapidly with the socio-economic developments of the past one hundred years. In this sense they are indeed recent immigrants to the English-speaking part of American society. Besides, their language behavior is a reaction to discrimination and disadvantages the Pennsylvania Germans had to endure at the time of World War I and World War II. As a consequence, Pennsylvania German parents desired to bring up their children as English monolinguals, with the dual effect of passing on their own PG interference in English and discontinuing the use of PG. A theoretical frame for this linguistic setting, language shift with traces in the new L1, is provided by the language-contact models proposed by Thomason/Kaufman (1988) and Van Coetsem (19988/1995) (cf. chapter 1). The Thomason/Kaufman model provides for the two different ways in which a speech community can react to language contact: make a decision for Language Maintenance or allow Language Shift. The Pennsylvania German speech community fits both scenarios. PG has been maintained and has been in contact with English since the German settlers arrived in the USA, and it shows the results of this contact most visibly in the lexicon. On the other hand, the non-plain speech community has by now undergone a language shift to English, which is almost completed. This shift oc-

The three varieties � 85

curred rather rapidly, i.e. within roughly three generations, meeting the "preconditions" for imperfect learning as suggested by Thomason/Kaufman (1988:39). The structural aspect of this type of interference is highlighted by Hancin-Bhatt's (1994:241) definition of transfer: "[T]ransfer is a consequence of trying to recognize new (L2) input within a previously defined system."

This definition not only holds in the context of phonology in which it originated but can easily be transferred to intonation contours and syntax as further parts of the system. These are the areas which are affected by transfer from PG into English. While the PGE lexicon contains some borrowings from PG, a comparison with the much larger extent of borrowing in PG (from AE) makes it clear that the PG-borrowings in PGE must be the by-product of long and intense language contact and cannot be the central area of transfer. The next section summarizes the functions and contexts of use of the German and English varieties used in Pennsylvania German speech communities.

2.4.4 Summary of the varieties and their functions Pennsylvania German (PG) • origin and development: levelling dialect based on a range of southwestern German dialects. • functions plain PG: established function as in-group variety in family and religious community, clear-cut domains of use; in conservative groups it is the L1, otherwise it is acquired at the same time as English (bilingual L1 acquisition); restricted to spoken registers, not used for writing. non-plain PG: no clearly defined functions; if spoken, then often used in communication with older neighbors and family members; currently no longer L1 of the speech community (the youngest L1-speakers are 60 years of age and older); strongly receding in use; if acquired as L2, it is because of personal interest and motivation, not because of necessity; contexts in which it is used (spoken/written) are likewise chosen on the basis of personal preference and show individual variation.

86 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Amish High German (AHG) - plain only • origin and development: variant of Standard (High) German, based on the German Bible translation by Luther. • functions: reading/quoting Bible texts and prayer hymns; passive command (decreasing among younger members of the speech community); not used productively except for a few highly restricted contexts. Pennsylvania German English (PGE) - non-plain only • characterization: English with PG interference in intonation, phonology, syntax and (to a limited degree) lexicon. • functions: today an ethnicity marker, with traces of a fossilized learner variety, in general only in the spoken register; the written register shows little to no interference from PG (cf., however, Tucker 1934:4); compromise between assimilation to mainstream and preservation of cultural identity. (Standard) American English (AE) • functions: standard variety of the dominant culture (administration, schools, media, language of the majority); English competence is necessary because of the high mobility of the population. in the plain community: L2 (when entering school), sometimes acquisition parallel to PG acquisition (bilingual L1 acquisition); normative control via instruction in school, therefore no significant PG interference; the only variety in the language repertoire that is used productively in writing; spoken with non-members of the religious community (i.e., usually with monolingual English speakers) and with children who demonstrate learning difficulties (to reduce the load of the learning task, Huffines 1991b:12; cf. also Louden 1992b:275). in the non-plain community: L1 (or, formerly, acquired at the same time as PG); spoken and written in almost all contexts; in the process of replacing PG and PGE (substitution almost completed).

The sociolinguistic aspect � 87

2.5 The sociolinguistic aspect It is inadequate to investigate PG, Amish High German and PGE in isolation from one another. As long as such an isolated approach was taken, the special linguistic position of the Old Order Amish, for example, could not be assessed; they were of peripheral interest with regard to each individual variety (Enninger 1985b:138). Only when languages in interaction came into the focus of linguistic research was it possible to appreciate the relations between the languages that belonged to one language repertoire. The door was opened to the investigation of the influence a cultural reference system has on language(s) and its (their) usage in a particular speech community.

2.5.1 Bilingualism and diglossia The differentiation of PG speakers into plain and non-plain illustrates that the sociocultural aspect must not be neglected in an appropriate description of PG and English in the PG speech community. As was shown above, this sociocultural distinction offers an explanation for the different bilingual scenarios. For the non-plain speakers, both PG and English are principally appropriate in all possible domains and functions (no sociolinguistic restrictions); this situation results in overlapping domains. Supported by tendencies of language economy, the language of the mainstream society, English, eventually "won out" over PG, since interaction with monolingual English speakers increased over time and PG was not applicable in those contexts. Increasing English interaction encouraged increasing English competence so that eventually all PG speakers had to be fluent in English. Since PG had no specified functions supporting its continued use, it was more economical to use English in all contexts, including ingroup communication. Thus PG became dispensable and is now disappearing from the non-plain language repertoire. A different situation has developed in plain speech communities, as the example of the Old Order Amish illustrates. Here, bilingualism is secured by diglossia, i.e. each variety has its own non-overlapping functions. Therefore, in order to guarantee the functioning of communication in all domains, none of the varieties can be given up. The three varieties constituting the language repertoire of the Old Order Amish are PG, Amish High German, and English (cf. above); among less conservative plain groups, Amish High German has been replaced by AE.

88 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

Enninger (1986:97) describes the structure of the language repertoire of the Old Order Amish based on the diglossic positioning of each variety and in relation to identity values and prestige values. Relying on Ferguson's (1959) and Fishman's (1967) concept of diglossia, he interprets these three varieties and their patterns of usage among the Old Order Amish in the following way: Table 2.3: Diglossia in Old Order Amish communities (Enninger 1986:97) out-diglossia ours in-diglossia values  identity prestige

varieties 


Amish High German

Pennsylvania German


high high

high low

low high

Kloss (1966), who introduces the distinction between in- and out-diglossia, defines "in-diglossia" as referring to a diglossic relationship between two closely related languages, while "out-diglossia" refers to the relationship between two non- or not closely related languages. In the case of the Old Order Amish as analyzed by Enninger, the main emphasis is put on the sociocultural value of the diglossic situation rather than on the genetic relationship between the languages involved. As such, in-diglossia refers to the diglossic differentiation of varieties used inside the identified group, while out-diglossia refers to the diglossic situation between in-group and out-group communication. Raith (1982:197ff.) explores the diglossia model developed by Ferguson (1959) with regard to different linguistic settings in plain PG groups. He compares the language behavior of three different groups: (1) Old Order Amish, (2) Conservative Mennonites, (3) Church Mennonites + Church of Brethren. With regard to plain values such as separation from the world, dress codes and religious interpretation, the first group is conservative (strict observation of all rules), the second group is conservative-progressive (some of the rules are loosened), and the third group is progressive (a member of the plain cultural continuum with strong orientation towards mainstream society). According to Raith, the Old Order Amish speech community (1) is characterized by a functional distribution of the varieties PG, Amish High German and English, stability in cultural and linguistic regard and a high number of bilingual speakers. The second group, the Conservative Mennonites, are an example of a plain group that has opened itself to a limited degree towards the cultural norms of the mainstream society. As a consequence, the repertoire of communi-

The sociolinguistic aspect � 89

cative roles was extended to include more and increasingly diverse out-group interaction (i.e., interaction outside of a clearly defined frame of sociolinguistic behavior). This extension led to a proportional decrease in the use of PG and to the loss of Amish High German. The third group, Church Mennonites / Church of Brethren, has accepted mainstream cultural values to a considerable degree. Here, social roles like ingroup member/out-group member are no longer consistent with the old sociolinguistic classifications, so the functional differentiation between PG and English still found in Old Order Amish groups could not be maintained. PG has been supplanted by English as the proper, or at least permissible, variety in all domains. Varieties are no longer chosen in line with a culturally determined linguistic differentiation based on social roles but by individual preference. This group shows considerable assimilation to the mainstream culture, which has a crucial effect on the linguistic behavior of its members. Raith presents the following summarized overview of the extent of diglossia and bilingualism found in each of the three groups (Raith 1982:197; prestige values: H = high, L = low [based on Ferguson 1959]). (1) Old Order Amish + Diglossia / + Bilingualism Amish High German: H-variety, not productive, ceremonial value Pennsylvania German: L-variety, productive (spoken), in-group communication English: L-variety, productive (written/spoken), out-group communication (2) Conservative Mennonites + Diglossia / + Bilingualism Amish High German: NO Pennsylvania German: L-variety, productive (spoken), ethnic identification factor English: H-variety, productive (written/spoken), domains: religion, school, public (3) Church Mennonites / Church of Brethren - Diglossia / ± Bilingualism Amish High German: NO Pennsylvania German: individual variation in competence and use English: appropriate for all functions and domains, associated with socio-economic progress

90 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

2.5.2 Language as a role attribute in conservative plain PG communities Enninger (1985c:201ff.) presents an approach to the Old Order Amish language situation which is based on the concepts of "domain" and "role". He points out that the natural language acquisition context in non-overlapping domains, rather than the controlled language instruction (learning) in the schools is crucial for the factual maintenance of PG and Amish High German. In an analytic account, Enninger demonstrates how a specific environment can be broken down by parameters of language use. The domain for which this analysis was done is an Old Order Amish one-room-school (grades 1 through 8). Table 2.4: Linguistic role attributes in the domain "Old Order Amish school" (Enninger 1985c:201) Roles: Recess roles Role attributes: PG (English)

Instructional meta-roles English (PG)

Target language practice roles Amish High German English (reproduction only)

Enninger notes that the first language of all Old Order Amish school beginners, PG, is neither the language of instruction nor is it a subject of instruction (ibid.:209). This fact, a reflex of the status PG holds in the plain speech community (i.e., not appropriate for public and formal functions), helps to explain why PG could not establish itself as a written language among the plain people, and particularly why none of the suggested orthographic systems developed into a standard orthography of PG. Many PG speakers are not even aware of the existence of different systems; this knowledge remains mostly limited to linguists. Enninger emphasizes that the linguistic behavior of the Old Order Amish is "eines der faszinierendsten Beispiele dafür, daß mehrere distinkte, ko-existente Varietäten in einer sozialen Gruppierung deren Kommunikation nicht nur nicht behindern, sondern zu einem äußerst flexiblen Instrument zur Kodierung sozialer Bedeutung werden können" (Enninger 1985b:152). ("…one of the most fascinating instances of the fact that several distinct co-existent varieties in one social community not only do not impede its ability to communicate but can become an extremely flexible instrument in the encoding of social significance." [My translation, DS])

The research results of the past decades have demonstrated that concepts like "domain" and "role" are useful instruments for a sociolinguistic investigation of the differentiated linguistic behavior of (plain) PG speakers, I state, because they help to identify the interacting components of the finely balanced sociolin-

Conclusions � 91

guistic system of the Old Order Amish. These results are of considerable value for sociolinguistic research in bilingualism and bilingual language use, as they capture the mutual interactions between culture and language of a clearly structured speech community, such as that of the Old Order Amish. The results illustrate that the linguistic perspective must interact with the social one in order to reach a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying language choice. This is also true, I argue, for speech communities with a less strictly structured language repertoire. A case in point is the nonplain PG speech community where the concept of diglossia does not apply (cf. Kopp 1999:208f.). Only the oldest generation of non-plain PG speakers shows remnants of domain distinctions, role distributions or in/out-group differentiation in the use of PG, such as using PG among family and friends. For younger speakers, their command of PG is usually not sufficient to make such distinctions. Besides, in the absence of a diglossic structure it is always permissible (though maybe not always equally acceptable) to use either variety, more precisely: to use English (as well as PG) in in-group contexts. Using PG with outgroup members is usually not possible for practical reasons: The out-group does not speak PG.

2.6 Conclusions The research concerning PG and its contact languages Amish High German and English can be divided into three stages. First descriptions of PG were undertaken in isolation from the other varieties, usually limited to the observation of lexical phenomena and to the collecting of word lists (mid-19th century – ca. 1930). In the second stage, roughly between 1930 and 1960, PG was still frequently investigated in isolation, but these investigations were more detailed than the earlier ones and included additional linguistic areas besides the lexicon (phonology, morphology, syntax). Furthermore, this period marks the beginning of research on PG as a language in contact (e.g., Frey 1945). The use of High German in addition to PG was acknowledged for the first time, and the existence of specific characteristics in the English(es) of PG speakers were noted. The past five decades have witnessed a new interest in subsidiary varieties of PG (e.g., Virginia German, Midwestern PG) and a growing sociolinguistic concern with the language repertoire and the linguistic behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans. An important aspect in this context is the dichotomy between plain and non-plain PG speakers. In investigations accounting for different types of plain groups, the limits of a simple dichotomy became visible,

92 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

however (Raith 1982). For a finer linguistic distinction the concept of a continuum between 'isolated' and 'integrated' is useful, referring to the relative cultural positioning of Pennsylvania German subgroups with respect to the mainstream society. This continuum fits the PG speech community as a whole as well as covering the spectrum of the plain groups, as Raith’s examples show. Among the non-plain groups, one does not find isolated speech communities in a strict sense. Nevertheless a graded sequence (more/less use of PG, more/fewer PG features in English) is identifiable here, too. The crucial difference between plain and non-plain groups, which justifies the maintenance of this dichotomy, is that in plain groups the linguistic consequences of their position within the continuum are predictable because they are derived from the religious-cultural identification of each group. Among the non-plain communities, determination of linguistic behavior by cultural group identification has been replaced by individual variation and is not predictable. What this fact implies is that for the non-plain PG speech community the use of PG does not have a semiotic character. This is linked to the non-diglossic situation of non-plain Pennsylvania Germans. As a consequence, it is not necessary for them to remain fluent or functional in this language; any semi- (or less) competence in PG is equally fit to fulfill the function of marking ethnic group identity. Their use of PG is inclusive in that it signifies affiliation not only with the American but also with the Pennsylvania German culture ('We are both'). Clyne (2003:212), among others, points out the important role the speaker's attitude plays for his/her patterns of multilingual language use: "Some of the attitudinal decisions are shaped by the speaker's identity as, say, a Vietnamese-Australian rather than an overseas (or exile) Vietnamese." In this sense, using PG is part of being "Pennsylvania German-American", in contrast to being (non-hyphenated) "American". For the plain people, on the other hand, the use of PG (as opposed to English) is semiotic in the sense that its use is a symbol for separation from the world. It is exclusive in that it marks the boundary between their own Anabaptist affiliation, and the mainstream culture ('We are different'). Using PG is an essential part of the cultural sign inventory (besides life-style, dress code, practiced church membership, adult baptism, etc.) which the plain people apply to mark their religious convictions. They are not interested in being German or keeping PG 'pure' (i.e., restricting English influence). For them, what is relevant is to keep their semiotic system intact because it is an essential instrument for expressing their sociocultural identity. While it is possible to fit all existing types of PG speech communities into the continuum between 'isolated' and 'integrated' (with the Old Order Amish at the 'isolated' end and non-plain quasi-monolingual English-speaking Pennsylvania Germans as most 'integrated') there is still a qualitative difference

Conclusions � 93

between plain and non-plain Pennsylvania Germans. This difference plays a role even when progressive plain groups are superficially non-distinct from non-plain Pennsylvania Germans. The reason is that for plain Pennsylvania Germans, giving up PG in the functions originally assigned to it restructures their semiotic system and signifies a decisive step towards integration – an integration of mainstream culture into their own cultural system as well as their own integration into mainstream culture. For the non-plain community, this step is not necessary. In a sense, their speech community is marked by an a priori integration; they can be, and for a long time have been, both: Pennsylvania German and American. Their speech community is characterized by precisely this integrated identity. If they give up PG for practical (or language-economy) purposes, it is not a qualitative change that takes place, but merely a shift in the quantitative balance between the use of PG and AE. Early written documents of non-plain PG (e.g. Pit Schwefflebrenner 1868) demonstrate this integrated identity linguistically by liberal language mixing practices, and with regard to the contents, by establishing a specific PGAmerican (political) identity. The purist efforts of recent authors reflect that the shift to English has in fact taken place. It is a reaction post factum, an effort to revive PG in the speech community, which comes after the realization that PG has lost its reason to exist. The reaction is mirrored in the new interest of a younger generation in learning PG in classrooms because their parents and, more frequently, their grandparents spoke "the dialect," but they themselves had neither the interest nor the opportunity to learn it as children. It is also reflected by the missing substantial support purist authors experience among (ethnic) Pennsylvania Germans. The interest is nostalgic and anecdotal; PG is part of the cultural heritage, and its use flags identification with this group. But it has no distinct communicative purpose anymore. Since non-plain Pennsylvania Germans always considered themselves Americans at the same time, there is no break in identity or tradition. The integrated PG/AE identity rendered a smooth transition possible. A central objective in my investigation has been to see where the linguistic limits of this kind of integration are, and how the transition is reflected linguistically over the past 130 years. Obviously, linguistic systems must conform to rules in order to be able to convey meaning. This is true for mixed utterances as well. The full scope of mixing potential is considerable, but it is limited by the internal rules of the systems involved. I set out to demonstrate how PG speakers/writers took and take advantage of the mixing potential while still adhering to the system-internal rules which provide the set frame and which by their very nature can never be subject to individual variation (among the adult speakers of a speech community).

94 � The Pennsylvania Germans and their language(s)

No diachronic investigation of the structural aspects of PG has been undertaken so far. This type of research must necessarily rely on written sources and is therefore restricted to the investigation of non-plain PG; plain groups did and do use PG for face-to-face communication only and do not write in this language. PG research can provide valuable insights into conditions and results of bilingualism. A comparison of the linguistic settings of plain and non-plain PG offers the opportunity to study how two different speech communities, starting on the same linguistic premises, chose different ways of dealing with a continued contact situation leading to different linguistic outcomes. Today, we can observe how this choice affected not only the linguistic behavior (sociolinguistic aspect) but also the linguistic system itself.

� Part II: Data analyses

3 The PG data corpus 3.1 Presentation of data corpus and data background 3.1.1 Introduction The present study investigates diachronic changes in Pennsylvania German. Therefore, it is based on written, not on spoken, data, which permits a comparison of data produced at different points in time over a period of almost 130 years. The data base consists of texts published in newspapers and magazines between 1868 and 1992, and all analyzed texts originated in southeastern Pennsylvania (cf. map and detailed information below). An additional set of published PG texts from the same period and region were used for comparison, in order to establish that the analyzed texts were representative of their period, and for content-related information, e.g. statements about the use, acquisition or prestige of PG. These texts were not analyzed structurally or quantitatively for linguistic phenomena. By keeping constant the data type (written published texts) and register as well as the region of origin (and thus the geographical dialect variant), time of production is the one variable in which the texts crucially differ. This choice ensures the comparability of the data and makes certain that the observed changes correlate first and foremost with the passing of time, not with a change in register or other factors that may influence language use. Written data often reflect a different register from spoken data. By restricting oneself to written data, however, one avoids creating the wrong impression of an apparent development created by the undifferentiated comparison of different registers. In addition to the primary corpus of written data, further data sources were drawn upon to receive an insight into language attitudes and into language choice and speech practice, to compare Pennsylvania German with Palatinate German, and to check dictionary entries against empirical data. These sources include the following data sets: • Spoken data - a recorded free conversation with a male non-plain Pennsylvania German informant, GH, from the Lancaster area (1991) - a free conversation with Richard Druckenbrod, author of "Es Deitsch Schtick" (1997) - a recorded free conversation with a group of L1 and L2 speakers of Pennsylvania German from the Allentown area (1997)

98 � The PG data corpus


• -

• -

elicited grammaticality judgements on preposition stranding phenomena in Pennsylvania German from six L1 speakers of Pennsylvania German from the Lancaster area (1998) Internet resources "Texte uff Pälzisch" ('Texts in Palatinate German'), an online resource of Palatinate German texts (1997-2001) [] guestbook entries in Palatinate German (2000) Print resources dictionaries of Pennsylvania German and Palatinate German to compare relevant entries with empirical data for grammatical phenomena, e.g. argument structure of verbs.

These data were not included in the primary data corpus as they are mainly synchronic and are derived from diverse sources that are not comparable in an objective way. With the exception of the electronic Palatinate text corpus (cf. chapter 7) they were not analysed either structurally or quantitatively. The data are referred to throughout my study where they provide information that is relevant for the interpretation of specific linguistic phenomena in the primary corpus.

3.1.2 Written data: Problems and advantages Written data consist of controlled output, usually cleansed of spontaneous production errors, sometimes proofread by others besides the writer/author. They may reflect a form of speech that the writer does not use in spoken communication, and they do not allow insight into on-line processes of language production and perception. This is true of the (published) texts analyzed here, while it may not fully apply to private letters, diaries or other personal written documents.1 But there are also essential advantages in using written data, as compared to spoken data. Written data make possible a longterm diachronic comparison, allowing an investigation of periods in which it was impossible to record spoken language (e.g. in research on Old and Middle English). This is of particular inte-

�� 1 Cf. Koch/Oesterreicher (1985, 1994) for an in-depth discussion of the differences between written and spoken language, and for a classification of a range of written and spoken language pro-ducts.

Presentation of data corpus and data background � 99

rest in language contact research if the focus is on how a language is shaped by use over longer periods of time, how its particular mixed consistency develops, on which levels and in which areas it changes faster or more slowly, or even not at all; and which steps can be identified on this way. These matters cannot be investigated based on spoken data alone, because the spoken data that is or could be available covers a time span that is too limited for such investigations. Written data comprise actual, though not spontaneous, linguistic utterances. Written texts, especially if they are published, can be assumed to have been produced carefully. Performance errors – typographical errors aside – will not appear to the same extent (if at all) as in spoken discourse. Thus, whatever is presented in these texts has been consciously approved of, at least by the writer him- or herself. It is crucial for the current investigation that this approval extends (by implication) to any interference phenomena the texts may contain because otherwise these phenomena would have been erased or changed. Importantly, there was no prescriptive linguistic norm in any strict sense that could have been applied to these texts. For this reason, Louden (2011:182) suggests that such texts "hew quite closely to the naturally spoken language." Therefore, the texts offer a reliable (if conservative) estimate of what kinds of contact phenomenon were established and acceptable to a speaker/writer of that time. In the case of PG, the conditions for a diachronic comparison based on written data are favorable: A considerable amount of written data is available in this variety, covering a period of approximately 150 years. Sufficient material can be analyzed for individual authors to make a reliable distinction between nonce borrowings and established borrowings (lexical and structural). This is important for the assessment of developmental tendencies with long-term results. When comparing, in the present study, texts by different authors from different times, comparability was controlled for via a careful choice of sources, i.e. the content, form and addressee(s) of the texts are as similar as possible. I analyzed text blocks covering longer periods of time (up to several years) for individual authors, in order to be able to tell regularity from accident in each author's text production. Only if these requirements were met (similarity of texts in form, content and addressee(s); same region of origin; availability of a sufficient amount of texts from the same author), the data were employed for analysis in this study. For this qualitative study, the decision was made in favor of larger data sets from few authors, rather than limited sets from a broad range of writers (including different areas of origin). This was motivated by the consideration that small data sets run the risk of containing nonce phenomena that are not typical of the language use of a speaker/writer. The risk of the current study, in turn, is a focus on idiolects, that is, investigating the language of few individu-

100 � The PG data corpus

als rather than that of a speech community. This has been counterbalanced by drawing on complementary data and comparable investigations (e.g. Werner 1996) which showed similar results, so that the data can be assumed to be sufficiently representative.

3.1.3 The relevance of written data for the development of modern-day PG Historically, PG was primarily a spoken, not a written, language. This is reflected to this day in PG orthographic conventions, and it is still true for plain Pennsylvania Germans, who hardly ever write PG (cf. above). For non-plain Pennsylvania Germans, the picture has changed. Today, nonplain PG is not acquired before, and rarely at the same time as, AE (if at all, cf. e.g. Louden 2001, 2003b). As I pointed out above, it is more common to find young adults who, re-discovering their ethnic roots, turn to the language their grandparents spoke and attend classes in PG offered by church communities, community colleges and similar institutions. This type of class relies, among other sources, on written data: on PG grammars, on dialect literature (stories, poems, songs), and on newspaper columns of the kind that was analyzed here (cf. Schlegel 2012). In this way, written PG has gained ground as a source of linguistic information for language learners and plays by now an important role in the (second language) acquisition of non-plain PG. Written PG and spoken PG shape the linguistic competence of a new generation of non-plain PG speakers. In view of these facts, the data analyzed here receive relevance not only as a testimony of past developments in PG but also as an influential part of the input in the acquisition process of new learners of PG.

3.2 Data origin 3.2.1 Region of data origin The texts that provide the data base for my investigation were published in Allentown, Lancaster and Pennsburg (14 mi. / 23 km south of Allentown). The writers' places of origin are located in the same area. The map of Pennsylvania, Figure 3.1, shows this area in the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania. The sources of the data-base texts, together with basic biographical information on the respective writers, are listed following the map.

Data origin � 101

Figure 3.1: Map of Pennsylvania2 (circle added to indicate region of data origin, DS)

3.2.2 Data sources and authors' backgrounds "Pit Schwefflebrenner" – Lancaster, Pa. (1868) Place of publication: Lancaster (Pennsylvania) No. of analyzed texts: 26 letters, 5 advertisements (2,217 verb tokens3) Publication dates: May 1868 - December 1868 Author: Edward H. Rauch, b. 1820 in Lancaster County, PA, d. 19024 Notes: Collection of political campaign letters that originally appeared continuously (on the given dates) in the periodical Father Abraham. �� 2 Source: 3 'Verb tokens' are any occurring verb forms. This term is used in contrast to 'verb types' (cf. section 3.3), denoting verb stems or lexemes. E.g. laugh and laughs are two verb tokens but only one verb type. 4 Werner (1996:383), Louden (2011:182)

102 � The PG data corpus

"Sim Schmalzgsicht's Own Magazine" – Allentown, Pa. (1913) Place of publication: Allentown (Pennsylvania) No. of analyzed texts: 96 (2,749 verb tokens) Publication dates: July – October/November 1913 Editor: Charles W. Weiser5 Notes: Monthly magazine, containing humorous features. The first issue was published in July 1913; the magazine apparently was discontinued after 4 issues. "Es Deitsch Schtick" – Allentown, Pa. (1978 - 1985) Place of publication: Allentown (Pennsylvania) No. of analyzed texts: 40 (2,509 verb tokens) Publication dates: February 1978 - July 1985 Author: Richard Druckenbrod, b. 1929, Reading (Berks County, PA), d. 2003 Notes: Weekly dialect column (PG with English translation) in the periodical Allentown Morning Call; the feature started in February 1978 and was discontinued after July 1985. "Der Schnitzelbonk" – Pennsburg, Pa. (1989 - 1992) Place of publication: Pennsburg (Pennsylvania) No. of analyzed texts: 97 (3,602 verb tokens) Publication dates: August 1989 - February 1992 Author: Carl Arner, b. 1936, Tamaqua (Schuylkill County, PA) Notes: Weekly dialect column (PG, no English translation) in the periodical Town & Country; includes short sections of Bible translation (in PG, translated from English) and announcements for PG cultural events. Complementing these primary data sets that were analyzed in detail, texts from different sources were included in the analysis in order to verify the use of specific constructions and patterns, e.g. in chapter 6. The additional data are derived from the following sources: "The Pennsylvania Dutchman" (A) -- Lancaster (1873) Place of publication: Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Publication dates of analyzed issues: January 1873 - March 1873

�� 5 There are no authors' names given in this periodical. Judging from the linguistic and stylistic homogeneity of the texts, I consider it possible that all texts were written by the same person, maybe by Charles W. Weiser, the editor, himself.

Data origin � 103

Editor: Notes:

Edward H. Rauch (cf. "Pit Schwefflebrenner") Magazine with PG and English features, including word lists PG – English, discussions on ethnic (PG) matters and on the language and its use (first published issue of January, 1873)

"The Penn Germania" -- Lititz (1912 - 1913)6 Place of publication: Lititz (Pennsylvania) Publication dates of analyzed issues: January 1912 – March 1913 Editor: H. W. Kriebel Notes: Magazine with cultural focus on PG, mainly in English; PG section "Mudderschproch" ("Mothertongue", 2-3 pages) included in each issue (only the PG section was analyzed) "Der Pennsylvaanisch Deitsch Eileschpiggel" – Bethlehem/Lancaster (1943 - 46) Places of publication: Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA) (1943/44) Franklin and Marshal College (Lancaster, PA)7 Publication dates of analyzed issues: September 1943, June 1944, Spring 1946 Editor: John William Frey, b. 1916, York County, PA8, d. 1989; different contributors from southeastern PA Notes: Bimonthly periodical, featuring stories, anecdotes, news items, poems, book reviews and lexicographical items in PG and English (first published issue of Sept., 1943) "The Pennsylvania Dutchman" (B) – Lancaster (1949/1954) Place of publication: Pennsylvania Dutch Folklore Center, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Publication dates of analyzed issues: May 26, 1949; June 16, 1949; Jan. 1, 1954; Feb. 1, 1954; March 15, 1954 Editors: J.W.Frey (cf. above) / Alfred L.Shoemaker / Don Yoder; contributors from southeastern PA Notes: "The Weekly Devoted to Pennsylvania Dutch Culture"9; stories, anecdotes, recipes, poems, riddles, etc., in PG with English translation and in English (first published issue of May 5, 1949)

�� 6 The issues of Jan. to March 1913 are available digitally under 7 Beam 1981 8 Beam 1981 9 Beam 1981

104 � The PG data corpus

3.3 Research interest and general findings My research interest was to investigate structural change in PG, and to explore to what extent such change is contact-induced and where language-internal developments are at play. I chose two foci of analysis: changes at the interface of lexical semantics and syntax (chapter 4), and developments in the clause structure of PG (chapters 5 through 8). I divided the texts into sections according to the year(s) of their publication (1868, 1913, 1978-85, 1989-92). Linguistic comparisons were made between these sections. In order to assess changes at the lexical semantics/syntax interface I made a record of all verbs that were used in the texts (types, i.e. verb stems; and tokens, i.e. total number of occurring verb forms). A total of 1,285 verb types was included in the analyses, distributed over 11,077 verb tokens. The type/token ratio, ordered by data section, is as follows: Table 3.1: PG verbs (type / token ratio)

type:token (absolute) type:token (relational)

1868 303 : 2217 1 : 7.32

1913 381 : 2749 1 : 7.22

1978ff. 294 : 2509 1 : 8.53

1989ff. 307 : 3602 1 : 11.73

The numbers indicate that the token frequency increases over time. This could hint at a more limited vocabulary where the available lexical items are used more often, or where the formulaic use of certain lexical items gains ground as compared to the varied use of a broader range of items in earlier texts. Generally, I found that the 1868 and 1913 data sections frequently pattern together with respect to lexical and structural choices. The same is true for the 1978ff. and 1989ff. data, respectively, with the reservation that the writer of the 1978ff. texts tends more towards (Standard) German in his spelling and capitalization patterns, and in his lexical choices (i.e., in the more consciously controlled areas of language production). He uses fewer English loan words than all other authors, his goal being the continuation and preservation of the Pennsylvania German variety. His intention, as well as other PG speakers' reactions to some of his lexical choices, are made explicit in the following quote:

Research interest and general findings � 105

"Wann ich am Schwetze odder am Schreiwe bin, unn's Watt iss eens ass Leit net graad verschtehne, dann saage sie so oft ass ich en Hochdeitsch Watt ge-used hab. Dann muss ich 'ne auslege ass des odder sell Watt schunn frieher ge-used waar, unn sie sinn doch oftmols noch net zefridde." ("Es Deitsch Schtick" / Feb 20, 1978) ["When I'm speaking or writing, and the word is one [i.e., I use a word, DS] that people don't immediately understand, then they often say I've used a "High" German word. Then I've got to explain to them that this or that word was already used earlier [in PG, DS] and even then they are often not satisfied." –original translation by RD10]

Especially with respect to the 1978ff. data it is noteworthy, though, that the conscious "manipulation" of language meets its limits where structural aspects of language are concerned: The structural choices of these texts generally show very similar tendencies to the texts of 1989ff. and reflect the development of Pennsylvania German in a way the writer is not aware of (for an analysis of these structural choices, see chapters 5 through 8), highlighting the fact that certain parts of language use can be manipulated while others escape conscious control even in writing. This is an important finding in view of the question of how informative and authentic written data are with respect to a writer's language production processes and linguistic competence. A quantitative comparison of the use of German verb stems (types) vs. English verb stems (types) yields the results in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2. This count serves to give a first impression of the distribution of English and German verb stems in the data. Therefore, no intermediate categories (e.g. "mixed", "both", or "ambiguous") were included. In the case of cognates, the stem was counted as German; mixed stems (which are rare; e.g. erstounde < E 'astound' + G 'erstaunen') were counted as English since they reflect English influence. Orthography is not a reliable indicator for language affiliation (cf. my discussion of PG orthography above). In the case of 6 types (7 tokens) total, the verb meaning and origin could not be recovered. These items are not included in this table; therefore the percentages do not in all cases add up to 100%.

�� 10 The 1978ff. texts are complemented by English translations that follow the PG texts closely in word choice and sentence structure. The purpose of these translations is to enable less fluent readers of PG to understand the PG texts, and to help them improve their language skills. The writer conceded that his translations are not always correct English (R. Druckenbrod, p.c., April 1997).

106 � The PG data corpus

Table 3.2: Ratio of German vs. English verb stems (types) in PG verb types German : English (absolute) German : English (%)

1868 178 : 124 59.1 : 40.9

1913 250 : 129 65.6 : 33.9

1978-85 281 : 11 95.6 : 3.7

1989-92 274 : 32 89.3 : 10.4

100 80 59,1 60

65,6 95,6



40 20




0 1868






Figure 3.2: Ratio of German vs. English verb stems (types) in PG

It is further illuminating to compare the relative distribution of English types and tokens, and of German types and tokens. The main finding from this comparison is that German verb types are used considerably more often (i.e. with a higher token frequency) than English verb types; this trend increases over the course of time. That is, while the number of verb types from German and English is fairly similar in the earlier texts, this is not true for the number of German and English tokens (occurrences). Clearly, this relationship contributes to a more German "appearance" of the texts than a comparison of the number of verb types implies. Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 illustrate the changing relations. Table 3.3: Ratio of German vs. English verb occurrences (tokens) in PG verb tokens 1868 1913 1978-85 German : English (absolute) 1843 : 372 2424 : 322 2477 : 30 German : English (%)11 83.1 : 16.8 88.2 : 11.7 98.7 : 1.2

1989-92 3468 : 115 96.8 : 3.2

�� 11 For a few items (7 types / 8 tokens total), language affiliation could not be assessed. Therefore, the percentages do not always sum up to 100%.

Research interest and general findings � 107

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% PS 1868 E types

SS 1913

DS 1978ff

SB 1989ff

E tokens

G types

G tokens

Figure 3.3: German types/tokens and English types/tokens across data sets (% of total number of types resp. tokens)

As Figure 3.3 shows, the number of verb types diverges drastically (from a 40/60 relationship (English/German) to less than 10 vs. more than 90 percent). The token frequency is considerably higher for German and lower for English from the beginning, but both, German and English tokens, show the same trend as the respective verb types do. This means that German verb types are preferred throughout my data (reflected in higher token frequencies). English verb types do have their place in the earlier texts, but only few of them "survive" into the later texts and into a time of text production characterized by a raised language awareness and with an emphasis on German elements in PG. Even those English verb stems that seem to be established borrowings by the time of the latest data set are, in average, used considerably less frequently than German verb stems. The course taken by the changing proportion of English verb stems (types) in the PG data I analyzed finds an interesting parallel in the data Werner (1996:184) presents. In his Figure 32 he illustrates the changing proportion of language contact phenomena (i.e., share of English-based lexemes in PG) in the data he investigated. I reproduce Werner's (1996:184) Figure 32 here as Figure 3.4 for illustration, followed by a comparable representation of the results for E tokens in my own PG corpus (Figure 3.5):

108 � The PG data corpus

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1861 – 1887

1891 – 1916

1936 – 1966

1978 – 1995

Figure 3.4: Lexical language contact phenomena (tokens) – total (corpus of each section of analysis = 100%) (= Figure 32 in Werner 1996:184, reproduced)

18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1868


1978 - 1985

1989 - 1992

Figure 3.5: English verb tokens in PG (cf. Table 3.3 above; total number of verb tokens in each section of analysis = 100%)

The overall percentages in Werner's data are considerably lower which could be due to the fact that they refer to all words in each of his data sets, while I considered verbs only. His results, however, grouped into four data sections at similar periods as mine, show a trend that is paralleled by my own findings, with a decrease in lexical contribution from English between the first three periods and an increasing amount of English-origin lexemes during the fourth period. Chapters 4 through 8 present the analysis and interpretation of several linguistic aspects of the described corpus of non-plain written PG data. Chapter 4 focuses on lexical semantic/syntactic patterns of change, while in chapters 5 through 8 selected syntactic aspects of PG are discussed. The analyses and interpretations are to be understood against the background of the models of

Research interest and general findings � 109

language contact and change as presented in chapter 1 and in the context of the non-plain speech community's sociolinguistic conditions described in chapter 2.

4 Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 Contrasts between English and German The syntactic encoding patterns of arguments (i.e., linking rules for mapping semantic information onto syntactic structure) differ between languages (Plank 1983, Hawkins 1986, Fabricius-Hansen 1991, Primus/Lindner 1994, Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005). In order to identify changes in PG that can be traced back to the influence of English, it is necessary to first define areas where German and English diverge. Only with respect to such areas is it possible to conclude that PG has or has not converged with English. All other areas are "gray areas" (Clyne 1987:755) where no definite conclusions can be drawn with respect to contact-induced language change in PG. A "gray area", in Clyne's use of the term, includes items belonging to both languages involved, e.g. lexical transfers, bilingual homophones (including place names), and compromise forms. Hawkins (1986) presents a contrastive comparison of English and German that offers a useful starting-point in this respect, although his conclusions have to be taken with some reservation (see discussion below). With his observations based on the developments in Old and early Middle English and on a comparative approach to English and German, he suggests that there are systematic contrasts between English and German with respect to the mapping between form and meaning. From a detailed comparison of various structural and semantic aspects of the two languages, he concludes that "[w]here the grammars of English and German contrast, the surface forms (morphological and syntactic) of German are in a closer correspondence with their associated meanings[.]" (Hawkins 1986:121) [my emphasis, DS]. A similar position is advocated by Plank (1983) who proposes that patterns of encoding occur along a continuum between two principles which mark either end point: the transparency principle and the functionality principle. Following the transparency principle means that formal (syntactic or morphological) encoding is determined by the semantic function of an argument, and in its "purest" form there would be one specific way of formal encoding (e.g., in the form of morphological case-marking) for each type of semantic relationship between a verb and its argument(s). The functionality principle states that different se-

Introduction � 111

mantic relations required by one verb be realized unambiguously; a "consistent identification of semantic roles" (Plank 1983:1) with specific ways of encoding is not necessary (and, in languages with limited morphological options, not possible)1. The transfer of semantic information (about argument structure) to the syntactic realization of arguments (e.g., as subject or direct object) is referred to as mapping. English exhibits a more functional form-meaning mapping, allowing to identify the relevant form-meaning relations within one argument structure. In different contexts, however, the same morphological form can cover several meanings, e.g. several thematic roles are mapped to one morphological case (e.g. accusative case). German, on the other hand, shows a more transparent mapping pattern, where more often one form correlates with one meaning or one thematic role (e.g. experiencer – dative case; theme – accusative case) (cf. Fabricius-Hansen 1991:699). Note that German clearly exhibits functional mapping patterns too (i.e. one form covers several meanings, functions, or thematic roles); only in comparison with English, its mapping patterns are more transparent. If German is compared to Latin, for instance, we find that Latin exhibits even more transparent mapping patterns than German (von Stechow/Sternefeld 1988), due to the fact that it has a larger array of morphological forms for marking case. Hawkins (1986), arguing along similar lines as Plank (1983), remarks that there is greater ambiguity in the mapping between (morphological) surface forms and their meanings in English than in German, due to reduced morphology, e.g. in case marking. He arrives at the same conclusion with respect to the clause structure (syntactic surface forms) and its functions (e.g., the word order in main and subordinate clauses is the same in English but different in German). Hawkins proposes that the systematic contrasts found between the two languages are direct and indirect consequences of the large-scale loss of morphological case distinctions in English. One of the syntactic consequences is an increase in the production of extractions, deletions and preposition stranding because, according to Hawkins (1986:123), less morphological marking affords more syntactic mobility. Pennsylvania German (PG), as a German-based variety in long and intensive contact with English, stands "between" the two languages German and English, metaphorically speaking. It can serve as a touchstone for some of Hawkins' claims regarding the mapping between meaning (semantics) and form (e.g., syntactic realization of argument structure), discussed in the current �� 1 More background on the concept of semantic/thematic roles is provided below.

112 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

chapter, as well as with respect to the suggested syntactic consequences of case syncretism, such as an increased production of extractions and preposition stranding, cf. chapters 7 and 8. Case syncretism in PG also increases the extent of morphological correspondence with the English case marking paradigm (where case distinctions are found in the pronominal system only); and, as Clyne (2003:191) notes, "[m]orphological correspondences can lead to syntactic convergence" in contact situations. Several of the changes found in PG (i.e., where it diverges from the relevant European German dialects or from older forms of PG) can be subsumed under the tendency of reducing the form inventory which, as a consequence, leads to less transparent form-function correlations. This tendency towards less transparency holds for case syncretism, for changes in mapping patterns between semantic relationships and their structural encoding, for predicate-argument structure, and even for the syntactic phenomenon of (formerly) subordinating complementizers triggering a verb-second (V2) clause structure instead of a clause-final verb position in PG (cf. Fuller 1997 and chapter 6 below). In the latter case, the surface word order of main clauses and subordinate clauses becomes identical in more and more cases, resulting in one form (i.e., V2) for two functions (see chapter 6 for details and discussion). Case syncretism in PG is discussed briefly below. It is an example of a change in form-function correlation since the form inventory, i.e. the number of morphological options available to distinguish between cases in a consistent manner, is reduced, and more functions are fulfilled by the same form. As a result, the form-function relation is obscured (Abraham 1997:19, Hawkins 1986:53ff.). Hawkins (1986:122f.) argues that "German has less surface ambiguity, less rearrangement of arguments and predicates, and less deletion than English." He attaches great importance to the reduction of morphology as a trigger of the development of these differences, claiming that "the changes that led to these contrasts were a response to morphological syncretism. Syncretism automatically creates greater ambiguity in the morphology itself. Within the syntax it then results in more pragmatically ambiguous fixed word orders and in the erosion of semantic distinctions in basic grammatical relations that were previously kept separate." (Hawkins 1986:123)

This claim, based on the comparison of English and German, I consider to be arguable: Palatinate German (PalG), e.g., has more morphological syncretism than Standard German (StG) (especially in case marking) but both seem to share the same amount of word order freedom (Henn 1980, Post 1992). To support Hawkins' claim sufficiently, more research is needed, I propose, at least with respect to other Germanic languages and to non-standard varieties of German

Introduction � 113

and English. Such varieties may offer a wider range of options than there appears to be when only the standard(ized) varieties are compared. Criticism against Hawkins' claim is also brought up by Kiparsky (1997), although from a different perspective. He warns against a too simplistic interpretation of the possible interactions between morphology and syntax. I take up and discuss his point in more detail in the section on impersonal constructions below.

4.1.2 Case syncretism2 in Pennsylvania German PG exhibits merger of morphological form in the case-marking paradigm. This merger has been suggested to result from contact with English (e.g. Huffines 1988a, 1989a). However, when considering various varieties of German, case syncretism is not unique to PG (cf. Louden 1988, Keel 1994, Van Ness 1996). Lewis (1992), Keel (1994), Van Ness (1996) and Rosenberg (2005) cite examples from other varieties of German that show case merger. A certain amount of case merger is observable in PalG, the German dialect with the highest relevance as an original "input dialect" in the development of PG. In some variants of PalG, nominative and accusative case are not distinguished morphologically in nouns and their determiners (Henn 1980:77ff., Post 1992:119ff.); only in the pronominal system the morphological distinctions are preserved, similar to the situation in English. Other German varieties, partly under the influence of Low German, show case merger between dative and accusative case (including the pronominal system, e.g. in the variety traditionally spoken in Berlin). With Van Ness (1996) and Keel (1994) I consider these observations to support the assumption that a language-internal development is involved in the reduction of casemorphology in German varieties, including PG. Further evidence comes from a variety spoken in German speech islands from the former Soviet Union (Keel 1994) that is, like PG, based on PalG. This variety, Volga German, shows also case syncretism, without any influence from English. Furthermore, the long-term contact language, Russian, has a fullfledged system of case morphology for six cases. Therefore, as Rosenberg (2005:4) notes, Russian interference could rather be expected to support the existing German case system, but the opposite seems to hold: According to Rosenberg (ibid.), case syncretism is most pronounced in those groups whose varie-

�� 2 This section is concerned exclusively with the form inventory in PG that is available for marking case. I do not discuss here the distinction between structurally and lexically assigned case.

114 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

ty exhibits the strongest influence from Russian. Case syncretism in this speech island, then, cannot be due to immediate interference from the contact language. The following case paradigms for PalG, PG, and Volga German illustrate the kind and extent of case merger found in these three varieties. I restrict myself to the presentation of case paradigms for definite determiners in the singular. Nouns remain generally unmarked for case (Post 1992:121), and adjective case marking is less differentiated than determiner case marking, so the definite determiner paradigms provide the fullest information on morphological case that a speaker/listener can receive when using the respective variety.

Palatinate German Henn (1980:89ff), in her discussion of the definite article in PalG, distinguishes between two main dialect areas, the Westpfalz (Western Palatinate, WP) and the Vorderpfalz (Eastern Palatinate, EP). She lists the following forms3: Table 4.1: Palatinate German case paradigm (following Henn 1980: 89ff.)

masc. fem. neut.

Nominative WP dær, de di das, des, es, s

EP der, de, d des, das, s

Accusative WP dene, de di das, des, es, s

EP den, dn des, das, s

Dative WP dem, em, m dær, de dem, em, m

EP dem, m der, de dem,m

Post (1992), too, discusses case morphology in PalG. While he does not offer a complete case paradigm for (the different variants of) Palatinate German, he remarks on the syncretism of morphological case marking in PalG (Post 1992:119ff.). He points out that there is no productive use of the genitive case save for certain possessive constructions ([possessor's name]-s(ch)4 + possession, e.g. Millersch/Millers Audo 'the car of the Müller/Miller family') and a few fixed expressions. Nominative, dative and accusative cases are morphologically marked in the determiner, while the corresponding nouns remain unmarked,

�� 3 Henn (1980:89ff.) describes differentiations between small phonological (vowel) variants, and she also lists distinctions for emphasized articles and article forms that correspond to the use of demonstratives in StG. These details are not included here because they are negligible for the present comparison of case paradigms. All distinctions that are relevant in the current context are contained in the table, of course. 4 In this context, -s [s] and –sch [∫] are phonetic variants carrying the same function (cf. Post 1992:119f.).

Introduction � 115

i.e. their form does not change throughout the case paradigm (cf. also Henn 1980:79). Nouns may be marked for number (singular or plural), depending on the type of noun declension they follow; but within each number, they are not marked for case.

Pennsylvania German Frey (1985:10f.), in his textbook for learning PG, offers the following case paradigm (marked Frey), similar but not fully equal to that described by earlier studies of PG (Reed 1949, Wood and Braun 1966, as cited in Keel 1994:96; marked RWB): Table 4.2: Pennsylvania German case paradigm (Frey 1985:10; Reed 1949, Wood and Braun 1966, as cited in Keel 1994:96)

masc. fem. neut.

Common (Nom/Acc) Frey RWB der der/dr die di/d es, 's es/s

Dative Frey em, 'm der, de em, 'm

RWB (d)em der/dr (d)em

Possessive Frey 's ---

Frey (1985:10f.) further remarks that "[t]he Common case includes both Nominative and Accusative and is used as subject or direct object; ex: der Mann iss do the man is here (as subject); Er sehnt der Mann he sees the man (as object). [...] The Possessive (or Genitive) case is used only with family names to show ownership of property or business; ex: 's Braun's Brown's place (farm, homestead), an's Middel's at Middel's (store, shop, mill, etc.)."

What Frey refers to as "possessive / genitive case" is also used in PalG in this form but with a different meaning: It is the plural form of family names (e.g. 's Brauns 'the Brown family') and does not refer to ownership, property, etc. I assume that the form has been preserved but has received new (grammatical) meaning under the influence of the English 's form referring to a place by naming its owner (as in Frey's example at Middel's).

Volga German Volga German, like PG, is largely based on PalG. It developed as a German speech island variety in the former Sovietunion and was transported to the USA

116 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

only recently when speakers of Volga German immigrated to the United States (for details cf. Keel 1990, 1994). For Volga German as spoken in Ellis County, Kansas, Keel (1994:98) presents the following case paradigm for the definite article: Table 4.3: Volga German case paradigm (Keel 1994:98)

masc. fem. neut.

Nominative der die des

Accusative den die des

Dative den der den

Prepositional (like acc./dat. – depending on prep.) (like acc./dat. – depending on prep.) den (for all prepositions)

All three genders show a two-way distinction only, but because this distinction does not run along the same lines, at least three cases can be distinguished by speakers of Volga German5.

Evaluation of the data on case syncretism Keel (1994) notes that often case syncretism in German-American dialects is interpreted as the result of loss or simplification. He points out that "such an observation rests on the assumption that these dialects exhibited a more elaborate system of case marking at an earlier stage in their American environments." (Keel 1994:96) A comparison of the case paradigms of the three varieties presented here illustrates that the assumption he cites needs to be modified. It is crucial to take the PalG case paradigm as the point of departure when making claims about changes in the case marking systems of PG and Volga German. Since the PalG case marking system shows a certain degree of case syncretism in itself, such syncretism cannot be attributed to contact-induced language change in PalG-based varieties. While differences can indeed be observed between PalG, PG and Volga German, there is no evidence for dramatic simplifications in PG. These findings cast doubt on the claim (by e.g. Huffines 1988a, 1989a) that, in the contact setting of PG and English, the syncretism in the English case marking paradigm served as a direct trigger for loss or reduction of morphological case distinctions in PG. Considering the evidence cited, I assume that PG, as �� 5 With neuter nouns, the article form used with prepositions is the same as for masculine nouns (e.g. mir sin in den kalde Wasser gfall 'we fell into the cold water', Keel 1994:98. Wasser, a neuter noun, is accompanied by a determiner, den, that is marked for accusative case in the same way as with masculine nouns). This changed use of the determiner might be a reflex of the Russian system of case marking distinctions. It is not attested for either PalG or PG.

Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 117

a Palatinate German-based variety used in a bilingual setting, has undergone a (slightly) sped-up reduction of its form inventory. The relevant trigger is the language-contact setting itself, rather than specific features of the contact language.

Psycholinguistic considerations Different kinds of evidence support the hypothesis that a smaller form inventory reduces the mental load of bilingualism because there are fewer competing forms to choose between, and thus fewer forms must be inhibited (in production and comprehension), inhibition being a process that requires mental resources (cf. Green 1998, Clyne 2003:201ff.). On the other hand, a more restricted form inventory leads to a less transparent form-function relationship, since fewer forms are available to represent the same amount of functions. I.e., mapping between semantic functions and morphological form(s) becomes more ambiguous, and it requires more mental "computing", at least on the side of the listener, to reconstruct the intended meaning. The frequently made observation that languages in contact tend to show a development towards a reduced form inventory (cf. chapter 1) seems to favor the interpretation that a smaller form inventory has advantages over a larger one that allows for more transparent mapping patterns. PG fits this picture well. The changes in PG case morphology, albeit small, instantiate a recurring theme in a range of apparently unrelated changes in different areas of PG (lexicon, argument structure, case morphology, word order): They are instances of a shift in the form-function balance in PG, this being one of the major lines of contactinduced language change as reflected in my data.

4.2 Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure The main interest in the following section of my study is the relationship between lexical semantics and syntax and its interaction with processes of language change in my PG data. Before presenting the relevant data, I introduce some theoretical concepts, terminology and background information with respect to the lexical semantics-syntax interaction to make the following discussion clearer. Please note that this section is a brief introduction of the respective topics to the extent as they are relevant for my data discussion. I do not discuss these concepts from a theoretical perspective. For a critical investigation of

118 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

thematic roles and related concepts, cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav (2005). The topics introduced are: • Thematic roles • VP shells (VP = verb phrase) • Causative alternation

4.2.1 Thematic roles Thematic roles are also referred to as semantic roles (often with a focus on lexical semantics; e.g. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005) or theta-roles (θ-roles) (usually within generative syntax; e.g. Radford 1998; cf. Wanner 1999:95f.). The term "thematic" (also in "thematic hierarchy", cf. below) is derived from the notion that the role "theme" is central to this type of identification of semantic relations (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005, referring to Gruber 1965 and Jackendoff 1972). I choose the term "thematic role(s)" to use a unified terminology throughout my present study; theoretical implications are not intended by this choice. The topic of thematic roles is subdivided in the following subsections: - What are thematic roles? - What thematic roles are there? - Thematic hierarchies - The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH)

What are thematic roles? The identification of thematic roles goes back to Fillmore (1968) and his notion of "deep case". Thematic roles refer to semantic relations between a verb and its arguments; they are mapped onto, but not identical with, surface case (e.g. nom. case, acc. case) and grammatical relations (such as subject, object). Mapping is constrained by linking rules. Linking rules provide information about what argument is mapped onto (i.e., appears in) the subject position, the direct object position, a prepositional phrase, etc. In these rules arguments are specified via their thematic roles. According to Levin/Rappaport Hovav (2005:36), thematic roles "can be viewed as labels for equivalence classes of arguments", and "each set of arguments bearing a particular semantic role constitutes an equivalence class." (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:132). Various rankings of thematic roles, referred to as thematic hierarchies, have been proposed (e.g. by Gruber 1965, Jackendoff 1972, Givón 1984, Dowty 1991; cf. Wanner 1999 and Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005 for overviews), suggesting a mapping or linking order between thematic roles and grammatical relations.

Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 119

What thematic roles are there? While some roles are generally accepted, many others remain under discussion (Wanner 1999:95f., Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:35ff.). Among the roles that are usually agreed upon are the following (cf. e.g. Fillmore 1971, Primus/Lindner 1994, Radford 1998, Wanner 1999, Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005): Agent; experiencer; theme; patient; instrument; source; goal; recipient; possessor; benefactive. The roles of agent, experiencer, patient and theme are the most relevant ones for the following discussion of my data. Therefore (informal) definitions of these roles are given: • Agent: The entity carrying the role of agent is the instigator of some action (Radford 1998:163). Examples: a. b.

John sings. agent Mary wrote a letter. agent

Wanner (1999:99), following Jackendoff (1990:129), distinguishes three thematic roles in the function of "instigator (of action)": ACTOR: doer of action AGENT: volitional actor (actor with specific semantic features) CAUSER: extrinsic instigator (need not be linked to the concepts of actor/agent) Dowty (1991:553ff.) cites further examples of a subdivision of the agent role. Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994:49f., 54; 1995:135), in contrast, argue for a role of immediate cause of an event that is broader than the notion of agent and includes nonagentive animate arguments (cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:39). These suggestions illustrate that there is only limited agreement even about the definition of thematic roles that are commonly accepted as semantic class labels.

120 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

• Experiencer: The experiencer is an entity experiencing some psychological state (Radford 1998:163). This role most typically appears with verbs of psychological state (socalled psych verbs, e.g. fear, frighten, like, please). Examples: a. b.

The gift


Many children experiencer


him. experiencer thunderstorms.

Psych verbs differ from other classes of transitive verbs in that the nonexperiencer object often is animate (as in example a), rather than inanimate (Levin/Rappaport 2005:23). If the non-experiencer argument of a psych verb expresses some kind of cause of the event denoted by the verb, it may be analyzed as agent, instigator, effector or cause (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:159); these agent-like roles usually rank high in thematic hierarchies (cf. below), while the experiencer is ranked lower. Accordingly, the non-experiencer argument appears in the subject position. In verbs like fear (see example b), in contrast, "the nonexperiencer argument cannot be analyzed as bearing an agentlike role, but is better analyzed as bearing the stimulus (or theme) role." (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:159f.). In this case, the verb has an experiencer subject. For a closer discussion of the matter of experiencer subjects, see the sections below on impersonal verbs. • Theme / Patient: According to Levin/Rappaport Hovav (2005:14), the usual definition of theme is "the role of an entity whose movement, location, state, or change of state is specified by the verb" (based on Gruber 1965 and Jackendoff 1972). In a more liberal definition, the theme as well as the patient role are carried by the entity undergoing the effect of some action (Radford 1998:163). Examples: a. b.

Antonia broke the vase. patient Mary wrote a letter. theme

Levin/Rappaport Hovav (2005:40, 48f.) note critically that these two role terms are often used in an unspecified sense and applied to almost any type of direct

Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 121

object, without distinguishing between a concept of theme and a concept of patient.

Thematic hierarchies Thematic hierarchies suggest a ranking of thematic roles that indicates what role is most likely to be encoded as subject (Fillmore 1968:33, Wanner 1999:93, Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:154, 156). Several proposals exist, often intended as a universal hierarchy that explains various phenomena across languages (Jackendoff 1972, Givón 1984, Grimshaw 1990, Primus/Lindner 1994). Wanner (1999:100f.) notes that it is generally assumed that the agent role has the highest position in a thematic hierarchy, but there is less agreement with respect to the ranking of other thematic roles. The exact ranking can vary across languages (e.g. Primus/Lindner 1994), and so can the syntactic encoding patterns, i.e., the linking patterns between argument structure and syntax (Plank 1983, Hawkins 1986, Fabricius-Hansen 1991, Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005).

The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) Fillmore (1968:21) postulates that "each case relationship occurs only once in a simple sentence." This postulation feeds into the θ-criterion in Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1981:36) that claims that "[e]ach argument bears one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument" within a clause. It also provides the base for Baker's Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH): "Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure6." (Baker 1988:46)

I.e., if certain types of predicate take an agent argument and a theme argument, there should also be the same syntactic relationship between these arguments (e.g., agent – subject, theme – direct object) when they appear with predicates of this type. Levin/Rappaport Hovav (2005:138, referring to Baker p.c. and Baker 1997) point out that UTAH is intended

�� 6 D-structure = deep structure. In Generative Grammar, the D-structure is assumed to underlie the surface structure (S-structure) of a clause. The D-structure is the direct result of mapping semantic relations onto syntactic structure.

122 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

"to allow for a many-to-one mapping from semantics to syntax. All members of a semantic equivalence class must map onto the same syntactic position, but there need not be a unique semantic equivalence class of arguments associated with each syntactic position (e.g. subject)." (Levin/Rappaport Hovav (2005:138)

A hypothetical example would be that all agents map onto the subject position, but not all subjects need to be agents. This interpretation of UTAH corresponds to Plank's (1983) functionality principle while a one-to-one mapping would correspond to the transparency principle. An important difference between Plank (1983) and Baker's UTAH (and similar approaches) is that Plank, as noted above, assumes that different languages have different mapping patterns; the UTAH, on the other hand, aims at formulating one principle (or one hypothesis) that is applicable to all languages, in accordance with the concept of a Universal Grammar (UG).

4.2.2 VP shells7 In generative grammar it is assumed that the lexical verb of a clause projects a structure with slots for its arguments. This projection is referred to as VP, or verb phrase (a maximal projection headed by a lexical verb). The VP-shell approach assumes the existence of two (or more) layers of VPs, referred to as VP shells, that are structurally linked in specific ways; cf. Figures 4.1a and 4.1b for illustration. The concept of multiple VP shells (rather than only one VP) goes back to Larson (1988). It was first developed to explain the dative alternation (as in He gave Sue the book. / He gave the book to Sue.) and was then extended to cover also other types of alternation in argument realization, e.g. the causative alternation. The Minimalist approach in generative grammar exploits the concept of additional VP shells to unify the analysis of various verbal structures and alternations in argument realization, e.g. in mono- and ditransitive verbs, resultative structures and causative alternation. More specifically, in Minimalism a (lower case) vp shell with an abstract light verb as its head is assumed as an additional layer above the VP for these syntactic structures and alternations (Chomsky 1995, Radford 1998).

�� 7 In this section, various concepts from Generative Grammar (phrase structure, trees) are referred to. A more thorough introduction of these concepts follows in chapter 5 where structural aspects of my PG data are discussed.

Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 123

The head position of the vp shell (i.e., 'v') is filled by a so-called light verb, an abstract concept. Four types of abstract light verbs have been suggested (cf. Radford 1998:201ff., 218): a causative light verb, an agentive light verb, an eventive light verb, and an (unspecified) abstract light verb. Radford's (1997:264) informal definition of a light verb is as follows: "An affixal verb (often with a causative sense like that of 'make') to which a noun, adjective or verb adjoins. For example, it might be claimed that the suffix '+en' in a verb like 'sadden' is an affixal light verb which can combine with an adjective like 'sad' to form the causative verb 'sadden' (meaning 'make sad', 'cause to become sad')."

Radford explicates that the vp-shell analysis can be extended to verbs that participate in the causative alternation, i.e. verbs like roll that can be used transitively (as causative verbs) and intransitively. In this case, an abstract (causative) light verb is assumed with its meaning corresponding to that of '+en' in sadden. This type of structural analysis is referred to as a light verb analysis of the transitive/causative use of the verb roll (Radford 1998:204). For illustration of the structural details, cf. Figures 4.1a (intransitive use) and 4.1b (transitive/causative use), taken from Radford (1998:201, Figures (12) and (13)): IP

DP The ball

I' I







down the hill

Figure 4.1a: Intransitive use of roll8

�� 8 IP = inflectional phrase (head: I); DP = determiner phrase, consisting of a determiner and a noun phrase (head: D = determiner) vp = vp shell (head: v = position of the (abstract) light verb) VP = verbal phrase (head: V); PP = prepositional phrase, consisting of a preposition and a determiner phrase;

124 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

(IP) ... vp D



v rolled

VP ø

DP the ball

V' V



down the hill

Figure 4.1b: Transitive / causative use of roll

Radford (1998:201) adds that subsequent to (1b) the vp merges with an abstract INFL, forming I', with we raising from spec-vp into spec-IP to receive nominative case. A light verb analysis, by extending the number of potentially available argument positions in a clause structure, offers a concept for explaining how the transitive/causative use and the intransitive use of the same verb are related. When assuming a vp shell headed by a (causative) light verb, the causative alternation can be explained mainly by syntactic means. This approach allows a unified analysis for verbs participating in the causative alternation; it is not necessary to assume two separate verbs of the same lexical surface form but with divergent argument structures (cf. Wanner 1999:161 for a discussion of this latter option). Note, however, that the light verb approach does not address the – semantic – question of why not all verbs can adjoin to a causative light verb (or another specific type of light verb), i.e., why only certain English verbs causativize without overt morphological marking. Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) present an in-depth investigation of this matter.

�� t = trace (a trace is assumed to be left when something has been moved to another position within the structural tree); indicates movement from one position to another.

Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 125

The light verb analysis implies that all verbs within a specific verb category (e.g. ergative verbs, ditransitive verbs, causative alternation verbs) share a common general level of semantic content that covers the respective class of verbs. The shared semantic component is "bundled" in the semantics of the abstract light verb that all verbs of this class adjoin to. This concept corresponds to Levin's (1993) semantically motivated verb classes. Thus, the semantic content of light verbs constitutes a link between the syntactic and the semantic approach to analyzing systematically diverging argument structures of different verb classes. Levin/Rappaport Hovav note that "[t]he overall "geometry" of proposed VP shell representations (...) is justified by making reference to independently motivated semantic classes of verbs and their arguments. In this sense, proponents of VP shells replicate complex semantic structures in the syntax[.]" (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:133)

4.2.3 Causative alternation The term causative alternation refers to a specific pattern of alternation in argument structure with certain verbs. It is a subclass of transitivity alternations where the object of a transitive verb corresponds (with respect to its thematic role) to the subject of the intransitive variant of the same verb (Levin 1993).9 Such verbs are also referred to as ergative verbs, a term originally applied to languages like Basque where the object of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb are assigned the same case (Radford 1998:259). The term has been extended to cover causative alternation verbs where not the case but the thematic role of the argument appearing in both the transitive and the intransitive sentence remains the same (illustrated by the examples in (1)and(2) below). With verbs that participate in the causative alternation the transitive variant has roughly the meaning of "cause to V-intransitive" (Levin 1993:26f.; cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1995:79; Wanner 1999:159). The examples in (1) and (2) demonstrate this pattern:

�� 9 Such verbs are also referred to as ergative verbs, a term originally applied to languages like Basque where the object of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb are assigned the same case (Radford 1998:259). The term has been extended to cover causative alternation verbs where not the case but the thematic role of the argument appearing in both the transitive and the intransitive sentence remains the same (illustrated by the examples in (1)and(2)).

126 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

(1) a. b.

(2) a. b.

The storm immediate cause The window theme / patient

John agent The door theme



the window. theme / patient


the door. theme


The two forms of the alternating verb can be the same or closely related (morphologically and semantically). While English permits both verb forms in transitivity alternations to be morphologically identical, other languages require a morphological distinction, e.g. marking the intransitive (anticausative) variant with a reflexive marker (as in German and French, cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994; Steinbach 1998; Alexiadou et al. 2005). Levin (1993) distinguishes three subtypes of causative alternation: • the causative/inchoative alternation, most typically with verbs of change of state, e.g. break, flatten, open (cf. also Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:41, 2005:11); • the induced action alternation, primarily with verbs like run, walk, march,etc. (cf. Levin 1993:31); • and other instances of causative alternation, mostly verbs that describe "internally controlled actions which in certain circumstances can be externally controlled (caused)" (Levin 1993:31) and that can be considered basically intransitive, e.g. ring, hang. The use of terminology can vary to some extent, depending on approach and focus; e.g. Wanner (1999:159) explicitly restricts the term "causative alternation" to Levin's (1993) subclass of causative/inchoative alternation (one of the most frequent types of alternation, according to both Levin 1993 and Wanner 1999). Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) investigate in detail what classes of verbs do and do not participate in the causative alternation. They distinguish between internally caused verbs (e.g. sing, laugh, walk) and externally caused verbs (e.g. break, open). Verbs of the first group are not generally exptected to show the causative alternation and do so only under very specific conditions (when an external cause can be construed). These are usually agentive verbs of manner of motion in the presence of a directional phrase where the sentence or

Theoretical background: Concepts of lexical-semantic structure � 127

context implies some kind of coercion, as in She jumped the horse over the fence; cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:72f.). Levin (1993:31) terms this subclass of the causative alternation the 'induced action alternation'. A specific thematic relationship must prevail between the external and the internal argument, such that the subject (the external argument) can be interpreted as "the immediate cause of the eventuality" (ibid.) denoted by the verb. Many externally caused verbs, in contrast, regularly participate in this alternation. However, not all externally caused verbs have an intransitive use (cf. write, assassinate) (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:52, Wanner 1999:160). For externally caused verbs, Wanner (1999:162) makes a further distinction between Fokus1 verbs (the first event, i.e. the action, is focussed, e.g. write) and Fokus2 verbs (the second event, i.e. the outcome, is focussed, e.g. break). She claims that Fokus1 verbs cannot be detransitivized, i.e., they do not participate in the causative alternation. Internally caused verbs, according to Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994:52), are "monadic", i.e. they are basically intransitive but can be causativized when an external cause is added (cf. above). Externally caused verbs are considered "dyadic" because they include two argument positions, one for an external cause and one for the affected entity (usually encoded as direct object). Hence, when internally caused verbs, as inherently intransitive verbs, participate in the causative alternation they are best described as being causativized; that is, in the terms of Minimalism, a vp shell is added to the structural representation. Externally caused verbs, on the other hand, being inherently transitive, can be used with or without a vp shell and are, in the latter case, detransitivized (they cannot be causativized because they are inherently causative). The process of detransitivization is, according to Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994:52), much more widespread in English than that of causativization. Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994) further show that internally caused verbs show unergative behavior, while externally caused verbs show unaccusative behavior when used intransitively. Unergative verbs take a single external argument (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:58) with the semantic role of agent, mapped onto the subject position; they take no overt object (Radford 1998:212). Unaccusative verbs take a single internal argument (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:58), surfacing in subject position. However, this argument "originates in VP rather than vp" (Radford 1998:274; cf. the section on vp shells above), because it is an internal argument, not an external argument. This type of verb fails to assign accusative case to its internal argument, therefore the internal argument has to move to the subject position to receive (structural)

128 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

case. There is no external argument, i.e. no argument that is directly mapped onto the subject position (cf. Randall/van Hout/Weißenborn 1993). In terms of semantic and syntactic representation (mediated by linking rules), detransitivization can be conceptualized as follows (cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:52): o semantic representation: (3) a. break-transitive: [x CAUSE [y BECOME BROKEN]] b. break-intransitive: _ [y BECOME BROKEN]10 In causativization, the addition of a cause complement as external argument is assumed. Syntactically, this corresponds to the insertion of a vp shell. I thus suggest the following o syntactic representation: (4) a. break-transitive: [vp v NP [VP V NP]11 b. break-intransitive: _ [VP V NP] In addition to externally and internally caused verbs, there are verbs that are compatible with both types of causativization (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995), e.g. roll. These verbs behave like externally caused verbs with an inanimate entity (The ball rolled (on the ground.) / We rolled the ball (on the ground.)), including their participation in the causative alternation; they group with internally caused verbs when they are used with a (volitional) agent (The dog rolled (on the ground)). An alternative to the presented approach to causative alternation patterns is the non-derivational approach proposed by Alexiadou et al. (2005). This analysis does not assume one verb form to be basic and the other one to be derived. Rather, both forms are assumed to follow from different combinations of certain voice and cause features in the syntactic decomposition of these verbs. A theoretical evaluation of this approach, however, is beyond the scope of my study; therefore I do not discuss it further.

�� 10The variable y corresponds to the internal argument; the external argument has been eliminated. This representation illustrates the unaccusative status of the intransitive variant of an externally caused verb. 11 Here, a vp shell is assumed to accommodate the cause component in the verb meaning.

Changes in argument structure � 129

In the following sections I return to my PG data relating to developments in the form-function balance in PG as outlined above. The previous excursion on theoretical concepts serves as a base and background for the data discussion.

4.3 Changes in argument structure 4.3.1 Preliminaries PG exhibits, like many languages in contact, lexical changes, i.e. borrowings, blends, loan translations etc. (cf. Seel 1988, Werner 1996 for detailed investigations of the PG lexicon). In addition, my data provide evidence for lexicalsemantic tendencies of change with structural consequences. These are changes in the argument structures of a number of verbs while the lexical surface forms (phonological/morphological word forms) of these verbs remain unchanged. The division between semantic/syntactic and phonological/morphological aspects of a verb that is reflected in such language-contact phenomena agrees with Levelt's (1989) concept of a lexical entry as divided into the lemma (meaning and syntax of lexical entry) and the phonological encoding (morphology and phonological properties). What Levelt (1989) refers to as ‘phonological encoding‘ is also called a ‘lexeme‘. Here, Levelt’s terminology is used because it offers a more transparent description of the parts of the lexical entry that are affected differently by language contact.






phonological encoding

Figure 4.2: Structure of a lexical entry (adapted from Levelt 1989:182, 187f.; following Kempen and Huijbers 1983)

My PG data show that contact-induced changes can occur in one part of the lexical entry, the lemma, only, while the other part is preserved unchanged. A possible explanation for this split is based on a combination of sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic reasons: The more salient parts of a lexical item (the pho-

130 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

nological encoding) with their (often) distinct language-specific affiliation are consciously preserved in their original form for sociolinguistic reasons while the lemma, being less salient and less accessible to conscious control, is adjusted to the contact language in agreement with less conscious psycholinguistic preferences. Cf. chapter 3 on the manipulation of lexical choices, esp. with respect to the author of the 1978ff. texts. The changes I observed in my PG data can be divided into four subtypes: 1. Verbs exhibiting a diminished use or loss of surface reflexive marking 2. (Intransitive) verbs exhibiting an additional option for transitive/causative use (causativization) Here, the causative alternation (cf. e.g. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995, 2005) is newly applied to verbs that did not participate in this alternation before (in PalG/PG). From a minimalist-syntactic approach, a vp shell has been added to the syntactic frames of the respective verbs (Radford 1998). 3. (Transitive) verbs exhibiting an additional option for intransitive use 4. Avoidance of so-called impersonal constructions Impersonal constructions are constructions "where the highest thematic argument, in this instance the Experiencer, is not assigned nominative Case" (van Gelderen 2001:137). Details are provided below where this type of change is discussed. The verbs affected by these tendencies follow the argument structure frames of their English counterparts, and this development may have been triggered by contact with them. The hypothesis that English argument frames have triggered the observed changes does not explain, however, why many PG verbs with AE counterparts (and diverging argument structures) remain stable and have not changed. Possible reasons of such divergent outcomes are discussed below for individual items (e.g. with respect to the reflexive/non-reflexive use of fiehle 'feel' and wunnere 'wonder/be surprised'). Only the fourth tendency is linked less to individual verb frames. This last type of change is also harder to detect than the three first-mentioned changes since there is no positive evidence to rely on (as it is in the case of the novel use of an existing verb). On a more abstract level all four kinds of change can be described as changes in the form-function correlation of the affected verbs: Certain forms begin to take over more functions than before. The verbs exhibiting the aforementioned types of change deviate from PalG and StG in their use, meaning, and/or argument structure. This deviant use I consider an indication of semantic-syntactic change. To establish the meanings and argument structures that have been recorded for these verbs so far I consulted the following sources: for PalG, the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch (1965-1998);

Changes in argument structure � 131

for PG, Lambert (1924), a PG to English dictionary; Thierwechter (2002), a PG to English word collection; Beam (1985), an English to PG dictionary; and two lexicological studies of PG, namely Seel (1988) and Werner (1996). Note that not all of the sources provide entries for each verb under discussion, with the exception of the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch and Lambert (1924). Further, none of these works offer much information on the syntactic realization of obligatory arguments. Seel (1988), e.g., explicitly excludes from her study the investigation of syntactic interference because such investigation would require a separate analysis of her data (ibid.:132). She does not differentiate between interference on a purely syntactic level and syntactic interference on the level of argument realization, triggered by changes in the syntactic information of a word's lemma; neither type is included in her analyses. Therefore, conclusions on changes in argument structure can only be drawn from the sources where examples are provided of how a verb is commonly used, and where these examples can be analyzed with respect to possible patterns of argument realization. In the following section I present verbs from my PG data base that exemplify the changes in predicate-argument structure as listed above (subtypes of change, 1. – 4.). Afterwards each of the four types of change is discussed one by one. 1. Diminished use or loss of surface reflexive marking • (sich) fiehle 'feel [good, ill, etc.]', StG 'sich [gut, krank, etc.] fühlen' • (sich) wunnere/ferwunnere 'wonder', StG 'sich wundern' • (sich) hiehocke 'sit down; [with sich:] set down', StG '(sich) hinsetzen' • (sich) (draa-)gemaahne 'remind ([with sich:] oneself)', StG '(sich) erinnern' • (sich) ferlasse uff 'rely on, depend on', StG 'sich verlassen auf' 2. Additional option for transitive use (i.e., causativization) • wockse 'grow', StG 'wachsen; anbauen, anpflanzen' 3. Additional option for intransitive use • ferlasse 'leave', StG 'verlassen (trans.); weggehen/wegfahren (intr.)' 4. Avoidance of impersonal constructions • gleiche 'like', StG 'mögen, gern haben' • fehle/ferfehle 'fail, miss', StG 'fehlen; vermissen' • wunnere/ferwunnere 'wonder', StG 'wundern' • (draa-)gemaahne 'remember; remind', StG 'erinnern'

132 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

4.3.2 Changes in reflexive marking The focus here is on clauses with an accusative (acc.) reflexive pronoun in the position of direct object. Dative (dat.) reflexive pronouns do not play a role in the changes to be discussed; therefore they are not included in this overview (cf., e.g., Steinbach (1998) for structural differences between acc. and dat. reflexive constructions). Reflexive clauses (with acc. reflexive pronouns) in German all share the same surface structure. Syntactically, they are transitive in that they include two syntactic arguments, i.e., the nominative (nom.) case subject and the acc. case reflexive pronoun in direct object position. Semantically, reflexive clauses in German can receive different interpretations, depending on verb and context. Four possibilities for interpretation exist (Steinbach 1998): • reflexives (true reflexivity; the verb is used either reflexively or transitively) Example: Eri rasiert sichi 'he shaves (himself)' vs. Eri rasiert ihnj 'he shaves him' • middle constructions (usually accompanied by a modifying adverb) Example: Das Buch liest sich leicht 'the book reads easily' • non-causatives / anticausatives (for verbs that participate in the causative alternation12) Example: Die Tür öffnet sich 'the door opens' vs. Max öffnet die Tür 'Max opens the door' • inherent reflexives (lexically reflexive verbs; non-reflexive use is not possible) Example: Er erkältet sich 'he catches a cold' (*Er erkältet ihn 'he catches him a cold') Steinbach (1998) observes that the middle construction is available to a wide range of verbs in German while the non-causative use is only possible for those verbs that participate in the causative alternation. There seem to be certain restrictions, though, on the type of subject selected by the verb in the sense that "some property of the subject must be ‘responsible’ for the event described by the verb" (Steinbach 1998:23). According to Wanner (1999), the middle construction is marked by a shift in meaning and describes a quality rather than an �� 12 Some German verbs that participate in the causative alternation form non-reflexive (i.e., morphologically unmarked) non-causatives (Abraham 1997, Schäfer 2003). In German, this option is highly restricted, in contrast to English. I do not discuss morphologically unmarked non-causatives in German because the focus here is on changes in the use of reflexive structures and reflexive marking.

Changes in argument structure � 133

event. This characteristic is linked to the fact that the middle construction usually requires a qualifying adverb. Levin (1993) and Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994) also make a distinction between non-causatives and middle constructions, noting, however, that they are sometimes seen in close connection with each other (e.g. by Hale/Keyser 1987). The reflexive pronoun in both middle constructions and non-causative constructions is not linked to a semantic argument in the argument structure of the verb; it is only syntactically selected (Steinbach 1998). The same is true for inherent (lexical) reflexives, but not for true reflexives where two arguments exist in the argument structure of the verb that are or are not coreferential (corresponding to reflexive vs. transitive use). English, in contrast, does not have a non-argument reflexive in the corresponding structure, which leads to surface identity between constructions that are distinguished by (+/-) reflexive marking in German, a difference already highlighted by Hawkins (1986). Hawkins (who does not differentiate between middle constructions and non-causative constructions) focusses on the reflexive marker and its presence / absence in German and English in both constructions, and on the fact that English allows "patient arguments" in the subject position without marking their origin as an internal argument. Other thematic roles can be involved, too (e.g. experiencer, cf. van Gelderen 2001, among others). What is crucial here is that the entity in subject position does not carry the role of agent/actor. Hawkins thus touches upon the matter of mapping different thematic roles to one syntactic form, a topic that I take up in the section on impersonal constructions below: English accepts the entity bearing the patient role (in Hawkins' terms) into subject position without morphological modification of the verb, while in German both middle constructions and non-causatives are often morphologically marked by a reflexive pronoun. As pointed out above, they are sometimes non-reflexive (i.e., morphologically unmarked) in German too. Examples for a non-reflexive middle construction are die Leiter stürzt um ' the ladder falls over' and der See trocknet aus 'the lake dries up'; (sich) aufrichten 'straighten' is a verb requiring the reflexive marker in middle constructions, cf. die Pflanze richtet sich auf 'the plant straightens'; and (sich) abkühlen 'cool down' allows for both, as in das Wasser kühlt (sich) ab 'the water cools down' (examples from Schäfer 2003:10f.). The option to be chosen seems to be verb specific, with some verbs allowing for both possibilities, cf. Schäfer (2003).13

�� 13 There may be a correlation with what Steinbach (1998:23) refers to as the property of the subject to take responsibility for the outcome, as well as with the matter of internally vs. exter-

134 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

Hawkins already points out that the reflexive marker in German functions like an overt trace of the (internal) argument that has been moved into subject position: "This sich could be regarded as an overt marker in surface of the semantically appropriate object position from which the patient argument has been moved. It is significant that it is German that should preserve this pronoun, whereas English deletes all reference to any non-subject origin of these patients. Once again English is deleting more than German, and in the process English permits a complete structural identity and ambiguity between patient subject sentences such as the door opens and genuine agentive intransitive sentences like the boy sings." (Hawkins 1986:118)

Reflexive marking in the context of middle constructions and non-causative constructions is, from a structural (and semantic) perspective, the result of the opposite process to causativization in that the external cause/agent is removed (Fabricius-Hansen 1991, Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994, Abraham 1997). With respect to both processes ("add / remove cause"), German tends to follow a one form – one function strategy, while in English one form is used to fulfill several functions, as Abraham (1997:19), similar to Hawkins (1986:118; cf. above), notes: "Damit erfüllt aber das Deutsche ganz allgemein und ohne den Zwang, auf kontextuelle Schlüssel zurückzugreifen, das Prinzip "eine Form – eine Bedeutung", wogegen das Englische dazu neigt, Ein- und Zweiwertigkeit zu einer einzigen Form zusammenfließen zu lassen (...)." ("Therefore German, quite generally and without having to resort to contextual cues, fulfills the principle of "one form – one meaning", in contrast to English which tends to merge mono- and bivalency into one single form (...)." [My translation, DS])

Against this background, the PG data on loss of reflexive marking receive their significance. The changes in PG affect different groups of verbs differently but where they do apply, they result in a shift towards form-function relations that are more like those in English (more functions are covered by fewer forms) and less like German. The relevant instances of this change in my data fall into three categories: 1. Verbs that are (almost) always used without a reflexive marker throughout my data, but where equivalents in PalG and related German dialects appear

�� nally caused verbs as discussed in Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994). This line of thought I leave for future research.

Changes in argument structure � 135



regularly with reflexive markers. These PG verbs are taken to have lost their reflexive marking. Examples: (sich) fiehle 'feel', (sich) wunnere 'wonder'. With respect to the classification of transitive reflexive constructions, these verbs are lexically (or inherently) reflexive in PalG and StG when used in the meaning they denote in the relevant data but they have non-reflexive German variants with different but related meanings. For non-reflexive wunnere (PalG, PG) 'amaze, surprise; (PG) wonder', cf. the section on impersonal constructions below. Non-reflexive fühlen (StG)/fiehle (PalG) 'feel' is a verb of (physical) perception like see, smell or hear. As a reflexive verb (in PalG and StG), in contrast, it has a subjective-psychological meaning component and refers to a person's state of subjective well-being. Verbs that occur with and without reflexive marking. These verbs instantiate cases of true reflexivity and can be used either as reflexive or as transitive verbs in PG as well as in European German dialects. In the reflexive use, they have two arguments that are coreferential, the second one being encoded as a reflexive pronoun in direct object position. In the transitive use, the two arguments are distinct. Examples: sich (hie)hocke [refl.] 'sit down'; (hie)hocke [trans.] 'set down' sich (draa)gemaahne [refl.] 'remind oneself';(draa)gemaahne [trans.] 'remind' Verbs that are always used with a reflexive marker, in PG as well as in European German dialects. These verbs represent cases of lexicalized or inherent reflexivity that have, in contrast to category 1, no non-reflexive variants with a related meaning. Example: sich ferlasse uff 'rely on'

There are no cases of "misplaced" reflexive markers in my PG data, i.e., reflexive markers with verbs that do not allow a reflexive marker in other German varieties (e.g. *ich schlafe mich 'I sleep REFL'). Two factors appear to have an effect on a verb's susceptability to change with respect to reflexive marking: Similarity in form between German and English, i.e., if there is a non-reflexive cognate in English as with (P)G (sich) wunnere – AE wonder and (P)G (sich) fiehle – AE feel; and the availability of a nonreflexive variant within German. Whether a verb is lexicalized as a reflexive verb or not, however, seems to be relevant only in combination with these factors (cf. the difference between group 1 and group 3, both containing lexically reflexive verbs). From a psycholinguistic perspective, the following process can be assumed for PG verbs with close English cognates: During the activation process of lexi-

136 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

cal items in speech production (referred to as 'calling procedure' in MyersScotton 1993ff.; cf. Green 1986, Levelt 1989), both cognates' entries are activated, leading to competition between their syntactic frames. In a setting of constant bilingualism, and given a trend towards form simplification (cf. the discussion above), the choice is more likely to be made in favor of the English frame, I hold, because English is the dominant language in most environments PG speakers encounter. It is the language shared by all speakers they interact with, English monolinguals as well as English/PG bilinguals. Prestige factors and conflicting identity values are unlikely to interfere here, in the case of nonplain PG speakers, because of their high degree of integration into mainstream American society (cf. chapter 2). The combination of an English argument structure (or lemma, following Levelt 1989) with the PG surface form (the phonological encoding of the lexical entry) allows the accommodation of both languages, and thus the expression of a dual social identity, at the same time. High or low frequency of use appears to play a role, too. Here, the (low) frequency factor applies to the third category (sich ferlasse uff). This verb occurs in all four text blocks, always with a reflexive marker – but it shows an extremely low frequency of use, with only one occurrence each in 1868, 1913, and 1989ff., and five occurrences in 1978ff. A verb of such marginal use, with no immediate cognate the reflexive frame would clash with, does not increase the psycholinguistic load by much, I maintain, and can therefore be preserved with its original frame. For the second category, verbs that can be used either with a reflexive marker or as transitive verbs (without reflexive marking), I observed a reduced preference to use these verbs in a meaning that requires reflexive marking, as compared to using the non-reflexive frame. That is, although there is no "positive" evidence for the loss of the reflexive marker as in category 1, the frequencies point towards a preference for the non-reflexive use that coincides with the English frame. Table 4.4 presents an overview of the absolute numbers of tokens of use/non-use of reflexive markers found in my PG data.

Changes in argument structure � 137

Table 4.4: Reflexive verbs (PG) category verb

reflexive marking 1868 1913 1978ff. 1989ff. total

1: loss of reflexive marking (sich) (sich) fiehle wunnere

2: optional reflexive marking 3: stable reflexive (true reflexivity) marking (sich) (sich) (sich) (hie)hocke (draa)gemaahne ferlasse uff












5 11 3 14 33

2 1 3

2 4 12 18 36

7 6 5 3 21

10 13 7 15 45

1 1

3 3 14 10 30

1 1 5 1 8


The following two diagrams illustrate the tendency towards a reduced use of overt reflexive marking in the verbs under discussion (the numbers are the same as in Table 4.4, with separate representations for reflexive use, in Figure 4.3, and non-reflexive use, in Figure 4.4.)

20 15 10 5 0 fiele

wunnere 1868

hiehocke 1913



Figure 4.3: Verb occurrences with reflexive marker (cf. Table 4.4)


verlasse uff

138 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

20 15 10 5 0 sich fiele

sich wunnere 1868

sich hiehocke 1913

sich sich verlasse uff draagemaahne



Figure 4.4: Verb occurrences without reflexive marker (cf. Table 4.4)

While PG shows a decreasing use of reflexive marking, at least with certain verbs, one of the characteristic features recorded for PG-influenced English (PGE, spoken up to the middle of th 20th century) is the redundant use of reflexive markers, usually where the German construction required a reflexive marker. Buffington cites the following example from PGE as a typical instance: (5) [Buffington 1968:39] PGE Eat yourself done PG/PalG Ess dich satt full eat REFL 'Eat your fill' He notes that, besides the reflexive construction, also the impersonal construction is used more frequently in PGE than in AE (ibid.); here, he refers to the use of (PGE) it wonders me, PG es wunnert mich 'I wonder/I am amazed'. I take up this construction type below. Such language use indicates that, when PG was the dominant language, German verb frames were transferred to English as well as to English loan words in PG. Occasionally, also English loans were used with a reflexive marker in PG where English would use a reflexive pronoun as well, e.g. (6) [PS10-1868] ich bin kumma for mich tsu enjoya I am come for REFL to enjoy 'I came (in order) to enjoy myself'

Changes in argument structure � 139

Today, with English being dominant, the opposite tendency prevails: English verb frames are extended to PG, in accordance with Thomason/Kaufman's (1988) and Van Coetsem's (1988, 1995) observation that structural influence from the dominant to the receding or weaker language is a typical outcome of language contact (cf. chapter 1).

Subjectivization A different perspective on form simplification with respect to the surface marking of reflexivity is offered by the concept of subjectivization, a process observable in (historical) semantic change (cf. chapter 1). Subjectivization, as defined by Traugott (Traugott 1989, Traugott/König 1991, Hopper/Traugott 2003), is a language-internal mechanism leading to semantic change over time. Language contact may speed up the process but it is not a necessary precondition of this type of change. The verb feel in English shows a tendency towards subjectivization in the sense that 'I feel' may be used as a speech-act marker, as in: (7) [from a posting on the LinguistList, Nov.2, 1998] A complete spelling reform only comes in in revolutionary circumstances, I feel. Thus, there is some semantic bleaching observable which allows for the use of this verb to mark "personal viewpoint" or "personal position in an interaction". fiehle in PG does not (yet) exhibit this subjectivized use in my data. What I suggest, though, is that the loss of reflexivity can be seen as an early stage in the process of subjectivization (in the sense of a grammaticalization tendency towards a speech act marker) that possibly proceeds along the following line of development: subjectivization sich fühlen (StG) sich fiehle (PalG)

fiehle (PG)

feel (E)

Figure 4.5: Subjectivization of fiehle / feel

This process, I argue, is one aspect of a more general change in form-function correlations. Form similarity with the English cognate has probably played a role in the changed patterns of use of PG fiehle. Wunnere, however, with a similarly close AE cognate, "lags behind" and is still used with a reflexive marker

140 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

occasionally, in contrast to fiehle, indicating that form similarity is not the only relevant aspect in this process. Another factor that also influences the rate of change is the sociolinguistic message that a verb, an expression or a structure carries. In PG, reflexive wunnere is a shibboleth of group membership, and its application used to evoke a negative connotation. Today, however, with the pending loss of the language, this connotation has changed to the opposite at least group-internally, making reflexive wunnere a marker of PG social identity. The semantic content of the verb wunnere has changed to 'wonder' (this meaning corresponds to StG sich fragen 'ask oneself', not to sich wundern 'be amazed, be surprised'). Except for the 1868 data section, wunnere consistently appears with indirect (or even direct) questions as complements. This verb, then, has not only changed to match the argument structure pattern of its English cognate but is, like fiehle, on its way from being a verb that expresses emotional content to becoming a speech-act marker (i.e, involved in a process of subjectivization), although at a slightly slower rate.

4.3.3 Transitivity changes Changes in transitivity in PG verbs occur as an added option for transitivity (causativization) and an added option for intransitivity14. Both kinds of change are similar in that in both cases argument structures of existing verbs are extended to include the counterpart (+/- transitive) of their original specification. Semantically, however, the changes are distinct, and therefore they are discussed separately in the following sections. Note that adding a new option for transitive or for intransitive use is, again, an instance of simplified form at the cost of transparency of the form-function correlation.

Additional transitivity: Causativization Causativization in English and German English has two major ways of marking causativity in verbs: the lexical causative and the periphrastic causative (i.e., adding have or make to causativize a

�� 14 The example for new intransitivity in my PG data, ferlasse 'leave', displays a new option for leaving the object unexpressed. Thus, this is not a case of transitivity alternation in the sense that the object of the transitive variant becomes the subject of the intransitive form (as with the causative alternation). Cf. below for details.

Changes in argument structure � 141

verb). The morphologically unmarked causative alternation is considered an instance of the lexical causative because "it is usually formed using the lexical resources of a language" (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994:36). According to Haspelmath (1993:101, cit. in Wanner 1999:207), the transitive/causative form and the intransitive form are morphologically identical in English in 94% of all instances of lexical causatives. Other types of lexical causative in English include stem vowel umlaut (e.g. fall / fell) and suppletive forms (e.g. die / kill). Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1994) point out that the morphologically unmarked causative alternation is only available to a certain range of verbs while periphrastic causativization can be applied unrestrictedly. Structurally, the added verb in the periphrastic causative is assumed to provide the additionally needed slot for an agent/cause argument, while in the lexical causative the agent/cause argument is included in the argument structure of the (causative variant of the) base verb (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994, Wanner 1999). In the morphologically unmarked causative alternation, English does not encode the removal or addition of an agent/cause argument via verb morphology. Rather, the alternation has to be inferred by the addressee from the syntactic environment of the verb (Abraham 1997:20). If an object is realized, a causative reading is applicable (the subject encoding the agent/cause); if no object is realized, the non-causative reading is the proper one, with the theme/patient argument in subject position (as in heAGENT opens the doorTHEME vs. the doorTHEME opens). Thus, English makes use of the same morphological surface encoding to cover two functions, transitive/causative vs. intransitive, while in German each of these functions often receives its own realization (cf. Abraham 1997:19), i.e. as a transitive construction for the causative reading and a reflexive construction for the non-causative reading. In addition, German, like English, has other options (lexical and periphrastic), among them causativization via lassen, suppletive forms, and the unmarked alternation as found in English (which is infrequent in German; cf. Abraham 1997, Steinbach 1998, Schäfer 2003). The central point for the following discussion of changes in PG is that in English the morphologically unmarked causative alternation is the most frequently used option for causativization, and English generally does not apply reflexive marking to distinguish between the causative and the non-causative reading. In German, on the other hand, unmarked causative alternation is rare (Abraham 1997, Schäfer 2003), while reflexive marking (of the causative base verb) is a frequently used device to indicate a non-causative reading (e.g. öffnen 'open-TRANS' vs. sich öffnen 'REFL open', i.e. 'open-INTR'). In English, the form of the verb remains the same while its argument structure changes. In this case, the form-function correlation can be visualized as follows:

142 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

function a: non-causative / intransitive argument 1  theme / patient


function b: causative / transitive argument 1  agent / cause argument 2  theme / patient



Figure 4.6: Form-function correlation (in causativization)

Thus, English uses a strategy that is simpler with regard to form, but more complex, or less transparent, with regard to the relationship between form and meaning/function, while in German the form-function correlation is less ambiguous, and therefore more transparent, but with a more complex form inventory (cf. Hawkins 1986, Schäfer 2003). German employs several options to mark causativization overtly. Abraham (1997:14ff.) gives a comparative overview of the options available in a range of Germanic languages, with a particular focus on English and German. The following table of English and German causativization patterns, adapted and summarized from Wanner (1999:206) and Abraham (1997:14ff., tables (1)-(7)), provides an overview.

Changes in argument structure � 143

Table 4.5: Marking of causativization (German/English) (cf. Abraham 1997:14ff.; Wanner 1999:206f.)

no morphological marking (in Minimalist terms: vp shell with abstract light verb) added affix

umlaut (change of stem vowel)15

suppletive form

periphrastic causativization

English ex.: bend, grow, run, break, sink

German ex.: fahren 'drive', (zer)brechen 'break'


ex.: (ver)brennen 'burn' →verbrennen 'burn' Das Holz (ver)brennt 'the wood is burning' / Ich verbrenne das Holz.'I am burning the wood' ex.: fallen 'fall' →fällen 'fell'; ex.: fall→fell(a tree); sit→set; lie→lay sitzen 'sit' →setzen 'set'; liegen 'lie' →legen 'lay'; versinken 'sink'→versenken 'sink' etc. ex.: remember→remind; learn ex.: wachsen 'grow' →an→teach; kill →die bauen, anpflanzen 'grow (e.g., corn)'; töten 'kill' →sterben 'die' +make, +have +lassen (ECM16 verb) ex.: feel→make feel ex.: fallen 'fall' →fallen lassen 'make/let fall'

In order to assess the options available to PG speakers, it was necessary to first identify how causativization is expressed in German and English. The most pronounced difference between English and German, in terms of the formfunction relationship, is that in English non-overt marking is the most widespread lexical strategy for encoding causativization. German makes use of a wider range of lexicalized options than English to express causativity, with morphologically unmarked causativization being the exception.

Causativization in PG With respect to causativization, the PG data I analyzed reflect the continued use of attested German strategies (e.g., Umlaut, affixation), but also the novel application of English strategies (no form change: wachse intr.'grow'/wachse trans. 'grow (sth.)'; adding machen 'make': fiehle 'feel'/fiehle mache 'make feel'). The

�� 15 This means of causativization is more frequent in German than in English but is no longer productive in either language (Haspelmath 1993, Wanner 1999). 16 ECM = exceptional case marking; ECM verbs take an infinitve complement with an objective subject, exceptionally case-marking the subject of the lower clause (Radford 1998:259).

144 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

occurrence of these novel (for PG) options for encoding causativization offers evidence for productive change, I claim. In my data, the verb wachse 'grow' (ex. (8)) offers an example of unmarked encoding of causativity, i.e., causative alternation following the English pattern. In (Standard) German, causative counterparts of the intransitive verb wachsen 'grow' are suppletive forms, e.g. anbauen, anpflanzen, ziehen/züchten 'grow (sth.)'. (8) [SB17-1990] owwer sie hen all grossa gorda un wocksa dale fun ihr but they have all big gardens and grow part of their ess sacha eat things 'but they all have big gardens and grow part of their food' Choosing this form of encoding ensures the preservation of a transparent lexical-semantic relationship between the causative and the non-causative verb form, something that cannot be accomplished by using a suppletive form. In this sense, a greater transparency of meaning is achieved, as well as simplicity of form. What is obscured is the form-function relationship, i.e., there is no overt (morphological) indication of the change in argument structure.

Periphrastic causativization Periphrastic causatives in English are usually construed with make or have (cf. e.g. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994). In German, causativization with machen 'make' is rare, if not unacceptable (depending on the variety spoken), and causativization with haben 'have' is not an available option. PG, however, has adopted the periphrastic construction with machen 'make' to express a causative verb meaning. Verbs causativized by machen 'make' in my data include fiehle 'feel', fersprecha 'promise', gae 'go', schtae 'stand', runner falle 'fall down', and woxa/wocksa 'grow'. Causativization by adding machen 'make' can be seen as the most generic marking of this semantic component (cf. the vp-shell approach in Minimalism where make is the assumed meaning of the causative light verb, e.g. Radford 1998). Semantically, it is a direct encoding of the concept 'cause to'. Simple in form, it can be used productively with any verb, and being semantically transparent, machen-causativization is a strategy that is easy to apply spontaneously. It allows speakers to substitute for lexicalized or suppletive causative verb

Changes in argument structure � 145

forms by replacing them in a semantically transparent and formally unified manner. Such a strategy can be useful in language contact since it reduces the number of forms to be acquired while still allowing all functions to be fulfilled. Like the newly introduced (to PG) causativization pattern with unmarked encoding, this is, I suggest, an example of a change motivated by more general principles of simplicity of form and semantic transparency. The specific means for carrying out the respective changes are taken from the nearest available source which in this case is English.

Additional intransitivity PG exhibits further the extension of the argument structure of a formerly transitive-only verb to allow its being used intransitively. The type of transitivity alternation discussed here does not involve causativity. It is an alternation between the transitive and the intransitive use of a verb where there is an external argument (encoded as subject) in both variants. The second argument may or may not be realized. The verb ferlasse 'leave' (orthographic variants: verlosse, ferlussa) represents this type of change. There are 24 occurrences of this verb in my corpus, distributed as follows: Table 4.6: Transitive / intransitive use of ferlasse 'leave' transitive use (with direct obj.17) intransitive use (no object)

1868 7 -

1913 1 -

1978ff. 1 -

1989ff. 6 9

In PalG the meaning of ferlasse is the same as in StG, and it is only used transitively (PfWb II 1208) as jemanden/einen verlasse(n) 'leave somebody/someone'. Beam (1985:66) and Thierwechter (2002:117) do not indicate an intransitive use of this verb either. Thierwechter (2002) provides 'leave' as the English translation. Beam (1985:66), in his English to PG dictionary, gives both weckgeh (StG weggehen) and verlosse (StG verlassen) as PG equivalents for 'leave'. He adds exemplifying clauses, with an intransitive structure for weckgeh (Is er weckgange? 'Did he leave?') and a transitive one for verlosse (Er hot sei Fraa verlosse. 'He left his wife'.) Further, intransitive ferlasse only appears in the most recent

�� 17 With ferlasse, the direct object carries the thematic role of source, indicating the origin of the movement denoted by the verb.

146 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

data section (1989ff.). Based on this evidence I argue that the intransitive use of ferlasse, as evidenced in my PG corpus, has resulted from a recent change. This change again leads to a form simplification, language internally as well as between the languages PG and English. Language internally, the semantic extension makes redundant a suppletive form for the intransitive counterpart of ferlasse, such as weggehen/wegfahren 'go away' in StG. Between PG and English, the change in the semantic structure of ferlasse results in a parallel argument structure of 'leave' and ferlasse, with both a transitive and an intransitive option. The latter is exemplified in (9): (9) [SB24-1991] m'r ferlussa Dunnersdawg, marieyets um sechs uhr we leave Thursday, mornings at six o'clock 'we leave Thursday at six o'clock in the morning ' Auxiliary selection An interesting matter arising with the novel intransitive form of ferlasse is that of auxiliary (AUX) selection when the verb is used in present perfect or past perfect. In German, verbs select either sein 'be' or haben 'have' to build perfective tenses. Transitive verbs form the perfect tense with haben in German. This is consistently done for transitive ferlasse, cf. (10) – (12). (10) [PS13-1868] weil se my bet un board ferlussa because she my bed and board left 'because she has left my bed and board'

hut has

(11) [Sim149-1913] we de Senia Schpeckmous ierer haemat on Deivels Luch ferlussa hut when the Senia Schpeckmous her home at Devil's Hole left has 'when Senia Schpeckmous left her home at Devil's hole' (12) [SB29-1991] See hen ihr blotz ferlussa they have their place left 'they left their place' As an intransitive verb, however, ferlasse exhibits two kinds of perfect tense marking, one with the AUX sein'be' and one with the AUX haben 'have'.

Changes in argument structure � 147

In German, intransitive verbs select either sein 'be' or haben 'have' depending on their semantic structure and additional information within the clause. Telicity (i.e. when an endpoint is inherent or expressed) and locomotion determine the use of sein (Wanner 1999; Keller/Sorace 2003; Randall et al. 2004). Verbs denoting change of location, such as ankommen 'arrive' or weggehen 'leave', are prototypical examples of this group (Levin/Rappaport 1994, 1995, 2005; Keller/Sorace 2003; Sorace 2004). With verbs expressing atelic processes, haben is strongly favored. Most typical of this group are verbs that are nonmotional and express duration without an inherent endpoint, e.g. warten 'wait' and reden 'talk' (Keller/Sorace 2003, Randall et al. 2004). The underlying theoretical concept here is that of split intransitivity: Intransitive verbs can be unaccusative (i.e. the subject is an internal argument of the verb, thus underlyingly an object), or unergative (the subject is the external argument of the verb at all levels) (e.g. Randall et al. 1993, Randall et al. 2004; Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995). Auxiliary selection is taken to be one diagnostic to determine whether a verb is unaccusative or unergative; unaccusative verbs, in German, select sein, while unergative verbs select haben, though this distinction is not always clearcut, and there are crosslinguistic and crossdialectal differences with respect to some verb classes (cf. Keller/Sorace 2003, Sorace 2004 for an investigation of gradience phenomena in auxiliary selection). Intransitive ferlasse occurs three times with sein and twice with haben in my PG corpus (the other occurrences are not in the perfect and thus not relevant here as no auxiliary is used). The data are as follows: AUX sein 'be'

(13) [SB37-1991] Dee Irene is ferlussa un dah Abe un dee Stella fonga aw the Irene is left and the Abe and the Stella begin 'Irene has left, and Abe and Stella begin to eat'

tzu essa. to eat

148 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

(14) [SB19-1991] So ae owet hutt sei fraw, dee Sus, gsawt sie sett obsolut so one evening has his wife, the Sus, said they should absolutely im shtettel gae fah shpella un naets kaufe. So sin sie ferlussa into town go for 'shpella' and' naets'18 buy. So are they left un dah Sam sehnt dos er glei shtoppa muss fah gas griega. and the Sam sees that he immediately stop must for gas get. 'So one evening his wife, Sus, said they absolutely had to go to town to buy shpella and naets. So they left and Sam sees that he has to stop very soon to get gas.' (15) [SB27-1990] Sis noch not hussa-seck wedder owwer ich hob en wamus it-is still not pant-pocket weather but I have a coat aw geduh mariyets wie ich ferlussa bin fah noch dah schul geh. on-put mornings as I left am for to the school go. 'It is not yet the weather for warm clothing but I put on a coat in the morning as I left for school.'

AUX haben 'have'

(16) [SB37-1991] (iterative: 'everytime when') Wee dale leit ferlussa hen sin [o]nnera widder nei kumma. as some people left have are others again in come 'Everytime some people left, others went in.' (17) [SB39-1990] (habitual: 'always') Iwwer die yohra wie ich alls ferlussa hob mariyets fah un die over the years as I always left have mornings for to the ariwet gae, warra nat feel mashina uff em shtross. work go, were not many machines on the street. 'Through the years, when I used to leave for work in the morning, there were not many cars on the streets.'

�� 18 No translation for these two terms, shpella and naets, could be obtained. The further context does not offer any hints; the terms could refer to some household utensils. Their exact meaning can be neglected because it is not relevant for the context of auxiliary selection with intransitive ferlasse that is in focus here.

Changes in argument structure � 149

The following factors relate to auxiliary selection with intransitive ferlasse: - The extension in the argument structure of ferlasse (i.e. novel option for intransitive use) probably occurred in analogy to the semantic equivalent in English, 'leave', that can be used transitively or intransitively. - Transitive ferlasse always selects haben 'have'. - 'leave' is always used with 'have' (there is no auxiliary selection in English; only 'have' can be used).19 - In German, change of location verbs select the auxiliary sein 'be' (cf. above). - A close intransitive semantic equivalent of ferlasse in German (including PG) is weggehen 'leave (intr.), go away' (cf. Beam 1985); weggehen, as a change of location verb, selects the auxiliary sein 'be' (Keller/Sorace 2003). Based on these factors, intransitive ferlasse could either be expected to always select haben, copying the auxiliary use in English and that of transitive ferlasse; or classification as an intransitive change-of-location verb (in analogy to weggehen) could lead to a consistent selection of sein, the German pattern. As the data show, however, intransitive ferlasse is used with both auxiliaries. A possible explanation for this finding could be that influence from English, in combination with German auxiliary selection patterns, has lead to insecurity and (idiosyncratic) variation in the morphological marking of perfect tense in PG intransitive verbs. However, no such insecurity was observed with respect to other intransitive verbs. Evidence from the data (examples (13) – (17)) points towards a different explanation for this pattern of auxiliary selection: sein is used with punctual events, while haben is used for habitual or iterative settings. This distinction applies to all five instances, but it is particularly obvious when examples (15) and (17) are compared: They are very similar in structure, except for alls 'always' in (17) (with haben), marking it as habitual. The differentiation between punctual and habitual/iterative does not exactly coincide with the distinction between telic and atelic events. There are certain important parallels, though. Wanner (1999:22) proposes that punctual events are always telic. In addition, ferlasse, as a change-of-location verb, denotes a telic event by virtue of its semantic content. In combination, these two factors provide a strong motivation to select sein whenever ferlasse is used to describe punctual events that occur only once.

�� 19 The use of 'be' as in 'he is gone' implies an adjectival reading of the participle which is different from the aspectual/temporal reading in 'he has gone'. It does not constitute an instance of auxiliary selection of the type that is in focus here.

150 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

Keller/Sorace (2003) found that, contrary to their own prediction, speakers of German clearly prefer haben with verbs denoting a continuation of state. Verbs from this class include weiterexistieren 'continue existing', fortdauern 'last' and verharren 'persist'. Iterative or habitually recurring events resemble durative events: They describe the repeated occurrence of the same event which I consider to be conceptually similar to the extended or continued occurrence of an event. Such a continuation-of-state reading is enhanced in (16) and (17) by the fact that the iterative/habitual event provides the background for the actual topic. The conceptual similarity offers an explanation why haben is selected when intransitive ferlasse describes a habitual or iterative action. The contrastive auxiliary selection of sein and haben is particularly informative in view of the fact that there is no model to be followed in the case of intransitive ferlasse. This case demonstrates that, while an individual lexical item (ferlasse) can change its argument structure in analogy to English, the underlying structure of German verbal semantics is retained and reflected morphologically, namely when rules of auxiliary selection are applied to novel contexts. The finding has interesting parallels in studies on the acquisition of the unaccusative/unergative distinction where children have to select auxiliaries for nonsense verbs (e.g. Randall et al. 1993, Randall et al. 2004). In both cases, implicit linguistic knowledge is tapped. In line with this result, general deviant or variable auxiliary selection as a precursor for change is not evident in PG. Considering the general trend towards simpler form at the cost of transparency of grammatical relations, it is not immediately clear why auxiliary selection is not affected by reduction tendencies to parallel English forms (e.g. reduction to haben 'have' as the only option). The stability of the haben/sein distinction seems to reflect a special status within the overall structural-semantic set-up of the language. It is a feature that is firmly rooted in the German verb lexicon, with different verb classes requiring either one or the other auxiliary in compound tense forms. The haben/sein distinction structures the entire verb inventory, and it is a more structural (rather than content-related) component of the lexicon. In Van Coetsem's terms, structural components of language are more stable in language contact than contentrelated components (cf. chapter 1). Structural (sub-)components typically consist of a limited number of constituents (two, in the case of auxiliary selection), and the use of certain constituents is often obligatory in these domains, so that speakers have little or no choice in deciding which constituent to use in a given context (Van Coetsem 1995). These characteristics are met by the haben/sein distinction in compound verb morphology. Van Coetsem's model offers an explanation why this distinction is not easily accessible to change triggered by contact with English.

Changes in argument structure � 151

4.3.4 Impersonal constructions The following section is concerned with the fourth type of change described above: with the avoidance of impersonal constructions in PG. This change is reflected in a shift of preference, favoring argument structures where the highest thematic argument also receives the highest morpho-grammatical marking, i.e., the highest thematic role, nom. case marking, and subject function coincide. After an introductory section on the topic of impersonal constructions, the manifestation of this construction type in English and German is described briefly. Based on this background, impersonal constructions and evidence for their avoidance in PG are presented and discussed, illustrated by examples from individual verbs that reflect this development.

General remarks The term impersonal constructions (Lightfoot 1979, Plank 1983, Allen 1986, Hawkins 1986, Kiparsky 1997, van Gelderen 2001, among others) refers to constructions "where the highest thematic argument, in this instance the Experiencer, is not assigned nominative Case" (van Gelderen 2001:137). This formulation presupposes a thematic hierarchy (cf. above) with the experiencer role being ranked below the agent but above the theme/stimulus role (i.e., above the second role assigned by the type of verbs under discussion, cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005:159; for a critical discussion of assuming the second argument to bear the theme role, see Levin/Rappaport 2005:40, 48f.). Sometimes impersonal constructions are termed experiencer constructions and the involved verbs impersonal verbs (e.g. Kiparsky 1997). Allen (1986) and Kiparsky (1997), among others, refer to the thematic role in question as experiencer but it has been suggested that oblique nominals in impersonal constructions can also bear other thematic roles, such as benefactive, theme, or patient (e.g. Jónsson 1997/1998, cit. in Barðdal 2004). For convenience, I follow the traditional use of referring to these entities as experiencers. The mapping pattern described by van Gelderen shows animacy effects in that these verbs typically appear with an animate (often human) experiencer and frequently (though not always) with an inanimate theme/stimulus argument; that is, animacy promotes subjecthood. Impersonal constructions were used in Old English (OE); they are preserved in rare fixed expressions in Modern English (ModE), cf. example (20) below, and they are also found in German as well as in a number of other Germanic languages (most prominently in Modern Icelandic; cf. e.g. Thráinsson 1997, Barðdal 2004). Some of the German constructions are archaic; this is particular-

152 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

ly true of subjectless constructions, as in example (18) (cf. further below for more details on German impersonal constructions). Examples of impersonal constructions in German and English are: (18) StG (archaic) mich hungert

'me hungers', i.e. I am hungry

(19) StG mich wundert (, dass...) 'me wonders (that ...)', i.e. I am surprised (that ...) (20) E (archaic)

methinks 'it seems to me', 'I think'

While the use of impersonal constructions was common in OE texts (Allen 1986, 1995), it decreased considerably in the (Early) Middle English (EME) period20. In ModE, impersonal constructions have disappeared completely, safe for very few archaic expressions, such as methinks in example (20). Methinks exhibits the structure of a non-nominative [+human] experiencer immediately preceding the verb. The clause contains no (nominative-marked) subject, and there is no person agreement between the pronoun (the only determiner phrase (DP)) and the inflected verb. This type of construction is no longer productive in English. A number of explanations has been suggested to account for the loss of impersonal constructions and related syntactic changes in the EME period (roughly between 1360 and 1380, cf. Kiparsky 1997:460). It is striking in the current context of diachronic language change in PG that there are certain parallels between the development in EME on one hand, and the tendencies of change found in PG on the other. Old English was in certain syntactic respects similar to Modern High German (e.g. subject-object-verb word order (SOV), verb-second effects), and it has undergone changes resulting in the structural conditions found in Modern English (subject-verb-object word order (SVO), only residual verb-second effects). PG, on the other hand, originated from a group of dialects that were in the essential syntactic respects like (St)German (cf. chapters 2 and 5). My PG data from the past 130 years show a tendency for change resulting in structures that are similar to those of Modern English. Thus, with respect to impersonal constructions, Old English offers a relevant and interesting parallel to PG, and a comparison between the two varieties can shed light on the under-

�� 20 Cf. e.g. Allen (1986), Kiparksy (1997) for an overview of earlier research on this topic, beginning with Jespersen (1894).

Changes in argument structure � 153

lying processes of the change observed in PG. I sketch the major lines of recent accounts of the EME changes to provide a basis for the discussion of PG impersonal constructions. After that, I give a brief description of impersonal constructions in German, before turning to the central topic of this section, changes in (the use of) PG impersonal constructions.

Impersonal constructions in English Presumably, when case marking was reduced in English and lost its function as a primary encoding device for grammatical relations, a more fixed order of words took over the function of indicating grammatical relations (cf. above on contrasts between English and German and on case syncretism in PG). Hawkins (1986:47) argues that case syncretism plays "[t]he causal role (...) in explaining the relatively fixed word orders of English". With respect to impersonal constructions in English, van Gelderen (2001) reports that it is traditionally assumed that, as a consequence of the loss of overt case marking, a reanalysis took place during the Middle English period, whereby preverbal (dative) experiencers were re-interpreted as agents, carrying nominative case (e.g. Lightfoot 1979, 1999; Plank 1983). Kiparsky (1997:460), however, admonishes that "the relation between the morphological and syntactic changes was rather more complex than such accounts tend to assume", referring to evidence from Allen (1986, 1992, 1995) that supports his position. He points out that the cooccurrence of lack of inflectional morphology and fixed word order is, in fact, an "exceptionless implication, which however holds in one direction only: lack of inflectional morphology implies fixed order of direct nominal arguments (...)" (Kiparsky 1997:461, original emphasis). Kiparsky (1997) relates the changes in EME to the introduction of an inflectional (Infl) node in the clause structure21, or, more precisely, to its becoming obligatory, while it was optional in OE. Further, and more crucially, he suggests that a change took place in the way case was assigned and arguments were licensed. In OE, case assignment was morphological, or lexical (i.e., following the semantic relationship in the respective argument structure). The changes during the EME period entailed, according to Kiparsky (ibid.), that case afterwards was assigned structurally, and arguments were licensed by their position in S-structure (e.g., the argument in subject posi�� 21 The Infl node is assumed, in generative grammar, to provide a separate layer hosting information on the inflection of the verb. It is the head of the inflectional phrase (IP), a phrase layer taken to be located above the verbal phrase (VP). In ModE, the verb presumably has to move (raise) from the verb phrase to Infl to receive its proper marking (cf. the tree diagram in Figure 4.1a for illustration).

154 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

tion is assigned nominative case due to its position and irrespective of its thematic role). OE had this option, too, but in EME it became mandatory. Therefore, lexically assigned case could be preserved in OE but not in ME and later on. Impersonal constructions are characterized by the occurrence of an experiencer argument that shows lexically assigned oblique case marking (dative case or accusative case). In Modern English, structural case assignment overrides lexical case assignment, so that any argument in the subject slot (i.e. the slot immediately preceding the finite verb22) is assigned nominative case, irrespective of its thematic role. In Old English, on the other hand, experiencers were (lexically) assigned oblique case and preserved this case marking even when they appeared in the syntactic subject position (Allen 1995, Kiparsky 1997, van Gelderen 2001, Barðdal/Eythórsson 2003). Thus, experiencer constructions frequently had an oblique argument in subject position, either with no further nominal argument (cf. the German example in (18) above) or with a nominative nominal argument following the finite verb (often, but not always, the verb showed agreement with the nominative argument, cf. Allen 1986, 1995). Plank (1983) refers to the morphological of thematic roles, as in OE, as transparent encoding while the structural assignment of case results in functional encoding (all arguments within the clause can be distinguished but there is no consistent encoding in the sense of a one-to-one relationship between one thematic role and a specific case marking, cf. above). He claims that there is a continuum between the end poles of transparent and functional encoding, with English moving (metaphorically speaking) from the transparent to the functional end. German, on the other hand, remains nearer to the transparent end, as compared to English. In this metaphorical image, PG seems to move away from German and into a position closer to that of Modern English. Hawkins (1986; cf. above) likewise takes up the matter of case assignment in German and English. He notes that English is generally less specific in its grammatical relations than German is. As one example he cites the just-mentioned fact that in German lexical case, as in experiencer constructions, can be preserved even in the canonical subject position while English (structurally) assigns nominative case to all arguments appearing in the subject slot. This is also true for so-called recipient passives (e.g. Allen 1995): When a clause is passivized, dative arguments in German retain their case rather than being (structurally) assigned nominative case, in contrast to Modern English, cf.:

�� 22 In terms of generative grammar, this corresponds to SpecIP in English (cf. Vikner 1995, Kiparsky 1997).

Changes in argument structure � 155

(21) Mir wurde ein Brief geschickt a letter sent meDAT was 'I was sent a letter' In Modern English (ModE), some traces of experiencer constructions are preserved in certain verbs of psychological state (also referred to as psych verbs; cf. Levin/Rappaport 2005 and above). Case assignment is structural, i.e. the nominal preceding the finite verb is assigned nominative case because of its position within the clause structure, while the object, following the verb, receives accusative case. What is reminiscent of earlier experiencer constructions is the fact that the entity in object position bears the highest thematic role (in van Gelderen's sense, cf. above). Examples are (exp. = experiencer): (22) The sound scared me. exp.


I was scared. exp.

(23) This solution to the problem pleases me. (Levin/Rappaport 2005:14) exp. (24) The play amused them. / exp.

They were amused. exp.

In contrast to OE and (E)ME, however, these experiencer entities can no longer surface pre-verbally (e.g. *Me scared the sound). That is, while some semantic characteristics of earlier experiencer constructions have been preserved, syntactically these constructions fully adhere to ModE SVO structure with respect to the interaction of word order and (structural) case marking.

Impersonal constructions in German Impersonal constructions are considerably more common in German than in Modern English. Hawkins (1986:20) notes that in German "[t]he single argument of a one-place predicate is most typically in the nominative [...], though both accusative and dative are found in so-called 'impersonal constructions' ". Barðdal (2004) estimates that in Modern High German/StG about 100 to 120 predicates can be used in an impersonal construction, i.e. with an oblique expe-

156 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

riencer argument as the highest thematic argument. Two types of impersonal constructions can be distinguished in German, referred to as one-place or twoplace constructions by Hawkins (1986:56): First, there are 'subjectless' clauses, the only argument being assigned the thematic role of experiencer (Allen 1986, Kiparsky 1997), and encoded as accusative or dative case object, cf. (25). The second type is represented by sentences with an experiencer in oblique case (dative or accusative) where the experienceris [+animate] and often also [+human] (as in 'subjectless' clauses), and a second argument which can be a nominative-case nominal, a nominative expletive (es 'it'), or a clausal argument. The experiencer frequently appears in topic position, cf. (26) and (27). The following list provides examples of impersonal constructions in German (the arrow '→' points at preferred variants with the same meaning where applicable). • Experiencer constructions with one argument slot: (25) a. michACC hungert (archaic) → ich bin hungrig/ habe Hunger 'I am hungry' b. michACC dürstet (archaic) → ich bin durstig/ habe Durst 'I am thirsty' c. michACC friert → ich friere 'I am cold' • Experiencer constructions with more than one argument slot: (26) a. michACC ängstigt... (archaic) b. michACC stört ... c. mirDAT gefällt ... d. mirDAT fehlt ...

→ ich habe Angst vor ... (→ ich mag...)

'I am afraid of ...' 'I am irritated by ...' 'I like ...' 'I miss ...'

(27) Merkwürdiges]NOM passiert mirDAT ist [etwas to-me is [something strange] happened 'something strange happened to me' In Plank's (1983) terms, the impersonal construction type reflects a transparent (rather than a functional) case-marking system where agents are prototypical subjects (including a privilege to nominative case marking and verb agreement), while the thematic role of experiencer is encoded by oblique case marking (dative or accusative), even in the absence of an agent. In some Germanic languages, among them Modern Icelandic and Old English, these nominals

Changes in argument structure � 157

must be considered subjects, in spite of their oblique case marking (cf. Eythórsson 2000, Barðdal & Eythórsson 2003 for Modern Icelandic; Allen 1986, 1995 for Old English). This analysis does not apply to Modern High German and PG, however. Following thematic hierarchy considerations, experiencers can become subjects if there is no argument with a higher thematic role in the same argument structure. Such mapping pattern would correspond to Plank's (1983) functionality principle. The question of precisely how word order and morphosyntax interact needs more research (Thráinsson 1997), and it is one of the areas where changes can be effected by language-internal mechanisms as well as by language contact. One uncontroversal difference between English and German that crucially bears on the set-up of experiencer constructions is the following: In English, case is assigned structurally, i.e. by position, while in German, case can be assigned lexically, based on thematic role assignment. This difference contributes to the fact that German has experiencer constructions with a non-nominative experiencer, the highest thematic role, in topic position, while in English, the argument structure of former 'impersonal' verbs has changed to be in line with the dominant pattern of word order and structural case assignment, independent of thematic roles.23 In the following section, I present PG data on impersonal constructions with special attention to the verbs gleichen 'like', fehlen/ferfehlen 'miss', (fer)wunnere 'wonder' and gemahnen 'remember/remind'. I discuss the observed changes against the background of the differing conditions in English and German.

Impersonal constructions in Pennsylvania German PG has impersonal constructions to a similar extent as German, as in es wunnert mich 'it wonders me' ('it makes me wonder'). Changes are noticeable, however, which seem to effect an adjustment to the English "model" in some cases (i.e., to the AE cognate or the AE semantic equivalent of the affected PG verb) and an avoidance of these impersonal structures more generally. The observed changes are twofold: One type (type 1) affects the usage of verbs originally taking non-

�� 23 Differences in word order requirements and word order freedom play a role, too, but to a lesser degree.

158 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

nominative experiencers as their arguments, as in the following examples (the (b) example illustrates the changed pattern with a nom. subj. experiencer)24. (28) (a) [Sim28-1913] Sell is oll as ierer faela dutt. such is all that them miss does 'That's all that they are missing.' (b) [SB3-1989] feel fun die Leit (...) sawga sie daeda die Wunner-fitz Shtun many of the people (...) say they did the curiosity hour fun WBYO arrick ferfaila. of WBYO badly miss 'many people (...) say they miss the "Wunnerfitz" hour of WBYO a lot.' (29) (a) [PS25-1868] Was mich awer om aerricksht ferwunnert hut, war das er what me but the most amazed has was that he de gons tseit hinnersht feddersht geluffa is. the whole time backwards forwards walked is 'But what amazed me the most was that he walked backwards the whole time.' (b) [SB4-1989] Ich wunner wie long dos es nemmt bis sie electrik I wonder how long that it takes until they electricity 'I wonder how long it will take for them to get electricity'

hen. have

It is more difficult to spot the other type of change (type 2), i.e. avoidance of impersonal constructions, or preference for alternative structures that are in keeping with the more frequent pattern of nominative subjects bearing the highest thematic role in the clause. There is no unambiguous positive evidence for it; rather, the pattern emerges by inference when looking for nominativecase experiencers and checking whether an impersonal construction would

�� 24 The relationship between faela and ferfaila (27), and between wunnere and ferwunnere (28), is explained and discussed below. For the current purpose of illustrating changes in the use of impersonal constructions, they are treated as equivalents.

Changes in argument structure � 159

have been possible but was not used, or when the argument structure of a verb has been rearranged to follow the dominant pattern of argument realization, so that the entity bearing the highest thematic role is morpho-syntactically realized as the nominative-marked subject (as in the case of gleiche(n) 'like' replacing gefallen 'please', discussed below). Changes of both types are exemplified by the verbs • gleiche 'like', StG 'mögen, gern haben' (type 2) • fehle/ferfehle 'fail, miss', StG 'fehlen; vermissen' (type 1) • wunnere/ferwunnere 'wonder', StG 'wundern' (type 1/2) • (draa-)gemaahne 'remember; remind', StG 'erinnern' (type 1) These verbs can be interpreted as individual cases reflecting interference from English. I propose an additional and more far-reaching interpretation in the sense that a change in the use of impersonal constructions relates to the overall shift PG is undergoing in the direction of a more functional encoding of grammatical relations that is closer to the English overall pattern. While AE equivalents play a role in making individual PG verbs more susceptible to change than others that do not have close AE counterparts, the shared properties of these individual changes fit the larger context of change in the transparency / functionality patterns of PG grammatical encoding.

gleiche The verb gleiche(n)25 'like', a well-attested instance of change in PG (e.g. Lambert 1924; Bloomfield 1933; Schach 1951, 1954; Seel 1988; Werner 1996), is a case in point for the avoidance of impersonal constructions and preference for alternative structures (the second type of change), along with a considerable change in meaning. The meaning of gleiche has changed from 'be like', 'look like' (still so in StG and PalG, among other German varieties) to 'like, be fond of'. This change seems to have been completed in all varieties of PG. Its completion is also attested in my data, i.e. there are no instances of gleiche in the meaning of 'be similar, be/look like'. Lambert (1924:66) and Bloomfield (1933:462) suggest that the semantic change of gleiche from 'resemble, look like' to 'like' is based on a confusion of the adjective like (gleich in German and PG) with the verb like, resulting in a new

�� 25 The PG base form (infinitive) is gleiche, while the corresponding StG word form is gleichen (with a different meaning, though). In the following, only the PG form is used.

160 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

semantic correspondence of the two verbs gleiche and like. Lambert (1924:66) notes that "[t]he E adj like (similar) is gleich in PG; a verb was formed from this adj for the verb to like". Schach (1951; 1954) and Seel (1988) criticize his explanation by pointing at the obvious difference in meaning between gleich 'similar' and gleiche 'like, love'. It seems, however, that it is the morphological process Lambert has in mind, not the semantic extension: While he offers the StG equivalents for most entries in his dictionary, he does not do so for gleiche although a StG verb gleichen 'be similar, look like' exists. He seems to imply that gleiche 'like, love' is a new word formation derived from the adjective gleich and based on the form analogy between E like (adj) and like (verb). That is, Lambert does not assume a semantic shift in the meaning of the existing verb gleiche, but the creation of a new verb. In contrast to Lambert's position, Schach (1951:258; 1954:221), Seel (1988:186) and Werner (1996:278) assume that the change originates in a confusion of AE like and be like. For lack of supporting evidence, the question of the origin of this change cannot be resolved and remains a matter of what one considers the most likely connection. In one way or another, an analogy must have been involved that went approximately along the following lines: E

like (prep)


be like

like (v)


wie (prep)


gleich sein (wie)


Figure 4.7: gleich / gleiche(n) (PG)

While the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch offers the meaning 'resemble, be like, look like' for the PalG verb gleiche, Lambert (1924:66), Frey (1985:119) and Beam (1985:67) give the meaning 'like, love' for the PG verb gleiche. This information implies that a semantic change (or a new word formation, as Lambert 1924 suggests) must have taken place. Seel (1988) and Werner (1996) classify gleiche as an instance of semantic borrowing, i.e. they assume that the German lexical item has received, or borrowed, the meaning from the related English item like. They do not, however, remark on the change in argument realization that coincides with the changed meaning of gleiche. Only Schach (1954:221) points out that gleiche is used with an accusative argument in its new meaning; in the meaning 'resemble, look like' it appears always with a dative argument (in PalG and StG).

Changes in argument structure � 161

Schach (1951:258) suggests three reasons why gleiche has borrowed the meaning of the verb like. First, German has a number of semantic equivalents of the English verb, none of which is equally broad in scope, though; he identifies a "tendency to substitute a convenient English loan word capable of general application" (Schach 1951:258) as the semantic motivation for this borrowing. Second, he notes that the German semantic equivalents of the verb like "are more involved syntactically than the relatively simple English construction" (ibid.), a syntactic motivation. Third, Schach claims that gleiche in the meaning 'look like, be similar' is avoided in colloquial speech so that assigning a new meaning to this lexeme did not create a strong conflict with the pre-existing meaning; rather, the earlier meaning was lost completely in PG. This is a frequency of use-based motivation. In fact, this last argument can be reconciled with Lambert's (1924) suggestion that gleiche was derived from gleich in a process of morphological analogy to English if we assume that the frequency of gleiche 'look like' was so low in the varieties spoken by the early PG immigrants that this meaning was not a competitor to the new meaning. The syntactic motivation Schach (1951) suggests fits in well with the question of argument realization patterns I have treated above. I propose that this motivation was the strongest trigger to lead to the fundamental change in the meaning of gleiche. Therefore, this point is discussed in more detail. The German counterparts of the verb like are: gefallen; mögen; gern [adv] + verb. None of these counterparts fully parallels like in use and meaning, for different reasons. Gern [adv] + verb ('gladly' + verb) requires a structurally different organization of the sentence in order to express the same concept, with the adverb gern 'gladly' covering most of the meaning of like in this construction. Mögen ('like'; 'may') is a modal verb and thus carries certain grammatical features not shared by like. Gefallen is neither a modal nor an adverb. The crucial point of divergence between gefallen and like is that gefallen requires an impersonal construction, with the highest thematic role, the experiencer, encoded as dative-marked argument. With like, the corresponding entity (experiencer) is encoded as nominative-marked subject. Thus, the "re-routing" of gleiche to mean 'like' offered two advantages (in the psycholinguistic sense of a reduced mental load) in this bilingual setting: It allowed a unified expression of the English concept of like in PG (as in AE), rather than three PG options with partly overlapping functions, none of which fully coincides with the its AE counterpart; and it made it possible to avoid an impersonal construction. In the light of language preserving efforts it is an additional benefit that the verb gleiche is German in surface form (i.e., in its phonological encoding, cf. Levelt 1989 and Figure 4.2 above), notwithstanding its English-based argument structure (lemma). Therefore it passes the language

162 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

affiliation monitor of even the most "purist" writer (the author of the 1978ff. texts) who consciously avoids using English-stem lexemes. The data from 1868, i.e. the earliest data in my corpus, include a few examples of gefalle(n) 'please', side by side with the use of the verb gleiche meaning 'like': • gefalle (1868) (30) [PS5-1868] ich mus es selver sawya das des ding g’fallt mer I must it myself say that this thing pleases me 'I must contend that this thing I like' (31) [PS9-1868] Im awfong huts mer goot g’falla dort in-the beginning has-it me well pleased there 'In the beginning I liked it there' (32) [PS10-1868] Des ding hut mer gor net g’falla this thing has me at-all not pleased 'This thing I didn't like at all' • gleiche (1868) (33) [PS1-1868] for so an geruch, somehow, du weasht, gleicha de shtadt leit net. for such a smell, somehow, you know, like the town people not 'for such a smell, somehow, you know, the town people don't like' (34) [PS2-1868] Ich weas eaner, seller deata mer orrig gleicha, ... I know one, that-one would we much like 'I know someone, him we would like very much'

Changes in argument structure � 163

(35) [PS8-1868] un do geb ich gor nix drum eb se’s and there give I at-all nothing around if they-it 'and I don't care at all whether they like it or not'

gleicha oder net. like or not

None of the corpus texts after 1868 contains any occurrences of gefalle(n). Today, gleiche (in PG) shows the same semantic distribution as the verb like, and it allows the experiencer role to be encoded as the nominative-marked subject (and thus the argument structure to fit the dominant AE word order pattern), which would not be possible with gefalle(n). This structural property I consider to be a strong syntactically driven motivation for the semantic change of gleiche that otherwise would appear to have occurred rather accidentally. Note that the English verb like underwent the same process of change in its argument structure, from an oblique-experiencer verb to a verb requiring a nominative experiencer subject from Old English to Middle/Early Modern English , i.e. roughly between 1100 and 1500 (Allen 1986, 1995). In the case of like, the development was apparently related to large-scale restructuring changes in English case assignment and word order (cf. above). In PG, on the other hand, the change from earlier lexicalizations of the concept of the verb like, e.g. gefallen, mögen and gern +verb, to gleiche was most likely induced by contact with English that lead to an increased (cognitive) pressure towards the preferred use of the dominant mapping patterns between thematic roles and morphosyntactic encoding.

fehle / ferfehle Further evidence for the avoidance of impersonal constructions, or their replacement by alternative structures, comes from the verbs fehle/ferfehle 'be missing/miss' and wunnere 'be surprised, wonder'26. Gemahne 'remind' likewise falls into the category of optionally impersonal verbs, as I show below, but in this case change seems to be slower because the English counterpart allows for an impersonal construction, too (as in 'this reminds me of ...'). The semantic and syntactic distribution of the two verbs fehle and ferfehle in PG is as in Table 4.7 below. My sources are Lambert (1924:54,162,165), Beam

�� 26I list the PG base form of the respective verbs as with gleiche, above; the corresponding StG infinitive ends in –n. The PG data exhibit orthographic variation regarding these verbs. As citation forms I chose a spelling that is close to their StG equivalents so their relation can be recognized.

164 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

(1985:44,76), Frey (1985:117,136), Werner (1996:269), and Thierwechter (2002:58,175). Table 4.7: fehle / ferfehle (semantic / syntactic distribution) PG fehle

semantic E fail (= novel meaning, compared to PalG); lack, miss, be missing StG/PalG fehlen; keinen Erfolg haben


E miss (transitive) transitive, acc. obj. StG/PalG verpassen, verfehlen; vermissen

syntactic intransitive (i.e., no direct (acc.) object); dat. experiencer can occur optionally

Note that if fehle is used with a dat. experiencer, a slight shift in meaning occurs. This is noticeable in the translation into English: In the intransitive version (er fehlt 'he is missing/not here') the same entity is assigned subject position in German and in English. When an experiencer is added (er fehlt unsDAT 'he is missing [for] us', i.e., 'we miss him'), this experiencer is the (dative) object of the German clause but is assigned the subject position in English. There are three cases in which ferfehle is used where fehle (or vermisse) would be required semantically in PalG and in StG. The argument structure of ferfehle, a transitive verb taking a nominative subject (linked to the highest thematic role) and an accusative object, fits in with the dominant argument encoding pattern. fehle, on the other hand, requires a dative experiencer and a nominative theme/stimulus, i.e. the highest thematic role is not encoded as nominative. (Ver)missen 'miss (s.o.)' seems to offer itself as a semantically and structurally even closer cognate. However, it does not appear in any section of my PG corpus. Werner (1996) lists misse 'miss' as a PG lexeme reflecting influence from English and gives as its earliest appearence date in his corpus the period of 1861 – 1887. Its frequency is very low, though, with only five occurrences (in five different texts by four different authors) in a total of 233.110 words (Werner 1996:221, 317), suggesting that its lacking from my corpus is accidental, rather than systematic. The cognate status and near-homophony of fehle and fail may have promoted the use of fehle / ferfehle; these preconditions pertain to (ver)misse as well, though, so that no obvious explanation for its dispreference offers itself. The respective PG sentences (36 – 38) would be ungrammatical in StG and PalG in the intended meaning; the semantically corresponding StG verb is added in square brackets.

Changes in argument structure � 165

(36) [SB3-1989][vermissen] feel fun die Leit (...) sawga sie daeda die Wunner-fitz many of the people (...) say they did the Wunnerfitz [=curiosity] Shtun fun WBYO arrick ferfaila. hour of WBYO much miss 'many people say they missed the Wunnerfitz show of WBYO a lot' (37) [SB17-1991][vermissen] Dah Bill wor yusht ocht un sechtzich (...) M'r duhna dah Bill the Bill was just eight and sixty (...) We do the Bill gewis ferfaila (...). surly miss (...) 'Bill was just sixty-eight (...). We deeply miss Bill (...).' (38) [SB21-1991][vermissen] Yah, mei freind un Ihra Freind, der Earl Moyer, is in dee Aewich yes, my friend and your friend, the Earl Moyer, is into the eternal ruh geruffa warra Sunndawg der sechsuntzwonsicht moi. M'r ferfaila rest called been Sunday the six-and-twentieth May. We miss dah Earl doh un Die Huffa Karrich. the Earl there at the Huff's Church. 'Yes, my friend and your friend, Earl Moyer, was called to eternal rest on Sunday the 26th of May. We miss Earl here at Huff's Church.' A quantitative comparison of the occurrence of fehle/ferfehle throughout the data reveals a proportional increase of the use of the transitive verb, ferfehle, vs. the oblique-experiencer verb, fehle, especially in the last data section (1989ff.). Table 4.8: fehle / ferfehle (frequency) 1868 fehle/faile (intr./impers.) 1 ferfehle (tr.) total 1




2 2 4

1 3 4

2 10 12

The argument structure of ferfehle parallels that of E miss (and that of E fail), encoding the highest thematic role in the clause, the experiencer, as the highest grammatical relation, i.e. as nom. case subject. With fehle, in contrast, the experiencer is the internal argument and is encoded as an oblique (dat. case) object in the presence of a theme, with the theme appearing in subject position. This

166 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

argument structure may be the reason why fehle remains infrequent despite its considerable similarity to fail, a similarity that is perceived to be close enough in form and meaning to lead to orthographic interference.

(fer)wunnere This verb occurs in the two variants wunnere and ferwunnere. While there are slight semantic differences, there are no syntactic ones in the use of the two forms (Pfälzisches Wörterbuch II:1318), in contrast to what was said about fehle/ferfehle. In the case of (fer)wunnere, the prefix fer- does not change the argument structure of the base verb. Wunnere was briefly discussed above in the context of reflexive marking. In PalG, it is used in the same way as wundern in StG (cf. Pfälzisches Wörterbuch IV:1472 for PalG; Wahrig 1997 for StG). Wunnere/wundern is constructed either impersonally or with a reflexive anaphor. In the reflexive construction, the position of the direct (acc.) obj. is filled by a reflexive anaphor (sich, coreferential with the subject er 'he' in (39)): (39) wunnert/wundert Eri he-nom. surprises 'He is surprised.'

sichi. REFL-acc.

In the impersonal construction, the experiencer (mich 'me' in (40)) is encoded as direct (acc.) obj. while the subject (sein Verhalten 'his behavior') carries the theme/stimulus role: (40) Sein Verhalten wundert/wunnert his behavior-nom. surprises 'I am surprised about his behavior.'

mich. me-acc.

The argument structure of wunnere/wundern further allows for an optional prepositional (PP) or clausal (CP) complement27, depending on construction type: With the reflexive construction, a PP with über 'about' or a CP (frequently headed by (darüber) dass '(about) that') can be added (er wundert sich über/ darüber, dass ... 'he is surprised about/ that ...'). The transitive construction can �� 27 PP = prepositional phrase; CP = complementizer phrase. Cf. chapter 5 for details.

Changes in argument structure � 167

take a CP, often headed by dass 'that' (es wundert ihn, dass ... 'he is surprised that ...'). The meaning of wunnere/wundern corresponds in English to 'be surprised, be amazed' (reflexive construction) and 'surprise, amaze, astound' (transitive construction). There is, however, a difference between English and German with respect to the grammatical mapping of the arguments: In terms of thematic roles, the object entity of the (P)G impersonal (transitive) wunnere/wundern construction (X in (41)a.) corresponds to the subject entity of the English construction and of the reflexive construction in German, cf. (41)b. [...] = grammatical relation {...} = thematic role

(41) a. Y [subj.] {theme} Ex.: Sein Verhalten his behavior

wundert wundert surprises

X [subj.] (BE) surprised {experiencer} Ex.: I am surprised wundere michi Ichi I surprise REFL


X [dir.obj.]28 {experiencer} mich. me about about über about

Y [prep.obj.] {theme} his behavior. sein Verhalten his behavior

In PG, wunnere is used in the same way as in PalG but in addition it can be constructed as a non-reflexive personal verb (with the experiencer in subject position), parallel to wonder in English. This novel use does not exist in PalG and StG, and it reflects the semantic change wunnere has undergone in PG. In this construction type the verb's meaning is equivalent to English wonder, corresponding to sich fragen in StG and PalG, rather than to (sich) wundern 'be surprised/amazed'. �� 28 A possible word order variant is to have the acc. obj. in topic position. In this case, the order of thematic roles is the same as in the English clause, but the order of grammatical relations (subj., dir. obj.) is the opposite. Cf.: (41) a' X [acc.obj.] wundert Y [subj.] {experiencer} {theme} Mich wundert sein Verhalten. me-ACC surprises his behavior

168 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

With respect to argument realization, the reflexive construction shares surface form features with the impersonal as well as the novel personal (experiencer = subject) construction of wunnere (Table 4.9). I propose that the tendency for loss of reflexive and impersonal uses with wunnere is comparable to the development towards subjectivization suggested for fiehle 'feel' (cf. above). Table 4.9: wunnere (argument selection) subject inanimate/expletive subj.: selection: impersonal construction experiencer oblique experiencer (acc.) role: example:

es wunnert mich (StG, PG) 'it-nom. wonders me-acc.'

animate/human subj. + reflexive marker oblique experiencer co-referential with subject

animate/human subj. experiencer = subject (nom.)

ich wunner mich (StG, PG) 'I-nom. wonder REFL-acc.'

ich wunner (PG) 'I-nom. wonder'

Von Seefranz-Montag (1984:541) suggests that in German there is a development from the oblique-experiencer construction to the reflexive construction to the subject-experiencer construction. For PG, however, I do not think that there is a development in the strict sense of von Seefranz-Montag's suggestions because all three constructions appear side by side. What can be expected for the (near) future of PG is a change in frequencies, with the oblique construction becoming less frequent and the non-reflexive subject-experiencer construction being increasingly preferred. An indication of this development is already noticeable in my data (cf. Table 4.10 below). Such change in frequencies can be a precursor of actual linguistic change (cf. chapter 1, Figure 1-1). The number of total occurrences of the verb wunnere increases over the time of my data base, from one (or four, if ferwunnere is included) in 1868 and four in 1913, to 13 in 1978ff. and 18 in 1989ff. A quantitative evaluation of all instances of wunnere shows that the personal (experiencer= subject) construction, from its first documented occurrence in 1913 onwards, is preferred over the impersonal construction, while the reflexive construction is almost non-existent (cf. Table 4.4 in section 4.3.2 above). Table 4.10: wunnere (frequency) wunnere pers. subj. (refl) impers. subj. pers. subj. total

1868 2 2 4

1913 4 4

1978ff 1 5 7 13

1989ff 8 10 18

Changes in argument structure � 169

The verb (fer)wunnere is thus used with the following three types of argument structure in PG: • Type 1: as a reflexive verb, i.e. with a reflexive pronoun that is coreferential with the subject (two occurrences in 1868 (ferwunnere), one occurrence in 1978 (wunnere)) (42) [PS23-1868] we er mer recht gavva hut, hab ich mich ordlich ferwunnert when he me right given has, have I REFL. properly wondered ivver ean. about him. 'when he agreed with me, I was very surprised about him.' • Type 2: in an impersonal construction where the experiencer, the highest thematic role, is encoded as non-nom. case object (both dat. and acc. occur), i.e. es wunnert 'it wonders' + (human) experiencer (mich 'me'/ihm 'him'29). Of this type, there are 15 occurrences total (two in 1868 (one of them is ferwunnere), none in 1913, five in 1978ff., eight in 1989ff.).

�� 29Only these two options are attested in my data; most likely, it is a mere accident that no other argument options show up in these texts. Without further investigation of other kinds of PG data, this should not be taken to indicate a limited range of available arguments for the verb wunnere.

170 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

(43) [EDS11-1979] Es wunnert mich was die Leit als mit de Esch geduh henn. It wonders me what the people always with the ash done have 'I'm curious what the people used to do with the ashes.' [translation in original] • Type 3: with a nom. case subject but without a reflexive pronoun or any other kind of nominal argument, i.e. nom. subject + wunnere (+ CP). In this construction type, the argument structure of wunnere fully converges with that of AE wonder. Wunnere with this argument structure is not attested in PalG and StG. Thus, this is a new use of the verb, probably induced by contact with English and interference from the English cognate wonder. Again, as with gleiche and (fer-)fehle, this newly attested argument structure coincides with the dominant pattern of encoding the highest thematic role as nom. marked subject. (44) [SB4-1989] Ich wunner wie long dos es nemmt bis sie electrik I wonder how long that it takes until they electricity 'I wonder how long it will take for them to get electricity'

hen. have

Seel (1988:186, 231) categorizes wunnere as "synonyme Lehnbedeutung" ('synonymous borrowed meaning'), i.e. a semantic borrowing based on the close similarity of form and meaning between the German and the English verb. She offers 'wonder' as the English semantic equivalent of the PG verb (ibid.) but does not mention the change in argument structure that crucially coincides with the shift in meaning from 'be surprised' to 'wonder'. Beam (1985:177) lists (fer)wunnere as the PG semantic equivalent of English 'wonder, amaze', adding a sentence that demonstrates the transitive, impersonal use of the verb (Hot dich sell net gewunnert (verwunnert)? 'Did that not wonder (amaze) you?' [Beam, ibid.]). Lambert (1924:169, 180) provides two separate entries, one for wunnere 'wonder' (with an example for the transitive, impersonal use: es wunnert mich 'I wonder'), and another one for ferwunnere 'astound' and sich ferwunnere 'to be amazed', thus making a three-way semantic distinction. A detailed semantic distinction of this kind is not supported by any section of my PG data. In sum, none of the word lists and dictionaries that include (fer)wunnere gives proof of the intransitive, non-reflexive, personal use of this verb, maybe due to the general tendency that word lists focus on semantic content and tend to neglect the argument structure of their entries. The data from my PG corpus, however, provide clear evidence for the existence of a changed argument structure in the case of wunnere.

Changes in argument structure � 171

The change is also reflected in new selectional restrictions regarding the choice of clausal (CP) complements. In my PG corpus, all but four instances of (fer)wunnere have CP complements.30 They are headed by a range of complementizers, cf. Table 4.11 ('*' indicates instances of ferwunnere.) Table 4.11: Complementizers occurring with wunnere

1868 1913 1978ff 1989ff total

wos/was 'what' 1 3 2 4 10

eb(b) wuh fer wos 'if, whether' 'where' 'why'

6 3 9

wie long we das wie viele won 'how long' 'how' 'that' 'how many' 'when' 1* 1*

1 2 4 4


1 2 2




1 1

Nine different complementizers are used with wunnere in my data base, some of them only once. The two most frequent ones are wos/was 'what' (ten occurrences) and eb(b) 'if, whether' (nine occurrences). There is some variation regarding what argument structure (type 1-3) coincides with what complementizer, but there is one correlation I found to be robust across all occurrences of wunnere: It is only the third construction type (nom. subj. + wunnere, e.g. example (44) above) that coincides with the complementizer eb(b) 'if, whether', in full analogy to AE wonder if. Eb(b) 'if, whether' is not used with wunnere in PalG (and related varieties). Hence, this finding supports my above interpretation that the type 3 pattern of use reflects convergence on the level of meaning and argument realization between PG wunnere and its AE cognate, wonder. The similarity in form between the English and PG verbs facilitates the process of collapsing their semantic/syntactic components (i.e., their lemmas, in Levelt's 1989 terms) into one form that works for for both languages. Here, the result is similar to gleiche and like: While on the surface there are still two word forms available, one for English and one for PG, the analogies in the semanticsyntactic structure of the two verbs have been extended to allow for a "congruent lexicalization" (Muysken 2000:3f., 122ff.). "Congruent lexicalization" is defined as the insertion of "material from different lexical inventories into a shared grammatical structure" (Muysken 2000:3). This is only possible if the semantic-syntactic features of the respective lexical entries, as well as the grammatical structure of the involved languages, have converged sufficiently to �� 30 Of the remaining four cases, one (1868) has a PP complement (with ivver 'over'), one instance has direct speech following the verb (1991), and in two cases (both 1978), there is no further complement.

172 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

result in the same underlying concept(s). Only the surface form of the lexical entries remains distinct. If a slightly diverging surface form is maintained as the only clearly distinguishing feature, this is sufficient to express language loyalty as required by different sociolinguistic settings. Cases like wunnere are often referred to as calques, or loan translations. Even though this concept describes the result of the change properly, it does not illuminate possible reasons or motivations for its occurrence. For this reason I have avoided the term so far and tried to describe the more general level of development of which I see wunnere as one instantiation. The frequency contrast between the personal and the impersonal use of wunnere is, in itself, too low to prove an unambiguous preference for the personal construction. The crucial point here is that the personal, non-reflexive construction of wunnere is a completely novel one that did not develop in other German dialects. One can speculate about the reasons why the impersonal construction was not abandoned over time but rather seems to be enjoying increasing popularity. From metalinguistic utterances in the data there is reason to believe that the impersonal construction of wunnere (with the same semantic content and selectional restrictions as personal wunnere) is considered a shibboleth of being Pennsylvania German (cf. above). The following remark illustrates the point: "Es wunnert mich!" saagt der Deitscher. Wann mer's in's Englisch iwwersetze laut's en Bissel gschpassich. Unn wann mer's net en Bissel verbessere dann schpotte die Nochbere ass mir yuscht "dumme Deitsche" sinn. (Es Deitsch Schtick / Feb. 1978)

("It wonders me!" says the German. If we translate it into English, it sounds a bit strange. And if we don't improve it a bit, then the neighbors make fun of us [saying] that we are just "dumb Dutch". [translation provided in the original]) In the context of a dying language that is being revived and protected by the members of a dwindling speech community, it seems fitting that a specific item or construction is used that emphasizes group membership. This interpretation of the use of impersonal wunnere is supported by the observation that the use of the impersonal construction in fact only began to increase in the two most recent text blocks, when language preservation became an issue for the PG speech community.

Changes in argument structure � 173

gemahne(n) Gemahne (StG gemahnen) has as its closest semantic equivalent in English the verb remind, which likewise is constructed with the experiencer in object position. Both gemahne and remind can be paraphrased in AE as 'cause to remember', with the remembering entity being the experiencer. Note that remind/remember constitute a non-identical verb pair that shows causative alternation. In PG, the base verb is the same but the functions (causative vs. intransitive) are distinguished via morphological (reflexive) marking. Cf. the following semantic representation: (a) Intransitive: remember / sich (draa-)gemahne: [X remember Y] (b) Causative / transitive: remind / (draa-)gemahne: [Z CAUSE [X remember Y]] (cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994 and above regarding the notation pattern). The fact that it is the causative variant that is morphologically unmarked in PG suggests that the verb is inherently causative (dyadic) and that the intransitive form is derived by detransitivization (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1994, Wanner 1999), i.e. by omission of the vp shell. Cf. the following examples: (45) That reminds me of a story. (46) [EDS13-1978] Awwer des gemaahnt mich an re Schpuckegschicht. but that reminds me of a spook story 'But that reminds me of a ghost story.' The parallel semantic-syntactic structure of the two corresponding verbs remind and gemahne is likely to ensure the preservation of the impersonal construction pattern with gemahne, an expectation that is supported by the data. Patterns of argument structure occurring with gemahne are • in PalG (source: Pfälzisches Wörterbuch): In PalG gemahne can be constructed in two ways31: o with a direct (acc.) obj. (or, less frequently, with a dat. obj.) (transitive) o with a reflexive anaphor (instead of the direct object) (reflexive)

�� 31 These are the same options as for wunnere.

174 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships

In addition, gemahne (in both construction types) frequently occurs with a prepositional complement (PP) with the preposition an 'of'. Two less frequent alternatives are a clausal (CP) complement instead of a prepositional (PP) complement, or no PP/CP complement. I.e., there are three options: +PP, +CP, +ø. When the subject is a non-human entity, or when it is human but nonvolitional, the non-reflexive (i.e. transitive) variant is an impersonal construction: The "remindee" (the acc. or dat. object), the person being reminded of something, is the experiencer, and the reminding entity (the nom. case subj.) is the theme/stimulus, i.e. bearing a lower thematic role but with a "higher" morphological and syntactic encoding. An example of an impersonal construction with a human entity as theme/stimulus is he reminds me of his brother, meaning that something about the person referred to as he makes the experiencer, me, think of his brother. In contrast, in we remind you of the upcoming deadline, we carries the thematic role of (volitional) actor (in the sense of Wanner 1999:99, cf. above), not theme/stimulus. The latter example is therefore not an impersonal construction. • in PG: In my PG data, the verb gemahne is used in the following construction types: o with an acc. or dat. obj.: in an impersonal construction (subject = theme/stimulus; type 1 in Table 4.12 below) or in a personal construction (subject = (volitional) actor; type 2); o with a reflexive anaphor that is coreferential with the subject (type 3); o in passive constructions (with a 1st pers. sg. subject) (type 4). In addition, all construction types can have a PP with an 'of'/draa 'there-of'32 (occasionally fun 'of') or a clausal complement introduced by dos/ass 'that'; only two clauses with gemahne (dating from 1913 and 1991) have neither a prepositional (PP) nor a clausal (CP) complement. Table 4.12 shows the frequency distribution of the different construction types across data sections.

�� 32 Cf. chapter 8 below regarding the morphological and syntactic details of the form draa'thereof' and its use. At this current point, the details are not relevant.

Changes in argument structure � 175

Table 4.12: gemahne(n) (frequency) gemahne impers. subj. [theme/stimulus] pers. subj. [actor] pers. subj.+reflexive passive (subject: 1st [ich 'I']) total

type (1) (2) (3) (4)

1868 3 3

1913 2 1 3

1978ff 4 6 1 4 15

1989ff 5 5 10

There are three main findings with respect to this distribution: • Only type 1, the impersonal construction, is found across all sections. • The 1978ff. data section exhibits the greatest variety of construction in the use of gemahne. • The two most recent text blocks show a considerable increase of human entities in subject position ('personal constructions'); these subjects carry the thematic role of (volitional) actor (most of them are 1st pers. sg.). Only one of the clauses with a human subject (dating from 1978ff.) is ambiguous with respect to the thematic role of the subject (der yung Mann 'the young man'). The context of the clause implies that it is probably a theme/stimulus, but an interpretation as (volitional) actor is also possible. (47) [EDS5-1978] Der yung Mann hot mich draagemaahnt an ebbes the young man has me there-of-reminded of something ass ich gleiche deet schwetze devun heit. that I like did talk there-of today 'The young man reminded me of something that I would like to talk about today.' [translation provided in original] The noticeable increase in 'personal constructions' with gemahne (i.e. the subject is a human entity and carries the thematic role of actor) is in line with the tendency towards the mapping pattern where the entity with the highest thematic role is encoded as nom. case subject. The amount of impersonal constructions remains stable across the data section (with a slight increase in more recent texts, along with an overall increase in the use of the verb). This fact implies that the argument structure of gemahne has not changed, but that a quantitative shift (reflecting a shift in preference) has begun to take place. First-person subjects (as in: ich will eich draa gemaahne 'I want to remind you of it/of that') occupy a prominent position among the human subjects: In 1978ff., two personal subjects and all four passive construction subjects are 1st

176 � Semantic-syntactic changes: Form-meaning and form-function relationships; in 1989ff., all five pers. subj. are 1st pers. sg. In the passive construction (e.g. example (48) below) the experiencer is encoded as nom. case subject, combining the highest thematic role with the highest-ranking grammatical encoding. (48) [EDS6-1979] Ich waar mol widder draagemaahnt wie gut der Pannhaas sei kann I was once again of-it-reminded how good the scrapple be can 'I was reminded again how good scrapple can be.' [translation provided in original] In sum, my PG data imply that the preservation of the semantic-syntactic structure of gemahne is supported by the existence of the oblique-experiencer verb remind. A closer analysis of the choice of subjects nonetheless reveals an increasing preference for animate (human) entities in subject position. Gemahne illustrates how the available syntactic options, including passivization, are taken advantage of to accommodate this preference without changing the verb's argument structure.

4.4 Conclusions In this chapter I have discussed lexical semantic-syntactic changes in selected classes of PG verbs. I identified four tendencies of change: 1. Verbs exhibiting a diminished use or loss of surface reflexive marking 2. (Intransitive) verbs exhibiting an additional option for transitive/causative use (causativization) 3. (Transitive) verbs exhibiting an additional option for intransitive use (i.e., transitivity alternation) 4. Avoidance of so-called 'impersonal constructions' All four types were illustrated by examples from my PG data. A recurring pattern to be found was that there is convergence to individual AE cognates and AE semantic counterparts of PG lexical items. Furthermore, I identified a more general tendency towards a simplification of form-function relationships, promoting convergence between PG and AE patterns of argument structure and mapping preferences. The concept of thematic roles and their mapping onto grammatical relations proved to be highly relevant in this context. My main finding, considering the more general level of tendencies for change, is that a change from a more transparent encoding of grammatical rela-

Conclusions � 177

tions to a more functional (and less transparent) one does not have to include deep structural changes. The overall tendency observed here is that PG lexical items are adjusted to the semantic-syntactic structure of corresponding English items and more general English structural patterns as much as possible with only minimal structural change. Yet such adjustments may lead to more fundamental structural change eventually if case marking and agreement are further reduced and word order becomes more relevant for encoding functions. PG, like other varieties of German, accommodates two types of clausal word order, verb-second and verbfinal clauses. If word order indeed began to take over the function of signalling grammatical relations in PG, speakers of PG might reduce this inventory to one type of word order only, in order to make possible a consistent identification of thematic roles via position in the sentence. It seems that such a development is under way, as I show in the section on verb second (V2) word order in complement clauses in chapter 6 below. In chapters 5 through 8, I investigate selected syntactic phenomena in PG. Beginning tendencies for change are discussed (such as changes in word order preferences), as well as areas that prove to be robust and apparently resistent to change across all data sections. The concluding chapter (chapter 9) summarizes my findings and presents the conclusions to be drawn for developments in languages in contact and contact-induced language change.

5 Structural variation and incipient change 5.1 Introduction This chapter and the three following ones deal with certain structural aspects of contact-induced language change regarding my PG data. Important questions in this respect are: How do we judge new syntactic options, considering that true syntactic change as an immediate consequence of language contact is rare if not unattested (Thomason 2000, Prince 2001)?1 How do these new options fit into the general picture of contact-induced change? In chapters 6 - 8, I present and analyze data from my PG corpus that pertains to the matter of structural variation and possibly change. In the concluding section of chapter 8, I offer potential answers to the above questions. Parallels between two languages can be found in different areas, for example in the lexicon (e.g. cognates) or in surface word order. In the case of language mixing, such parallels make it difficult (at least for the listener) to determine which language an item or a structure belongs to in the view of the speaker. These parallels are referred to as "gray areas" (Clyne 1987:755), implying that here it is not possible to draw a clear line between the two languages. Bilingual speakers often take advantage of the parallels and overlaps that exist between the two languages they use. In addition, they frequently expand these parallels by exploiting them as much as possible. This is usually an unconscious process, but at the same time a very economical strategy, as it reduces the psycholinguistic load of having to deal with two languages at the same time. On the other hand, extensive parallels and overlaps between two languages increase the demands on inhibition, a different aspect of increasing the psycholinguistic load: When using forms that are ambiguous with respect to their language affiliation elements from both languages are co-activated. Thus, in contexts where the languages have to be kept apart more inhibitory effort is necessary to suppress the language the speaker intends not to use. Gray areas are open to interpretation from both languages. An expansion of a structural gray area, for example an increase in frequency of a shared surface structure, opens the door to a structural re-interpretation, which can be the first step towards a structural change (cf. chapter 1, Figure 1.1). (P)G and English, the two languages in contact that I discuss here, share a number of structural features, but there are also profound differences between them. A case in point are

�� 1 But cf. Ross (2007) on metatypy and structural change in language contact.

Introduction � 179

sentences with identical surface word order but different underlying structures, due to the V2 effect in German and SVO word order in English (cf. Roeper 1999, Tracy 2000). The following two sentences illustrate this fact: (1) Der Junge 1 (S)

fütterte 2 (V)

den Hund. (V2) 3 (O)

(2) The boy S

fed V

the dog. O


Object topicalization, in contrast, leads to diverging results, pointing at differences in the underlying structure; cf.: (1') [Den Hund] fütterte the dog fed 1 (O) 2 (V) (2') [The dog] O

[der Junge] (V2) the boy (= 'the dog the boy fed') 3 (S)

[the boy] fed. S V

(O / SV)

Bilingual speakers often make use of such surface parallels as in (1) and (2) and of the existing space for variation within each language. In this way they produce grammatical utterances while they are at the same time increasing the convergence between their two languages. I examined three areas of partial structural overlap between PG and English that exhibit tendencies for convergence in my PG corpus. These areas are: - word order (verb position) in subordinate complement clauses, - extraposition of prepositional phrases (PPs), and - preposition stranding. The following sections outline the structural assumptions I based my analysis of the PG data on. I introduce the three topics just mentioned in chapters 6 through 8, present analyses of the relevant PG data and discuss them with respect to their interrelation with comparable structures in German and English. In the concluding section of chapter 8, I sum up and interpret my findings in the larger context of contact-induced structural change.

180 � Structural variation and incipient change

5.2 Clause structure in German and English – differences and similarities Word order in German (and in PG) In this section I outline some structural notions commonly used to describe the word order and the underlying syntactic structure in (Standard) German. In general, the syntax of PG is like that of StG (cf. Louden 1988, 1992a, 1993, 2003; Reed 1979; Springer 1943). Both varieties are structurally comparable in all crucial respects, with an underlying SOV structure and V2 effects. I thus assume, when presenting examples from StG, that the structural conditions found in StG also hold for PG. German subordinate clauses that are introduced by a complementizer usually have the finite verb in clause final position (at least underlyingly), reflecting an underlying SOV structure. In main clauses, the finite verb surfaces in the second position (V2 effect). Thus, German (including PG) shows a structural asymmetry in word order between main and subordinate clauses, in contrast to English where the position of the verb is the same in both clause types (SVO structure). The following examples (3a-c) illustrate the different positions of the finite verb in German, depending on clause type. (3) ...damit

Hans den Käse kauft. S O V that John the cheese buys '... so that John buys the cheese.' (4) Hans kauft den Käse. 1 2 (= V) John buys the cheese 'John buys the cheese.' (5) Später kauft Hans den Käse. 1 2 (= V) Later buys John the cheese. 'Later, John will buy the cheese.'

(subordinate clause / SOV)

(main clause / V2)

(main clause / V2)

Clause structure in German and English – differences and similarities � 181

Topological fields A syntactic characteristic of German is the so-called verbal frame (Verbklammer), or sentential bracket (Satzklammer). With compound tenses (e.g. present/past perfect, future tense), modal verbs and particle or phrasal verbs, the finite verb is in second position in the main clause; the lexical verb, in nonfinite form (infinitive or participle), or the separable verbal particle appears clause-finally. The finite verb marks the left bracket of the verbal frame, while the non-finite (lexical) verb or verbal particle forms the right bracket. The position inside this verbal frame is called the middle field (Mittelfeld, Höhle 1986). According to this type of analysis, a German sentence can be divided into the following topological fields: topic position (Vorfeld)


position preceding the finite verb (in declarative sentences), left periphery of a sentence; contains no more than one constituent

finite verb


left verbal bracket (V2 position in the main clause)

middle field position (Mittelfeld)


area between left and right verbal bracket (may contain several constituents)

non-finite verb / verbal particle


right verbal bracket In subordinate complement clauses that are introduced by a complementizer, this is the position of the verbal complex consisting of the finite verb and all non-finite verb forms.

postverbal field (Nachfeld)


position following the right verbal bracket (may contain several constituents)

Figure 5.1 shows a simplified schematic presentation of the topological field analysis for German V2 sentences.

182 � Structural variation and incipient change

topic position

left verbal bracket


(V2 position) (C°)

middle field

right verbal

postverbal field


Figure 5.1: Topological fields / V2

Examples: (6) Hans muss später noch den Käse kaufen. [ middle field ] John must later still the cheese buy 'John still has to buy the cheese later on.' (7) Jetzt


Hans endlich den Käse gekauft. middle field ] Now has John finally the cheese bought 'Now John has finally bought the cheese.'

(modal verb / infinitive)

(auxiliary / participle)


(8) Hans bringt den Käse später mit. [ middle field ] John brings the cheese later with 'John will bring along the cheese later on.'

(particle verb / particle)

In subordinate clauses that are introduced by a complementizer, the verbal complex (VC), consisting of the finite and all non-finite verbal forms, constitutes the right "border" of the clause. There is neither a topic position (Vorfeld) available nor a position for a left verbal bracket since the finite verb is part of the sentence-final VC. In StG the finite verb is at the end of the VC, while in some other varieties of German the finite verb appears in e.g. first or second position within the VC (cf. Hasselberg/Wegera 1976 for Hessian; Heilmann 1999 for Swabian; Cooper 1994 for Zürich German). The middle field is between the complementizer and the VC, and it includes the subject; the postverbal field follows the VC, cf. Figure 5.2.

�� 2 SpecCP (specifier of the complementizer phrase), C° (head of the complementizer phrase) and specIP (specifier of the inflectional phrase) refer to the corresponding positions in a tree diagram according to a generative analysis (e.g. Chomsky 1981). Cf. section 5.3 for tree diagrams describing the German clause structure in generative terms.

Clause structure in German and English – differences and similarities � 183

complementizer (C°)

middle field

verbal complex

postverbal field

Figure 5.2: Topological fields / subordinate clause (verb-final)

Example: (9) ... damit Hanssubj später in Ruhe den Käse kaufen kann. comp [ middle field ] VC so that John later quietly the cheese buy can ' ... so that John later can buy the cheese without hassle.' Elements appearing in the postverbal field originate (underlyingly) in the middle field. Their transposition (movement) to the postverbal field is referred to as extraposition. Two further mechanisms, verb raising and verb projection raising, can also lead to a surface word order where arguments (required and/or optional) follow the finite verb without violating the structural conditions that hold for subordinate German clauses. The three mechanisms can be described as follows: Extraposition:

Movement of complete constituents from the middle field position to the right periphery of the clause, following the finite verb or the VC.

Example (PP-extraposition): [SB9-1989] der Elmer hut en glae buch k'hot PP[fer mich] [ middle field ] the Elmer has a small book had for me 'Elmer had a small book for me' Verb Raising (VR):

Raising of an embedded verb and adjunction to the next higher (adjacent) verb3 (in German, to the right); both verbs in combination are then reanalyzed as as one constituent (i.e., they can move together).

Example (VR + PP-extraposition): [SB1212-1991] Ihr wisst dos da turnpeik wor V[gebaudt] PP[im 1955] you know that the turnpike was built in the 1955 'You know that the turnpike was built in 1955'

�� 3 This terminology refers to tree diagram notations. Cf. section 5.3.

184 � Structural variation and incipient change Verb Projection Raising (VPR): Raising of parts of a VP, i.e. more than just the verb (→ VR) and less than a complete constituent (→ Extraposition), with adjunction to a higher node (in German, to the right) (cf. Louden 1990 on VPR in PG). Example (VPR + PP-extraposition): [PS9/15-1868] Er hut aw behawpt das mer set lussa] VP[sich net rula he has also maintained that on should oneself not rule let 'He also maintained that one should not be ruled by one's wife.'


seiner fraw]. by one's wife

Clause structure in the analyzed PG data While the structural conditions in PG are, in principle, the same as in StG, evidence from my corpus shows that subtle changes have begun to take place. Currently, deviations are mainly noticeable in terms of frequency of occurrence of certain structures. There are only a few instances of deviant word order that would be clearly ungrammatical in StG and PalG. Among these are the following: - the position of the verb in subordinate complement clauses introduced by dass 'that', a complementizer that strictly requires verb-final word order in StG (cf. chapter 6); and - the positioning of certain types of PPs in the postverbal field (cf. chapters 7 and 8). After outlining a generative approach to V2 clauses I turn to the investigation of these areas of potential structural change.

5.3 V2 clauses in German and English: A generative analysis4 A generative analysis of German clause structure assumes that a subordinating complementizer as in (10) and the V2 placement of a finite verb as in (11) cannot co-occur because otherwise the C0 position had to be filled twice (Haegeman 1994, Vikner 1995). The result would be an ungrammatical structure.

�� 4 The notation follows the Government and Binding framework (e.g. Chomsky 1981, Haegeman 1994).

V2 clauses in German and English: A generative analysis � 185

(10) Subordinate clause with complementizer dass 'that' CP5 Spec

C' C0


dass I' Spec VP

I fin. v erb



den Käse kaufen



the cheese buy





'that John must buy the cheese'

(11) Main clause with V2 effect (no subordinating complementizer) CP Spec

C' C0


fin. Verb1 Spec


I t16


muss1 C



t2 endlich den Käse kaufen t1


finally the cheese buy




'Now John must finally buy the cheese.'

�� 5 CP = complementizer phrase; specCP = specifier of the complementizer phrase; C° = head of the complementizer phrase; IP = inflectional phrase; specIP = specifier of the inflectional phrase; I = head of the inflectional phrase; VP = verb phrase. 6 t = trace; in Government & Binding (Chomsky 1981), Principles & Parameters (Chomsky 1995) and related frameworks, a trace (an empty category) is assumed to be left behind if a constituent has been moved from the position where it originated (i.e., its base position) (e.g. Haegeman 1994:309).

186 � Structural variation and incipient change

The following example illustrates an ungrammatical structure (for German) with two C0 –positions, for complementizer and V2: *... dass jetzt muss Hans endlich den Käse kaufen C0 C0 that now must John finally the cheese buy For Germanic languages where V2 in subordinate clauses is grammatical, either generally (e.g. Icelandic, Yiddish) or in specific contexts (e.g. Danish, English), a CP recursion analysis has been proposed (Haegeman 1994, Vikner 1995). That is, an additional C0 position is taken to be available, solving the conflict between the complementizer and the (moved) finite verb, as in (12). (12) CP recursion: complementizer (that) and V2 (in English as residual V2 effect7, e.g. with a negative constituent in specCP) CP Spec

C' C0


that Spec

C' C0


would ...that C0

under no circumstances

would he do such a thing C0

I discuss, in chapter 6, whether this suggestion (CP recursion) can be applied to those PG data that show an apparent V2 surface in subordinate complementizer clauses. In the following three chapters I consider in detail three areas of structural variation in PG where the data imply incipient structural change. These areas are the position of the finite verb in complement dass-clauses (chapter 6), the frequency of extraposition of prepositional phrases (chapter 7), and preposition stranding phenomena (chapter 8). �� 7 Hawkins (1986:167ff.) provides an overview of V2 effects in English.

6 Verb position in complement dass-clauses 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Syntactic background The center of my research interest here is the verbal position in subordinate clauses of PG, in particular in subordinate clauses that are introduced by the complementizer dass (PG variants are das, dos, os, as) 'that'. This type of clause requires a clause-final position for the finite verb in all variants of German that can be compared to or have contributed to PG. I limited this investigation to clauses introduced by dass because some subordinating complementizers can be used with V2 constructions in StG (e.g. weil 'because', obwohl 'although'; cf. Wild 1994 for weil with V2 in other German language islands). In order to rule out language-internal developments as far as possible, dass was chosen because it strictly requires a clause-final verb position in StG and several other variants of German. For an investigation of PG word order with other subordinating complementizers (e.g. weil), cf. Fuller (1997), Gross (2005). I use 'clause-final position of the finite verb' here to refer to single finite verbs as well as to finite verbs within the verbal complex. My focus is not on the order of elements within the verbal complex1. Thus, 'clause-final' is to be understood to contrast with 'clause-initial' and 'in V2 position' and does not exclusively refer to the final position within the clause in the absolute sense. For the major part of the relevant PG data, it can be assumed that the finite verb is indeed clause-final. There are, however, in my corpus a number of subordinate clauses introduced by dass 'that' that seem to follow a different pattern. Here, the finite verb follows the complementizer plus one additional element, i.e. it appears in third position within the clause instead of at the end of or within the verbal complex. Except for the complementizer, this word order looks like the V2 word order found in main clauses. In the following, I discuss possible interpretations and explanations of this word order, a word order that seems to make PG different from its source varieties. Consider the following examples for an illustration of the clause type under investigation (the complementizer and the finite verb are in bold face): (1)


�� 1 Investigations on this topic are, e.g., Louden 1990, Louden 2011.

188 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

De Bevvy hut geshtern g'sawt das ich set mich by all means draw the Bevvy has yesterday said that I should REFL by all means at-itmacha amohl so a shtory shreiva. make once such a story write. 'Yesterday, Bevvy said that I by all means should begin to write such a story.' (2) [Sim127-1913] Er hut aw germaind os de laeva in Afrika hetten net ierer flicht gerdu. he has also believed that the lions in Africa had not their duty done 'He was also of the opinion that the lions in Africa had not done their duty.' (3) [SB4/3-1991] Ich huff dos dale fun eich wissa ebbes fun dee Alice. I hope that some of you know something of the Alice 'I hope some of you know something about Alice.'

6.1.2 The data The data I analyzed include a total of 1,029 subordinate clauses introduced by dass (and its orthographic variants). 849 (82.5 %) of these clauses exhibit verbfinal word order, that is, there are at least two constituents between the complementizer and the finite verb. (4) provides an example of this kind of clause. (4) [SB11/14-1990] Ich will grawd now sawga dos ich so dunkbore bin. I want just now say that I so grateful am 'I just want to say now that I am so grateful' In 28 (2.7 %) of the dass-clauses, the position of the verb is ambiguous: Besides the complementizer, only the subject appears in front of the finite verb, while at least one constituent (PP, CP) follow the finite verb, cf. example (5). The latter constituent(s) could have been extraposed or raised. This cannot be determined from the surface, however, where the verb appears in the same position as in a V2 clause (apart from the complementizer).

Introduction � 189

(5) [SB12/27-1989] So will ich huffa dos er kummt des yohr. so will I hope that he comes this year 'So I am hoping that he will come this year.' In 152 (14.8 %) of the dass-clauses, the finite verb seems to be in V2 position (in third position, if the complementizer is included in the count). In these clauses, there is only one constituent between the complementizer and the finite verb. The verb is followed by one or more constituents that are unlikely candidates for extraposition or raising (e.g. required arguments of the verb). This clause type is illustrated in (6). (6) [PS6/30-1868] ... for ich mus es selver sawya das des ding g'fallt mer, ... for I must it myself say that this thing pleases me 'for I have to admit that this thing I like' The third group of clauses was the basis for my further investigation. For the time being, I refer to them as "V2 clauses"; this is intended to indicate their surface similarity with main clauses with V2 structure. The subordinate V2 clauses were divided into three groups, according to the type of constituent that appears between the complementizer and the finite verb. A topological description of the three groups along the lines of the topological-field analysis (cf. chapter 5) is as follows. I. V2 clauses with a "short" constituent between the complementizer and the finite verb: dass

DP / PP / adverb

finite verb

additional constituent(s)

II. V2 clauses with a long or complex subject-DP between the complementizer and the finite verb: dass

DP (consisting of several parts, e.g. containing a relative clause or an enumeration)

finite verb

additional constituent(s)

III. V2 clauses with a CP between the complementizer and the finite verb: dass

CP (frequently: wenn 'if' ... (dann 'then'))

finite verb

additional constituent(s)

Groups II and III (57 clauses total/ 5.6 % of all dass-clauses) were not considered further. In both cases, the type, and especially the length, of the constituent following the complementizer can have caused re-ordering processes (on pur-

190 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

pose or unintendedly, i.e. caused by psycholinguistic processes that the writer was unaware of) to help comprehension, resulting in a V2-like surface word order. Even though there are a few clauses of type II and III with an unambiguously clause-final finite verb, I wanted to exclude any cases of apparent V2 that could be explained by pro-cessing reasons or other "external" factors in order to limit the data set to unambiguous cases of dass+V2 structure. The group of unambiguous clauses, group I (95 clauses/ 9.2 % of all dassclauses), contains clauses with the subject between the complementizer and the finite verb (a), as well as clauses with a non-subject element (e.g. a time adverbial or a PP) following the complementizer (b). I (a) dass

subject DP

finite verb

additional constituent(s)

(72 clauses; 6 have a lexical verb – as opposed to an auxiliary or modal verb – in V2 position) I (b) dass

PP / time adverbial

finite verb

subject DP

additional constituent(s)

(23 clauses; 3 have a lexical verb in V2 position) In type (b), the subject always immediately follows the finite verb; this ordering is frequently found in German main clauses with V2 structure, too.

6.2 Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2 Several hypotheses can be put forth with respect to the origin and the context of occurrence of the dass+V2 word-order pattern in PG. 6.2.1 The diachronic perspective Hypotheses regarding the origin of dass+V2 Three possible sources of dass+V2 can be hypothesized (H1 – H3): (H1) The dass+V2 word order originates in one of the source varieties of PG (possibly from an older stage). H1 is supported if this word-order pattern is found in one or more of the source varieties of PG (primarily Palatinate German, Swabian, Alemannic, Hessian) or an older stage of the relevant varieties (from the 17th/18th centuries, i.e. around the time of emigration).

Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2 � 191

(H2) dass+V2 is a new development in PG; it does not appear in any of the related German varieties, including their older stages. H2 receives support if H1 can be excluded. Further supportive evidence would be a diachronic increase in frequency of this word-order pattern in PG and possibly a high number of ambiguous clauses (with regard to the position of the finite verb), functioning as precursors of the V2 word order. H2 allows for two different sub-hypotheses, H2a and H2b. Note that the motivations for H2a and H2b cannot clearly be separated from each other. (H2a) dass+V2 is a language-internal development with no relation to English word order. A possible motivation for a language-internal change of this kind would be the simplification of the language's word-order inventory: Main clauses and subordinate clauses receive the same surface structure, resulting in a structural symmetry between the two clause types. For a speech community in a languagecontact situation, such simplification tendencies are not unusual (cf. Thomason/Kaufman 1988) because they reduce the overall complexity of the language repertoire and help to economize the mental load of keeping two languages active and available. H2a is supported if no comparable word-order patterns exist in English. Note, however, that the word order pattern could have resulted from an independent language-internal development in both PG and AE. This caveat also applies to (H2b). (H2b) dass+V2 developed under the influence of English word order. A trigger for such contact-induced structural change could be the fact that English does not distinguish structurally between main clauses and subordinate clauses (structural symmetry). PG exploits its internal structural possibilities to accommodate the English pattern on the surface, while the underlying structure does not necessarily have to change (though it could have changed or may change in the future). H2a can be supported by word-order parallels (at least with respect to surface word order) between AE and PG. (H3) dass+V2 is an individual phenomenon found in the speech of one (or very few) speaker(s) only. In this case, all of the above hypotheses could be applied to the relevant idiolect(s) but the phenomenon as such would be less interesting since it does not relate to the speech community as a whole. Supporting evidence for H3 can be derived by comparing the data of individual authors. If dass+V2 is found in the data of single, but not all, authors, H3 is supported.

192 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

Discussion regarding the origin of dass+V2 (diachronic approach) A diachronic investigation of dass+V2 yields two results: - The hypothesis that dass+V2 is part of one specific idiolect (H3) cannot be maintained because dass+V2 clauses appear in all texts throughout the corpus. - There is no quantitative increase in the use of dass+V2 clauses (cf. Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1). The frequency of occurrence of dass+V2 varies, with more recent texts showing fewer occurrences. The EDS-texts (1978ff.), exhibiting the highest overall influence from StG (most visibly with respect to orthography and lexical choice), have the lowest numbers for dass+V2. The author of these texts explicitly pointed out to me that he, when in doubt, relied on his thorough knowledge of StG.2 Therefore, a deviation of the numbers in these texts as compared to the other numbers can well be due to StG influence (in (written) StG, dass+V2 is rare to non-existent). On the other hand, finding this structure at all in the EDS data indicates that dass+V2 is indeed an established word-order variant in PG. For comparison, I drew on two different types of additional sources. First, I included texts from other PG sources in order to broaden the data base. Second, I analyzed a small corpus of 33 recent Palatinate German (PalG) texts (12,250 words) that were written between 1997 and 2001. This data set consists of short texts and comments on various topics (e.g. politics, weather) made available by the author on the internet3. All texts are written in a register that is close to colloquial spoken language; hence, the registers of the PG texts and the PalG texts are comparable. The PalG corpus includes 92 dass-clauses, all of which exhibit an unambiguous clause-final position of the finite verb, i.e. no instances of dass+V2 were found (cf. bottom line in Table 6.1).

�� 2 personal communication with Richard Druckenbrod, Allentown, PA, in April 1997. 3 "Texte uff Pälzisch" by Walter Rupp; This corpus was also used for the investigation of PP extraposition (cf. chapter 7).

Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2 � 193

Table 6.1: dass-clauses with/without V2 (quantitative overview)


dassclauses 242

clause-final finite verb 191 / 79%

ambiguous verbal pos. 4 / 1,5%

V2 (C1* short) V2 total V2 (C1* long/complex) 23 / 9,5% 24 / 10% 47 / 19,5%



55 /88,5%


4 / 6,5%

3 / 5%

7 / 11,5%



39 / 83%

3 / 6,4%


5 / 10,6%

5 / 10,6%



129 / 74%

5 / 3%

13 / 7,5%

27 / 15,5%

40 / 23%

Eile1943/PD1954 27

23 / 85%

1 / 4%


3 / 11%

3 / 11%



254 / 95%

5 / 2%

5 / 2%

3 / 1%

8 / 3%



164 / 78,4% 9 / 4,3%

6 / 2,9%

30 / 14,3%

36 / 17,3%

PalG1997-2000 92 92 / 100% * C1= first constituent following dass PD1873 = The Pennsylvania Dutchman (A); MS = Mudderschproch; Eile = Der Pennsylvanisch Deitsche Eileschpiggel; PD1954 = The Pennsylvania Dutchman (B); cf. chapter 3 for details.



30 20 10 0








Figure 6.1: dass-clauses with V2 (excluding ambiguous clauses): Quantitative development over time (PG)

The diachronic comparison of dass+V2 frequencies does not support the assumption that this word order is a new development in PG, in contrast to what was suggested in hypothesis H2. There is no continuous increase in the use of this structure. Some of the most recent texts even show fewer occurrences (in relation to the respective overall numbers of dass-clauses) than the older texts. Thus, based on the frequency analysis, hypothesis H3 can be rejected, and hypothesis H2 is at least questionable. Hypothesis H1 remains as the most likely explanation: The option for dass+V2 originated in the source varieties of PG and has been preserved until today. To test this hypothesis, I checked the following varieties for the possibility of dass+V2 structures4: Palatinate German (PalG) �� 4 For the relevance of the chosen varieties in this context, cf. chapter 2.

194 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses


Hessian Swabian Alemannic Swiss German (Zürich German).

For PalG I used the small corpus described above. All dass-clauses in the PalG corpus are verb-final (see Table 6.1 above). This is in clear contrast to the PG data, even though the non-existence of dass+V2 in a corpus of this size does not in principle refute the possibility of such structures in PalG. In PalG (Post 1992), Swabian (Ammon/Löwer 1977, Heilmann 1999), Alemannic (Besch/Löffler 1977), Hessian (Hasselberg/Wegera 1976) and Zürich German (Cooper 1994), two types of word order pattern are possible that are not used in StG. They have to do with (a) the relative position of an infinitival modal verb and a lexical verb with respect to each other, and (b) the position of the finite verb in subordinate clauses. (a) If a finite auxiliary, a non-finite modal verb and a non-finite lexical verb appear in combination, the modal verb can precede the lexical verb, in contrast to StG: "In der Mundart werden Hilfsverb und grammatischer Infinitiv nicht durch andere Infinitive getrennt." ("In the dialect, the auxiliary verb and the grammatical infinitive [i.e. the modal infinitive] are not separated by other infinitives.") (Besch/Löffler 1977 for Alemannic). This is also true for PG, as Louden (1990) shows. Note that the examples cited below illustrate the specific word order for the respective varieties; other dialect features, such as phonology and morphology, are not reflected. Both examples, (7) and (8), are instances of verb projection raising (VPR), cf. chapter 5. (7) [Hessian; Hasselberg/Wegera 1976:63] ich hab wollen weglaufen auxfin modalinfin lexinfin I have will/want away-run 'I wanted to run away' (8) [Swabian; Ammon/Loewer 1977:97] er hätte das sollen kaufen modalinfin lexinfin auxfin he had that shall buy 'he should have bought that'

Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2 � 195

(b) In Hessian and Alemannic subordinate clauses, the finite verb appears "in der Regel vor den übrigen Prädikatsteilen" ("as a rule, before the other parts of the predicate [i.e. the verbal complex]") (Hasselberg/Wegera 1976:63 for Hessian). The same is true for Swabian (Heilmann 1999) and Zürich German (Cooper 1994). In addition, Heilmann's (1999) and Cooper's (1994) data include subordinate clauses where the finite verb immediately follows the subject, that is, data that are directly comparable to the examples from PG. Subordinate clauses from four varieties illustrate this word order in (9) - (12). The complementizer and the finite verb of each example are in bold face. (9) [Hessian; Hasselberg/Wegera 1976:63] ... dass er bös kann werden that he angry can become 'that he can become angry' (10) [Alemannic; Besch/Löffler 1977:84] ... weil er es nicht kann bleiben lassen because he it not can remain/be let/leave 'because he cannot stop doing it' (11) [Swabian; Heilmann 1999] ... dass dr Hans het des Liad heit kenna sodda that the Hans had the song today can should/shall 'that Hans should have mastered the song [by] today' (12) [Zürich German; Cooper 1994] ... dass er wil sini Chind Mediziin laa schtudiere that he wants his children medicine let study 'that he wants to have his children study medicine' Heilmann (1999:45) points out that "[e]in Finitum (Auxiliar oder Modal) (...) in einem abhängigen schwäbischen Satz frei auftreten [kann], sobald mindestens drei Verben auftreten. Von ganz rechts im Satz bis zur Position direkt rechts vom klitischen Subjekt ist prinzipiell jede Position möglich, solange die Konstituentenstruktur beachtet wird, d.h., es darf nicht innerhalb einer selegierten Konstituente stehen, wohl aber rechts oder links davon." ("a finite verb (auxiliary or modal verb) (...) in a subordinate clause in Swabian can stand by itself as soon as there are at least three verbs in the clause. In principle, every position is al-

196 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses lowed [for the finite verb], from the right clause border to the position immediately to the right of the cliticized subject, as long as the constituent structure is preserved, i.e., the finite verb cannot interrupt a selected constituent, but it may appear to its right or to its left." [My translation, DS])

Thus, the word-order pattern in question, dass+V2, is in productive use in several of the source dialects of PG. This evidence supports H1. The use of this word order in more than one dialect suggests that it is not a recent innovation in these varieties. Therefore, I consider it not necessary here to check older stages of the relevant dialects. Note that the PalG corpus proved to be insufficient for establishing the origin of the dass+V2 word order. While PG is close to PalG in most respects, it reflects the typical characteristics of a levelling variety ("Ausgleichsdialekt", cf. chapter 2) in that it combines features from several source dialects. I turn now to the synchronic distribution of the dass+V2 word order pattern.

6.2.2 The synchronic perspective Hypotheses concerning the context of occurrence of dass+V2: The synchronic perspective I consider three further hypotheses (H4 – H6) regarding the context of use of dass+V2. (H4) dass+V2 is motivated by the lexical context: It is (optionally) selected by the lexical verb of the subordinate clause or the matrix clause, e.g. by verbs of saying or by verbs of psychological state (psych verbs)5. A specified sub-hypothesis of H4 can be formulated as H4a: (H4a) Verbs that alternatively select either embedded V2 clauses or subordinate verb-final clauses in German can, in addition, select dass+V2 clauses in PG. Supporting evidence for H4 can be derived by comparing matrix verbs or matrix clauses that occur together with dass+V2. If the relevant word-order pattern appears only in combination with specific (types of) matrix verb(s), this would prove H4 to be correct. H4a would be supported if the group of matrix verbs allowing dass+V2 coincided with the group of verbs that select embedded V2 clauses in German. (H5) dass+V2 is determined by structural features of the clause and is predictable; e.g., this word-order pattern occurs when the first constituent following dass �� 5 e.g. fear, frighten, like, please; cf. chapter 4

Why "V2"? – Diachronic and synchronic aspects of the word-order pattern dass+V2 � 197

is long or complex, or when the finite verb is a modal or auxiliary but not a lexical verb. Based on a comparison of dass+V2 clauses with dass+verb-final clauses, H5 is supported if all (and only) dass-clauses with a long/complex constituent following dass have V2, or if all finite modals/auxiliaries in dass-clauses appear in V2 position while finite lexical verbs appear clause-finally. (H6) dass+V2 in subordinate clauses appears in free variation with dass+clausefinal verbal position. H6 can be supported by refuting H4 und H5, i.e. if there is neither a lexically determined selection nor a structural regularity to be found. In that case, the occurrence of dass+V2 is not predictable based on the factors investigated in this study; they may be a matter of style or register.

Discussion of the conditions for the occurrence of dass+V2 (synchronic perspective) An investigation of the use of dass+V2 with specific lexical verbs in the relevant matrix (or main) clauses shows that lexical selection does not explain the occurrence of this word order pattern (contra H4). While some matrix verbs are more frequent than others in combination with dass+V2 clauses, these verbs are also used more frequently in general. I.e. their frequency with dass+V2 is relative to their overall frequency. Table 6.2 provides an overview of the six most frequent matrix verbs that occur with dass-clauses in the data set. The comparison shows that in all cases the numbers for dass+V2 are lower than those for dass+clausefinal verb. Table 6.2: Matrix verbs (lexical verbs) in dass-clauses Matrix verb (lexical verb) sagen 'say' wissen 'know' sehen 'see' glauben 'believe' denken 'think' meinen 'mean, be of the opinion'

Total no. of occurrences with dass 132 51 44 37 33 25

dass + clause-final verb 86 45 41 34 32 19

dass + V2 46 6 3 3 1 6

35 % 12 % 7% 8% 3% 24 %

In addition, the overall frequency of V2 clauses is low for most matrix verbs: 180 V2 clauses and ambiguous clauses (i.e., clauses in which the verbal position cannot be determined unambiguously) are distributed across nearly 70 matrix

198 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

verbs and matrix structures (a matrix structure being e.g. froh sein 'be glad'). Of these total numbers, 65 V2 clauses are covered by the 6 matrix verbs listed in Table 6.2, i.e., on average there are two V2 clauses for each of the remaining matrix verbs. Also, there is no full agreement between the matrix verbs that occur with dass+V2 in PG and those that select embedded V2 clauses in German. The range of possible matrix verbs and matrix constructions for dass+V2 is wider in PG. Thus, hypotheses H4 and H4a must be rejected. The corpus also provides counterevidence to hypothesis H5. Long or complex constituents immediately following dass occur in clauses with clause-final verb position as well as with V2. In addition, there are dass+V2 clauses with short constituents following dass. The type of finite verb (lexical verb vs. auxiliary or modal verb) does not allow any predictions with regard to its position in a subordinate dass-clause, either. The use of compound tenses is frequent in PG (especially with reference to the past), so that finite auxiliaries are employed in a high number of clauses – in V2 position as well as clause-finally. That is, there is no measurable preference for either verb position with respect to finite auxiliaries. Thus, there is no evidence in the data that the structural features of the clause investigated here have a predictable effect on the choice of surface word order, be it V2 or the clause-final position of the verb. This means that hypothesis H5 must be rejected, too. I conclude that dass+V2 appears to occur in free variation with dass+clausefinal verb position (H6), as the data-based exclusion of H4 and H5 implies.

6.3 The underlying syntactic structure: V2 or not V2? 6.3.1 Potential syntactic analyses The next question I discuss is how the surface word order pattern dass+V2 can be analyzed syntactically. Two possibilities for analysis (A1 and A2) were considered: (A1) dass+V2 clauses have an underlying V2 structure, similar to that found in main clauses, but with a complementizer in addition. This would presuppose CP recursion or another additional XP level to provide the necessary slots for both the complementizer and the V2 position of the finite verb (cf. chapter 5 for structural details). The dass+V2 surface word order, however, is also used in German varieties (Hessian, Alemannic, Swabian, Zürich German) that are not in close contact with English, and where the assumption of a word order competition along

The underlying syntactic structure: V2 or not V2? � 199

these lines is thus unlikely. Hence, (A1) can only be upheld if PG exhibits dass+V2 patterns that are not compatible with those found in European German varieties. (A2) The underlying structure of dass+V2 clauses is verb-final. The finite verb seems to appear in the V2 position, but only on the surface. This surface position is caused by one or several of the mechanisms described above (extraposition, VR, VPR). A third possibility is that in PG the VP can be left-headed, as in English, or right-headed, as in German. This would be a case of competing grammars since, from a universal-grammar perspective, head government for one type of head must be consistent within one grammar.6 One of the two options should therefore be expected to be given up eventually (cf. Gawlitzek-Maiwald / Tracy / Fritzenschaft 1992 for comparable data from first language acquisition). The word order difference outlined here is the difference between OV and VO. For Yiddish it has been discussed whether both options are available, and Santorini (1993) shows that there is quantitative evidence for the co-existence of both structures in data from Yiddish. Yiddish seems to be in the process of a true structural change with an increasing preference for VO structures. For this analysis to be probable here there should be evidence for leftheaded VPs in other types of clauses, too, not just in subordinate complementizer clauses. Appropriate evidence would consist of, e.g., frequent (apparently) extraposed objects. As there is no indication of objects frequently following lexical verbs, this analysis is less plausible for my PG data and is not followed up upon further, in favor of the two other possibilities.

6.3.2 Underlying V2 structure (A1), analyzing dass+V2 as a V2 structure, implies that PG has developed a structural variant not found in other varieties of German. The common generative analysis of German clause structure assumes that a subordinating complementizer and the V2 placement of a finite verb cannot co-occur because otherwise the C0 position would be filled twice, resulting in an ungrammatical structure (cf. chapter 5). I pointed out above that the surface V2 position in subordinate dass-clauses is also found in other varieties of German besides PG that are not in close

�� 6 Note that different heads can (and do) govern in different directions, even within one language (e.g. in German: Verbs govern to the left, prepositions govern to the right).

200 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

contact with English and where there is no reason to assume that the dass+V2 word order results from an English-like underlying structure. Therefore, it is not desirable that dass+V2 in PG, in general, be analyzed as a true V2 structure. An analysis along these lines would imply that PG in this case has the same surface structure as closely related varieties of German but that this surface structure is derived from a different underlying structure. Nevertheless, there is some evidence for an English-like underlying structure in the most recent texts from the corpus. I present and discuss a number of relevant examples below. If the English-like analysis captures the (recent) dass+V2 data correctly, the data provides evidence for an innovative syntactic pattern that is not permissible in other varieties of German. Since dass+V2 clauses co-occur with (a relatively higher number of) verb-final dass-clauses in PG, two co-existing and competing grammars must be assumed to be available to the speakers. The scenario of competing grammars is not unusual in language contact settings and was suggested to be the case in e.g. Middle English (Kroch 1994 inter alia), but also for certain phases during first language acquisition (e.g. Fritzenschaft / Gawlitzek-Maiwald / Tracy / Winkler 1990; Roeper 1999). After a period of coexistence, one of the two grammars may disappear from the system while the other one remains and is then the only option. Roeper (1999) points out that the co-existence of two grammars can continue and does not represent a conflict that has to be solved by expelling one of the two (or more) systems. He terms this state 'theoretical bilingualism'. Cf. below (chapter 8) for further discussion. V2 clauses with CP recursion in PG should then be interpreted as cases of syntactic code-switching between the grammar of one language (German) and the grammar of the other language (English), while the lexical items are taken from one language only (quite similar to Roeper's (1999) concept of 'theoretical bilingualism'). Examples for this type of covert code-switching are occasionally found in my PG corpus, also with respect to other structures, cf. (13) below. Frey (1941:212, cited in Louden 1988) and Louden (1988:187f.) note that this word order pattern is restricted to clauses with besser 'better' and really 'really' (the latter one only attested by Louden 1988). (13) [Sim1610-1913] PG Kalline, mer besser gaen Kalline, we better go StG Kalline, wir gehen jetzt Kalline, we go now AE Kalline, we better go now.

now. now besser. better

The underlying syntactic structure: V2 or not V2? � 201

An argument against treating the CP recursion analysis as the rule is the fact that more than 80% of all dass-clauses in the corpus are verb-final, and that dass+V2 as a surface structure also occurs in other German varieties where generally no claim is made for a CP recursion analysis. A uniform analysis for PG with these varieties would thus be desirable. Therefore I now turn to suggestion (A2), i.e. the analysis of dass+V2 clauses as underlyingly verb-final. If this analysis can be substantiated for PG, it would provide a uniform solution for PG and closely related varieties (e.g. Swabian, Swiss German) that exhibit the same structure.

6.3.3 Underlying verb-final structure Clauses with the subject preceding the finite verb The word order of the majority of the 72 dass+V2 clauses with the subject between dass and the finite verb can be explained by extraposition, VR or VPR. In most cases, a complete VP (including object DP(s) and the non-finite lexical verb) has been extraposed from the middle field to the postverbal field (VPR). As a consequence, the finite verb (auxiliary or modal) now follows immediately after the subject. For clauses with a (lexical) finite verb only, DP extraposition can be assumed to have taken place. Such extraposition may be promoted by the complexity or length of a constituent (referred to as heavy NP shift, cf. Behaghel 1932, Hawkins 1986). VPR + PP-extraposition: (14) [PS9/15-1868] Er hut aw behawpt das mer set VP[sich net rula lussa] he has also maintained that one should oneself not rule let PP[bi seiner fraw] by one's wife 'He also maintained that one should not be ruled by one's wife.' DP-extraposition: (15) [SimAdA7-1913] sie is fair gernunk tzu saaga os em Rabich sei Butter Grusht she is fair enough to say that the Rabich his butter crust waer DP[es besht Brode os sie seilaeves gessa hut]. was the best bread that she ever eaten has. 'She is fair enough to say that Rabich's butter crust bread was the best bread she ever ate.'

202 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

VR + PP-extraposition + VPR: (16) [SB1212-1991] Ihr wisst dos dah turnpeik wor V[gebaudt] PP[im 1955] you know that the turnpike was built in-the 1955 un hutt VP[yusht tzwae lanes V[khotta]]. and has just two lanes had 'You know that the turnpike was built in 1955 and had only two lanes.' Three of the subject-inital clauses do not fit the pattern, however. Here, either the negation nicht (in two cases) or the sentence adverb wieder 'again' follows after the finite verb. It is, in particular, the position of the negation (as a sentence negation) that gives a clear indication of the underlying position of the finite verb in German: If the negation precedes the finite verb, the verb is assumed to be in clause-final position and within its VP. If the negation follows the verb, the verb has been moved out of the VP and into the V2 position (i.e., C0) (e.g. Vikner 1995). (17) [Sim139-1913] Sie saagen os holb foon der welt waes net [we de onner holb they say that half of the world knows not how the other half laeva dutt]. live does 'They say that half of the world doesn't know how the other half lives.' (18) [SB2002-1991] Des wedder hutt see so arrick fer-huttelt dos see wissa nat the weather has them so much confused that they know not [wuh hee tzu gae]. where to to go 'The weather confused them so much that they don't know where to go to.' (19) [SB2803-1990] Unser hauptmon (LeRoy Heffentrager) hutt uns all gsawt dos es gebt our chief (LeRoy Heffentrager) has us all said that it gives widder [gut essa, blenti shpieles un singes un feel g'shtories again good eating, plenty playing and singing and many stories dos em gut lacha macht] that one good laugh makes 'Our chief (L.H.) told all of us that once more there will be good food, lots of playing and singing and many stories that will make you laugh.'

The underlying syntactic structure: V2 or not V2? � 203

These sentences pose a problem for the assumption of an underlying verb-final structure because of the position of the adverb or the negation. In order to have the verb in front of these elements it must have been moved. The only landing site for the verb in this case would be the C0-position. Consequently, for these sentences a CP-recursion analysis (in the sense of a competing grammar, as discussed above) must be considered, I propose. Notably, Hopp/Putnam (2015) suggest a movement (i.e., V2) analysis for comparable data from Moundridge Schweitzer German (MSG), a variety of German spoken in the USA that is based on the same source dialects as PG. They argue that in MSG certain complementizers, in particular weil ‘because’ and dass ‘that’, allow for an extended CPlayer due to specific semantic-pragmatic features linked to these complementizers.

Clauses with a non-subject preceding the finite verb Let us now turn to the sub-group of V2 sentences where dass is followed by a constituent other than the subject that in turn is followed by the finite verb. The constituent order is comparable to that in the subject-initial sentences (where the subject follows the complementizer dass) in that here, too, there is only one constituent between complementizer and finite verb. Elements preceding the finite verb are PPs or adverbial adjuncts (denoting place, time, or modality, e.g. uff den weag E 'in this way' / G 'auf diese Weise'). In all these cases, the subject immediately follows the finite verb; further constituents may be added after the subject. This word order corresponds precisely to the "classic" V2 word order that is typical of German main clauses (except for the subordinating complementizer), but it is in clear contrast to English SVO word order where the subject has to precede the verb. Therefore, it cannot be the immediate result of interference from English. The following examples illustrate this word order pattern (complementizer and finite verb in bold face, subject underlined). (20) [PS7/7-1868] ...un ich hab aw grawd my mind uf gemacht das [mit Nei Yorrick] and I have also just my mind up made, that with New York will ich nix mea tsu du hawa. want I nothing more to do have 'and I just made up my mind that I don't want to have anything to do with New York anymore.'

204 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

(21) [PS9/5-1868] ...ich sog der noch amohl das [mit so dinger] gea ich net I say youDAT7 once again that with such things go I not 'I am telling you once again that with such people I won't go.' (22) [EDS24-1979] Vergess awwer net ass [am Dinnschdaag noch de Oschdere] soll Forget but not that on-the Tuesday after the Easters shall der Pit widder en nei-i klass an Northampton County Area the Pit again a new class at-the Northampton County Area Community College aafange. Community College start 'But don't forget that on Tuesday after Easter Pit is supposed to start a new class at the NorthamptonCountyAreaCommunity College.' (23) [SB3001-1992] Doh kaertzlich howwich gelaesa dos [driwwa im Russlond] there a-short-while-ago have-I read that over-there in-the Russia is nat feel essa dos dee leit kaufa kenna. is not much food that the people buy can 'A short while ago I read that over there in Russia there is not much food for the people to buy.' Certain regional varieties of German allow this type of V2 word order in subordinate clauses as well (Heilmann 1999:1): (24) [Swabian] ...dass [heit] hot dr Hans wella des Buach derfa de Kendr that today has the Hans want the book be-allowed the children schenka give [as a gift] '... that today, Hans wanted to be allowed to give the children the book.' Heilmann (1999:93) claims that the Swabian clause in (24) is not a V2 clause, but he does not present a structural analysis. Therefore, it remains unclear how this apparent V2 word order in Swabian should be analyzed.

�� 7 DAT = dative; youDAT corresponds to 'to you' in this context.

Concluding remarks � 205

Because of the occurrence of such word order in European German varieties, I suggest that there is no need to assume either that PG has taken a different path than related varieties of German, or that it has developed an innovative word order pattern or a new underlying clause structure in general, in line with (A2) above. The clauses in (17) – (23), however, are problematic for the structural analysis that ususally is applied to German. Therefore, I propose, they hint at the beginning of a structural change.

6.3.4 Interpretation of the findings For (at least some of) my PG data, I conclude: - The subject and the finite verb do not surface in the same order that is assumed for the underlying structure (subject in specIP, verb further to the right inside the right-headed VP); the surface word order may indicate that the verb has been moved. - The sentence negation nicht 'not' surfaces to the right of the finite verb (and of the subject), providing additional evidence for verb movement. Both facts pose a problem for a "non-movement analysis" that would postulate that in these clauses the finite verb is in VP-final position underlyingly. Comparable data is found in Yiddish, a variety with V2 effects in main clauses and in complementizer-initial subordinate clauses. Vikner (1995:69) points out that V2 in (Yiddish) subordinate clauses can only reliably be assumed where a non-subject constituent fills the slot between complementizer and finite verb; as in PG, the subject then appears to the immediate right of the finite verb. Clauses that have the subject as their first constituent after the complementizer could have been generated without verb movement (via VR, VPR, or extraposition), as I suggested for most of the subject-initial PG examples above. I claim that, in analogy to Yiddish, PG dass+V2 clauses with a non-subject consitutent between dass and the finite verb must also be analyzed along the lines of a CP recursion or a similar structure. Their structure is not captured by the verb-final clause structure analysis that is usually proposed for subordinate clauses in German.

6.4 Concluding remarks A comparatively high percentage of the non-subject-initial V2 clauses is found in the most recent texts of the corpus. With only barely a quarter of all dass-

206 � Verb position in complement dass-clauses

clauses coming from this part of the data, more than one third of the nonsubject-initial clauses were produced between 1978 and 1992. This distribution means that there is a qualitative change taking place in dass+V2 structures. While these structures overall do not increase with time, specifically those with a non-subject constituent between the complementizer and the finite verb do. Thus, a distinct type of the (decidedly un-English) V2 position of the finite verb is becoming more frequent and hence more salient for the speakers. As a result, the PG V2 clause structure's contrast to the English SVO structure is strengthened because it is simplified: Two PG surface options are reduced to one (V2 instead of V2 + SOV/verb-final clauses), resulting in a one-to-one opposition between PG and English (rather than a two-to-one opposition). For the bilingual speaker, the contrast between the two languages is made more obvious, making it easier for her or him to handle them side by side. In addition, the change leads to a reduction of the surface asymmetry between main (V2) and subordinate (SOV/verb-final) clauses in PG, thereby reducing contrasts within PG and, at the same time, making it more parallel to English with its main clause/subordinate clause symmetry. Thus, the frame is being set for a change towards a binary syntactic distinction between the two languages. If the change is completed, PG and English will, in this word order respect, be distinguished syntactically by one criterion, i.e. (surface) position of the finite verb. This criterion will take one of two values: either V2, for PG, or SVO, for English. The word order distinction (asymmetry) between main and subordinate clauses, being non-existent in English, is then given up in PG as well, in favor of an unambiguous opposition between the word-order patterns of the two languages. This development is achieved by exploring and combining existing syntactic options (extraposition, VR, VPR), as well as by introducing (possibly as a transfer from English) a specific operation, CP recursion, to PG, which did not make use of this operation before. In the following chapter I take a closer look at one of the syntactic strategies, namely PP-extraposition, and its effects in PG on clause structure and cue availability to the learner.

7 Extraposition of prepositional phrases Reed (1979:243) points out that "extensive use of the post-position [i.e. the postverbal field] is especially characteristic of colloquial German in general and of the Pennsylvania German dialect in particular." With special reference to PPextraposition, i.e. the placement of PPs in the postverbal field, Louden (1988) notes that in his PG data it is almost the rule and much more common than in other varieties of German. Westphal Fitch (2011) conducted a comparison of Standard German, Palatinate German, and Pennsylvania German spoken data with respect to extraposition and adverb placement. She found that extraposition is similarly high in spoken Palatinate German and Pennsylvania German, but considerably lower in Standard German. PP-extraposition is an area in which (P)G and English partly diverge and partly overlap, providing a potential gray area (in the sense of Clyne 1987:755; cf. chapter 5 above). In German, PPs may precede or follow a non-finite lexical verb or verbal particle. In English there is only one option: The PP must follow the lexical verb.

7.1 Preliminaries In this chapter, I examine the frequency of extraposition of prepositional phrases (PPs) in my PG data. My hypothesis was that PG speakers, due to contact with English, tend to prefer the extraposition of PPs to the postverbal field (as compared to leaving the PP in middle field position) because this option is grammatical in German, thus permitting a parallel surface structure in both languages without violating grammatical rules. In the absence of further elements preceding the non-finite verb, an extraposed PP creates a classical instance of a gray area: Due to the ambiguity of the surface word order, it is impossible to determine whether the underlying structure is English or German, as illustrated by the following example: (1)


PG all dee Deitscha dos wuhna in Barricks Kounti E all the Germans that live [in Berks County] SVO StG all die Deutschen, die _ wohnen [in Berks County] PP-extraposition

208 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

Here, two structural interpretations of the relative clause are possible for the listener/reader: Either it exhibits SVO word order (as in English), or it is an instance of an underlying SOV word order with an extraposed PP in the postverbal field (as in German). There is no indication of which of the two structural representations the speaker (writer) had in mind when producing this datum. The data set I analyzed with respect to PP extraposition constitutes a subset of the PG data I investigated for the other parts of my study. It consists of the most recent data section, the texts published between 1989 and 1992. These are 95 short texts that appeared as a weekly feature in a local newspaper in southeastern Pennsylvania (cf. chapter 3). The older texts from my data set were not analyzed with respect to the extraposition of prepositional phrases. For comparison, I analyzed a smaller corpus of recent PalG texts that were written between 1997 and 2001. Two thirds of the PalG data set consist of short texts and comments on various topics (e.g. politics, weather) provided by the author on the internet (the same data set I analyzed with respect to subordinate clause word order, see chapter 6), and roughly one third of the PalG data comes from an internet guest book. All texts are written in a register that is close to colloquial spoken language; hence, the registers of the PG texts and the PalG texts are comparable. It has to be noted, however, that in spite of the conceptual proximity to spoken language (cf. Koch/Oesterreicher 1985, 1994), the data are medially different from the spoken data analyzed by Westphal-Fitch (2011), which results in a slightly different outcome, in particular for the PalG data section where normative influences from the written standard language seem to be reflected. Thus, the current section is based on a synchronic comparison of data, not a diachronic one, in contrast to the other parts of my study.

Extraposition in German Arguments that are required by the semantic frame of a verb generally stay in the middle field in German. In contrast, elements that are not strictly required by the verb (also referred to as optional arguments and/or adjuncts, cf. Ehrich 1997), may be extraposed, i.e., they can be moved into the postverbal field. Bierwisch (1963:40, 50f.) claims that only non-required elements can be extraposed, while required elements must remain in the middle field. This is probably too strict and does not fully capture German language use, but the middle field position is definitely favored for required elements. Prepositional phrases, the topic of this section, either appear in the middle field or are extraposed to the postverbal field. (The case of topicalization is not relevant in this specific context and will therefore be excluded from further

Preliminaries � 209

discussion.) The difference between the position of required and non-required PPs in (St)G is such that extraposition of required PPs is either ungrammatical (according to Bierwisch, op.cit.) or, at least, strongly dispreferred, while it is acceptable for non-required PPs. Hawkins (1986:143f.) summarizes the restrictions on extraposition and suggests the following hierarchies of what he calls "mobility into rightmost position in the clause", including examples for each hierarchy (1986:144-151): Extraposition Hierarchies (Hawkins 1986:143) (a) 3-place predicate constituent > 2-place predicate constituent > 1-place predicate constituent (b) heavier constituent > less heavy constituent (This hierarchy corresponds to Behaghel's Law (Behaghel 1932), also termed heavy NP shift.) (c) oblique object > direct object > subject (d) non-strictly subcategorized constituent > strictly subcategorized constituent (cf. Ehrich 1997:261) ('>' = 'exhibits greater or equal mobility into rightmost position in the clause') Hierarchies (b) and (d) have the highest relevance in the current context and for my further discussion, and I give appropriate examples from my data below. Hawkins further claims that "[t]hese hierarchies permit an organized and principled account of postverbal movements in German" (Hawkins 1986:144) and suggests that the acceptability of extraposition of non-required constituents is "in large part a matter of style" (Hawkins 1986:147), i.e., grammaticality is not at stake in these cases. Similarly, Kroch (1996b) and Roeper (1999) claim that optionality (i.e., choice) is not a matter of grammar but of language use and of register, the latter corresponding to Hawkins' notion of 'style'. PPs frequently occur in postverbal position, mainly in spoken German but in the written language as well (cf. Schwitalla 2003 and, for spoken German, Engel 1974). Subjects and direct objects are, in contrast to PPs, not extraposable, with the exception of particularly heavy direct objects, which can be moved into the postverbal field (Hawkins 1986, Behaghel 1932). Likewise, if the subject or the direct object is a sentential complement, it is often extraposed (cf. examples in Hawkins 1986:145f.). Extraposition of oblique and direct objects used to be more frequent in Middle High German, as Lockwood (1968:263f.) notes. By the time of Luther (in the early 16th century), however, only heavy direct objects were extraposed (Hawkins 1986:149). Therefore, I assume that the extraposition rules and prefe-

210 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

rences in the varieties spoken by the Pennsylvania German settlers of around 1700 (the time of their emigration from their German-speaking homelands) are essentially the same as in today's German.

PP-position in English English word order is SVO (with residual V2 effects), in contrast to German SOV order with V2 in main clauses. There is no sentence bracket in English (in the sense of the topological field analysis) and thus no sentence-final verb position creating a middle field. Accordingly, there is only one possible position for PPs (aside from the topic position): the position to the right of the verbal complex. The following examples illustrate the contrast between German and English with regard to the position of non-required PPs (taken from Hawkins 1986:156): (2)

(a) Ich erzähle dir gleich, was ich bei Meiers gehört habe. (b) * I'll tell you right away what I at the Meiers have heard.


(a) (b)

Ich erzähle dir gleich, was ich gehört habe bei Meiers. I'll tell you right away what I have heard at the Meiers.

A parallel surface structure between German and English is thus possible with respect to extraposed non-required PPs. Required PPs, that is, required arguments which are realized as PPs (e.g. auf den Tisch stellen 'to put on the table'), are a different matter. In these cases the German PP is required (or very strongly preferred) to appear in the middle field, i.e. to the left of the lexical verb. A corresponding PP in English, in contrast, can only appear to the right of the verb.

7.2 The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German In order to investigate whether PP positioning in PG is derived from a German or an English underlying structure, I analyzed the relevant sentences from the PG corpus described above (section 7.1). Relevant in the sense of my analysis are all sentences with a clearly recognizable right verbal bracket, i.e., they must, in addition to the finite verb, either contain a non-finite verb or a verb particle, or

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 211

they must be verb-final on the surface.1 Of these sentences, those that contain one or more PPs in the middle field or the postverbal field were counted and analyzed. Clauses that are ambiguous with respect to the position of the prepositional phrase (PP) were excluded from further analysis. Clauses were considered ambiguous if - the clause includes a finite verb in second position (V2) and a prepositional phrase but has no (right) verbal bracket. Therefore it is not clear whether the PP is structurally located in the middle field (MF) or in the postverbal field (PVF). MF or PVF: (4) [SB12/27-1989] Die Minerva un ich worra bei sie die gons tzeit. the Minerva and I were at her the whole time 'Minerva and I were with her the whole time.' - the subordinate clause has a prepositional phrase (PP) to the right of the finite verb but no further element between the verb and the PP. Therefore it is not clear whether the underlying structure is subject-object-verb (SOV, either verb-final or possibly verb-second), as in German, and the PP has been extraposed, or whether the underlying structure is subject-verb-object (SVO), as in English. Extraposed PP or SVO or V2 (subordinate clause): (5) [SB4/3-1991] (= example (1) above) all dee Deitscha dos wuhna in Barricks Kounti 'all the Germans that live in Berks County'

�� 1 Excluded were non-finite structures, i.e. non-finite subordinate clauses and sentences with the German progressive structure ([am + infinitive] + SEIN 'on + inf. + BE') because of their unclear relationship with English progressive forms. Examples are: - non-finite: [SB5-1991] Ich gleich fah meins dunka in's koffee I like for mine to-dunk into-the coffee (= 'I like to dunk mine into the coffee') - progressive: [SB11-1991] Ich wor am rum lawfa im unser Gorda I was at around-walking in our garden (= 'I was walking around in our garden')

212 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

Not of interest here, and therefore also excluded, were instances of PPs in topic position and PPs belonging to DPs.2 Thus, the PG clauses I analyzed fulfill the following criteria: - They contain a finite verb (in main clauses in V2 position, in subordinate clauses as part of the verbal complex). - In main clauses, there is a right verbal bracket so the postverbal field can be identified. - The clauses contain at least one PP that is an independent constituent (a required, implied, or optional argument), i.e., it is not part of another constituent (e.g. of a DP). The distinction between required and implied arguments is based on Ehrich (1997), who argues for a scalar differentiation (obligatory – implied – optional) between different types of arguments, rather than for a binary one (obligatory – optional). Obligatory, or required, arguments must surface in a phrase; implied arguments are conceptually included in the phrase but do not have to be expressed. Optional arguments are not specified in the argument structure of a verb but can be added to the phrase (cf. Ehrich 1997:261ff.). - The position of the PP can be determined unambiguously as being either in the middle field or in the postverbal field (no ambiguous cases, no topicalized PPs). The total numbers of analyzed clauses and PPs are as in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Table 7.1: Distribution of PPs across clause types (PG) Pennsylvania German total number V2 clauses (with verbal frame) VF clauses

clauses 538 (100 %) 344 (63,9 %) 194 (36,1 %)

prepositional phrases (PPs) 575 (100 %) 365 (63,5 %) 210 (36,5 %)

V2 = verb-second; VF = verb-final

�� 2 Examples of these types of PP are: • PP in topic position: [SB11-1989] mitt seim Arm weist er sei Graft with his arm shows he his power (= 'with his arm, he shows his power') • PP belonging to a DP: [SB8-1991] Doh kartzlich bin ich darrich dale fun meinra Deitsch Eck Kolumns gonga there recently am I through part of my German Corner columns gone (= 'just recently I went through some of my Deitsch Eck columns')

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 213

Table 7.2: Distribution of PPs across clause types (PalG) Palatinate German total number V2 clauses (with verbal frame) VF clauses

clauses 403 (100 %) 224 (55,6 %) 179 (44,4 %)

prepositional phrases (PPs) 462 (100 %) 257 (55,6 %) 205 (44,4 %)

V2 = verb-second; VF = verb-final

There are slightly more relevant V2 clauses in the PG data (63,9%) as compared to the PalG data (55,6%). There are a few more PPs in relevant VF clauses than in V2 clauses in the PG data (36,5% of all PPs are in VF clauses, while only 36,1% of all clauses are VF). In the PalG data, the distribution of PPs across sentence type corresponds precisely to the distribution of sentence type, i.e., relative to the amount of V2 and VF clauses the number of PPs in V2 and VF clauses shows the same ratio.

Point of departure My point of departure was the following hypothesis: English influence on PG is reflected in a high extraposition frequency of PPs, particularly of those PPs that are strongly dispreferred to be extraposed in other varieties of German. A general high extraposition frequency may have different reasons: English influence is one of them, closeness to spoken language or simply the extension of an already-existing German pattern (in the absence of regulatory norms) another. Extraposition of PPs that are dispreferred to be extraposed in German is a stronger indicator of possible English influence because in this case, there is no German tendency that can be followed or has been extended. According to Behaghel (1932), Ehrich (1997) and Hawkins (1986), there are two types of PPs with a strong preference for the middle field position in German. These are: - light, i.e. short, PPs, and - obligatory/required arguments, i.e. PPs that are required by the argument structure of the lexical verb. Frequent extraposition of these types of PP in PG, I propose, reflects interference from English. Extraposition of PPs may also be influenced by the linguistic origin of a specific combination of verb and PP. A two-part hypothesis can be derived from this assumption:

214 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases



If the verbal lexeme is of English origin, extraposition of the PP should be preferred, because its (original) language affiliation triggers the activation of AE word order patterns, in line with Clyne's (2003:211) claim that "[a] lexical tag will activate particular syntax". Roeper (1999:21f.) notes that the availability of certain structures can be linked to specific lexical classes. As an example he refers to the possibility of V2 with verbs of speaking in English ("quotation inversion"). I hypothesize a similar link between PP extraposition and PG verbs of AE origin. If the verb+PP combination is an idiomatic expression in German, or if verb and PP are closely attached via argument structure in German, the middle field position is preferred for the PP.

In sum, I analyzed PP positions in my PG data under four different aspects: 1. What is the general frequency of PP-extraposition? (quantitative relationship between extraposed and non-extraposed PPs) 2. What is the frequency of PP-extraposition for light and heavy PPs? 3. What role does close semantic attachment (argument structure) between verb and PP play for extraposition (dis)preferences? 4. What is the role of the linguistic origin of the verb+PP combination in terms of extraposition preference? (e.g. English origin  AE word order activated  extraposition preferred; German origin  G word order activated  middle field position preferred)

7.2.1 Overall frequency of PP extraposition Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show the quantitative distribution of PPs across clause types and positions for the PG data set and the PalG data set respectively. Table 7.3: Position of PPs in different clause types (PG) Pennsylvania German all PPs PPs in PVF PPs in MF

PPs in all clauses 575 (100 %) 450 (78,3 %) 125 (21,7 %)

PPs in V2 clauses 365 (100 %) 297 (81,4 %) 68 (18,6 %)

PPs in VF clauses 210 (100 %) 153 (73,6 %) 57 (26,4 %)

VF = verb-final; PVF = postverbal field; MF = middle field

The overall frequency of PP extraposition is high in the PG data analyzed here, in agreement with the observations made by Reed (1979) and Louden (1988). Around 80% of all PPs occur in postverbal position ("PPs in PVF"), while only about 20% remain in the middle field.

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 215

For comparison, the numbers for the PalG corpus are provided in Table 7.4: Table 7.4: Position of PPs in different clause types (PalG) Palatinate German PPs in all clauses PPs in V2 clauses all PPs 462 (100 %) 257 (100 %) PPs in PVF 42 (10 %) 29 (11,3 %) PPs in MF 420 (90 %) 228 (88,7 %) VF = verb-final; PVF = postverbal field; MF = middle field

PPs in VF clauses 205 (100 %) 13 (6,3 %) 192 (93,7 %)

Here, the distribution is noticeably different, with only 10 % of all PPs in postverbal position while 90 % of the PPs remain in the middle field. The following two diagrams, based on Tables 7.3 and 7.4, show the distribution of PPs across clause types graphically. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% all clauses

all PPs

V2 clauses

PPs in postverbal field

Figure 7.1: PP position in PG (cf. Table 7.3)

verb-final clauses

PPs in middle field

216 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% all clauses

all PPs

V2 clauses

PPs in postverbal field

verb-final clauses

PPs in middle field

Figure 7.2: PP position in PalG (cf. Table 7.4)

The contrast between the two sets of data is striking. Even though both data sets are close to a spoken register where extraposition occurs more frequently than in more formal written registers (Engel 1974, 1996; Hawkins 1986) there is a great difference in the amount of PP extraposition. This is also in contrast to Westphal-Fitch’s (2011) findings for spoken PG and PalG, indicating that conceptual proximity to a spoken register does not yield the same results as conceputally and medially spoken language. The purely quantitative comparison thus hints at English influence on PP extrapostition in the case of PG, in the sense of the hypothesis I formulated above (as my Point of departure). The investigation of three further aspects was undertaken to verify this first result, particularly with respect to its implications for contact-induced language change.

7.2.2 Extraposition of light and heavy PPs Preference for the extraposition of PPs in German varies with the linguistic register and the PP type. I distinguish three types of PP: "regular" PPs, heavy PPs and light PPs. "Regular" PPs are PPs consisting of a preposition and a DP. With this type, the linguistic register has the highest effect on extraposition preferences (written language / formal register: low extraposition frequency; spoken language / informal register: higher extraposition frequency; cf. Engel 1974). With heavy and light PPs, their respective structure has an additional effect,

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 217

i.e., heavy PPs are more frequently extraposed (as compared to regular PPs) while light PPs usually remain in the middle field and are rarely extraposed. The following criteria were used to determine whether a PP was counted as light or as heavy: - light PP: consisting of preposition + pronoun Ex.: mit ihm 'with him', davon 'of that' -

heavy PP: consisting of preposition (P) + conjoined or complex DP (complex: DP + PP, DP + CP/relative clause) Ex.: auf der Wiese neben dem Haus (P-DP + PP) 'on the meadow beside the house' hinter dem blauen Auto, das an der Ecke steht (PP + relative clause) 'behind the blue car that is standing at the corner'

According to these criteria, 43 of the 575 occurring PPs are light (7,5%), and 79 are heavy (13,7%). The distribution is as in Table 7.5. Table 7.5: Distribution of light and heavy PPs across positions (PG) PG all PPs (100%) light PPs (7,5%) total 575 (100%) = all PPs 43 (100%) = all light PPs in PVF 450 (78,3 %) 34 (79,1 %) in MF 125 (21,7 %) 9 (21,3 %) PVF = postverbal field; MF = middle field

heavy PPs (13,7%) 79 (100%) = all heavy PPs 72 (91,1 %) 7 (8,9 %)

Examples of light PPs in postverbal position: (Note that the examples in (8) and (9) would not be PPs in StG but personal pronouns marked for dative case. The case marked pronouns would remain in the middle field and not be extraposed.) (6) [SB6-1989] sie hen nix weiders gsaagt de weega they have nothing more said that because-of 'they said nothing more about that' (7) [SB64-1991] won m'r ebbes abbodiches hawwa will muss m'r betzawla dafor if one something special have will must one pay there-for 'if you want to have something special, you'll have to pay for it' (8) [SB24-1990]

218 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

Die Dorothy Kershner hut g'schrivva tzu m'r the Dorothy Kershner has written to me 'Dorothy Kershner wrote to me' (9) [SB65-1991] ferleicht kennt ihr dale darrich dee Posht shicka tzu ihm maybe can you-PL some through the mail send to him 'maybe you can send some [of them] to him by mail' (10) [SB78-1991] tzwae dinger dos ich schreiva will dafun two things that I write want there-of 'two things that I want to write about' (11) [SB93-1992] ihr kenna sohn program griega you-PL can such-a program get 'you can get such a program from him'

fun ehm from him

Light PPs show the same pattern of distribution as PPs overall. Considering that this type of PP prefers middle field position in other German varieties, nearly 80% is a very high extraposition rate. A frequency this high, I claim, suggests interference from English. Heavy PPs appear in extraposed position in over 90% of all occurrences. In agreement with Hawkins' (1986) and Behaghel's (1932) claims, their extraposition frequency is higher than that of the PPs overall. Note that heavy PPs are not completely excluded from the middle field position. This fact indicates that the middle field in PG is still open to all kinds of PPs, and that it is not (yet) functionally restricted in principle. So far, only a shift in frequency has taken place, not a structural change. The changed frequency of use, however, may lead to a change in structure in the future (cf. chapter 1). A strong contrast in frequencies becomes apparent when the PG numbers are compared to the PalG results as presented in Table 7.6:

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 219

Table 7.6: Distribution of light and heavy PPs across positions (PalG) PalG all PPs (100%) light PPs (11 %) total 462 (100%) = all PPs 51 (100%) = all light PPs in PVF 42 (10 %) 1 (1,96 %) in MF 420 (90 %) 50 (98,03 %) PVF = postverbal field; MF = middle field

heavy PPs (9,1%) 42 (100%) = all heavy PPs 7 (16,7 %) 35 (83,3 %)

Here, extraposition in general is infrequent, and extraposition of light PPs in particular is extremely rare, in accordance with the predictions made earlier for StG. Extraposition of heavy PPs is higher than overall extraposition, as in PG. The comparison shows again, however, that in PG extraposition is much more frequent for all types of PPs. The following two examples illustrate the optionality of extraposition in PalG with "regular" (i.e., neither heavy nor light) PPs. • extraposed PP: (12) [PalG2-1998] Wann isch merr als emool moi Gedanke mach iwwer unser if I myself always once my thoughts make about our Umweld ... environment 'Sometimes, when I think about our environment ...' • PP in the middle field: (13) [PalG8-1998] Eigendlich misst isch in de jetzisch Zeit jo Ebbes iwwer actually must I in the current time indeed something about die Bundesdaagswahle schreiwe. the federal elections write 'Right now, I actually should write about the federal elections.'

7.2.3 The role of close semantic attachment (in argument structure) between verb and PP I analyzed the occurrence of PPs with a limited number of verbs that require or imply a place argument in German. Place arguments are often realized as prepositional phrases. The following examples illustrate the positioning of PPs that are required or implied arguments. For comparison, the numbers of PPs and their position for the same verbs in the PalG data are given. Note that in

220 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

PalG there is only one occurrence of a postverbal PP for these verbs (with komme 'come', cf. below). In order to trace the effect of close semantic attachment, I categorized the PPs into three groups for each verb: • place PP = PP indicating place/ location/ direction/ goal3; • idiom. PP = idiomatic combination of verb and PP; and • other PP = non-place/ non-idiomatic PP. (MF = middle field; PVF = postverbal field) • Verbs with an obligatory 'place' argument: - wohnen 'live (in a place)': 2 PVF (place); 5 MF (place) - hocken 'sit': 2 PVF (1 place, 1 other); 3 MF (place)

PalG: 0 PVF, 2 MF PalG: 0 PVF, 6 MF

PG (wohnen / wuhna): (14) [SB17-1990] Er hutt in Portugal g'wuhnt he has in Portugal lived 'He lived in Portugal.' (15) [SB61-1991] ...dee Alice hutt gewuhnt un Milford the Alice has lived in Milford 'Alice lived in Milford Square, Pa.'

Square, Pa. Square, Pa.

PalG (wohnen / wohne): (16) [PalGwoi11/18-2000] all die, die in de Kuhwaid do drunne all those that in the Kuhwaid (area) there down 'all those who live down there in the Kuhwaid area' • Verbs of movement: - gehen 'go, walk': 23 PVF (17 place, 6 other); - kommen 'come': 12 PVF (9 place, 3 other);

wohne live

26 MF (26 place)

PalG: 0 PVF, 11 MF

8 MF (7 place, 1 idiom.)

PalG: 1 PVF, 15 MF

�� 3 depending on the semantics of the respective verb

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 221

PG (kommen / kumma): (17) [SB27-1990] Dah menshta sin noch em progrem riwwer kumma im Chapel The most are after the program over come into-the chapel 'Most of them came over to the chapel after the program' PalG (kommen / kumme): (18) [PalGwoi2/15-2000] blos noikumme in des Netz du isch net only into-come in[to] the web do I not 'only into the world wide web I can't get' Note that in example (18), the (non-finite) lexical verb has been topicalized together with the PP. I classified this clause as an instance of postverbal PP because the PP follows the verb, even though the V-PP combination is topicalized and not placed in the canonical position. • Verbs of change of place: - setzen/stellen/legen; hängen 'put', 'hang': 6 PVF (4 place, 2 other); 4 MF (4 place) - schicken 'send': 5 PVF (3 place, 2 other); 4 MF (4 place)

PalG: 0 PVF, 12 MF PalG: 0 PVF, 2 MF

PG (legen): (19) [SB2/13-1991] ...hen m'r dee Sei ous em Bree droke gricht mitt dee Ketta ...have we the sows out-of the broth trough got with the chains un uff en alter dish gelaegt and on an old table put '...we got the sows out of the broth trough with [the help of] chains and put them on an old table.' PG (schicken): (20) [SB9/26-1990] ...sie hutt ettlicha shtories galeasa dos die Leit gshickt hen ...she has a-number-of stories read that the people sent have tzu ihra fah leasa uff ihra Progrem. to her for read(ing) on her program '...she read a number of stories that people sent to her to read on her program.'

222 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

PalG (stellen): (21) [PalG"E gewaldischie Tat"; text 4] Zuerschd hab isch en große Hawwe mit 4 Lidder Milch uff die at-first have I a big pot with 4 liters milk on the Heerdbladd gschdellt. stove-top put 'First I put a big pot with 4 liters of milk on the stove top.' PalG (schicken): (22) [PalG"Hochsummerwedder"; text 29] ...weil merr nämlich bei demm Wedder känn Hund vor die Deer ...because one namely at this weather no dog before the door schiggt. sends '...because you don't even send a dog out in a weather like that' Even though the frequencies are low, there is a noticeable tendency for required PPs ('place', 'idiom.') in PG to remain in the middle field. My findings with respect to PP position (middle field vs. postverbal field) are that approximately half of all required PPs in PG appear in the middle field position, while the other half is extraposed to the postverbal field. That is, required PPs remain in the middle field much more often than PPs in average do (overall rate in my PG data: 21,7%, cf. Table 7.3 above). Further, all PPs that remain in the middle field are required PPs, while implied or optional PPs ('other') do not appear in the middle field position but are always extraposed. Thus, in the postverbal position we find required PPs as well as other types of PPs (optional arguments in Ehrich's 1997 terms), such as temporal PPs. The availability of the middle field position, in contrast, is restricted to required PPs in the PG data I investigated. In sum, required PPs prefer the middle field position, but may also appear postverbally. Optional PP-arguments never show up in the middle field. Note also that for half of the verbs overall (verbs with more than one occurrence), PPs appear in postverbal position only. The middle field position of required PPs reflects the German pattern. The fact that in my PG data strictly required PPs are extraposed to the extent found (as compared to only a single extraposed PP in the PalG data) I attribute mainly to influence from English. Written PalG, in contrast, is likely to be influenced to some degree by the writing norms of the standard variety (StG) its writers are in contact with. Therefore, oral patterns seem to be better reflected in written PG than in written PalG (cf. also Westphal-Fitch’s (2011) results on spoken PalG).

The Data: Prepositional phrases in Pennsylvania German � 223

The extraposition pattern found in PG is an instance of extending an already existing surface word order parallel between English and German (i.e., a gray area) as much as possible without violating grammatical constraints, the result being that the two grammars converge without being changed in their underlying structure.

7.2.4 The role of linguistic origin of the verbal lexeme The linguistic origin, English or German, of the verb lexeme seems to have an impact on extraposition preference as well, no matter whether the lexeme is otherwise (phonologically, morphologically) integrated into PG or not (cf. Clyne 2003:198, 211 on language tagging and its triggering function of syntactic information as network activation). With English-origin verb lexemes and loan translations from English, the PP is almost always extraposed. The following verbs are cases in point: English verb stems4: geyused g'watcht shmoka shtubt geretired shtarta g'jumpt g'interest in ... (sein)5

1 PVF 1 PVF 1 PVF 1 PVF 1 PVF 5 PVF 1 MF 1 MF, 3 PVF

English-based verb-PP combinations: gucka/sucha fah 4 PVF schwetza tzu 3 PVF wisse fun 4 PVF

'used' 'watched' '(to)smoke' 'stopped' 'retired' '(to) start' 'jumped' '(to be) interested in'

'look for' 'talk to' 'know of'

�� 4 Verbs with one single occurrence in the data set are given in the form found in the data. Verbs with multiple occurrences are cited in the infinitive. 5 g'interest in is a loan from English. The structurally closest (St)German counterpart is the participle construction interessiert (sein) an (note the diverging choice of preposition); other German correspondences are sich interessieren für (cf. PalG, example 27 below) and Interesse haben an. – Although one could argue that g'interest (in) is used as an adjective, I treat it as a phrasal verb here because morphologically it is a participle (as in the English form interested in).

224 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

nemma tzu

3 MF, 3 PVF

'take to'

Here, the numbers are very small, but PP-extraposition (i.e., PVF position) is clearly preferred for these verbs: in 27 out of 32 instances (84.4%), and for 9 out of 12 verbs. This is slightly more than the overall extraposition rate for all PPs (78.3%, cf. Table 7.3 above). Note that in my corpus six of these twelve verbs only occur once each with a PP. While these numbers are very low, it is the recurrent pattern of extraposition with various verbs that I take to support my hypothesis that the English origin of a verb lexeme promotes PP-extraposition. Three English-based verbs do not follow this line, though. Two of them, g'interest in (< E interested in) and nemma tzu (< E take to), are accompanied by PPs in both positions (MF, PVF), while g'jumpt (only one instance) co-occurs with a middle field PP only. The case of g'interest in is interesting because the middle field PP is a light PP (example 23 below) while the three PPs in the postverbal field are not, thus reflecting German PP-position preference. However, the light PP appears to the right of the lexical verb, i.e. between lexical and finite verb, copying the argument structure of the English phrasal verb, while still preserving the syntactic pattern of German with respect to the position of the finite verb. In this way, the construction forms a compromise between German and English PP positioning. (23) [SB39-1990] ebbes dos ferleicht dale fun eich g'interest drin seit something that maybe some of you-PL interested there-in are 'something that some of you may be interested in' (24) [SB33-1990] Won m'r noch g'interest is in unser fore-eltera ihra if one still interested is in our parents their 'if one is still interested in our parents' ways [of doing things]'

waega ways

(25) [SB57-1991] dos noch dale yunga leit g'interest sin in sacha dos see helfa that still some young people interested are in things that they help kenna ... can [with] 'that some young people are still intereste in things they can help with'

Interpretation of results � 225

(26) [SB61-1991] Ich bin abbodich g'interest in dee Alice I am particularly interested in the Alice 'I am particularly interested in [the historical figure of6] Alice' One PalG semantic counterpart of PG g'interest in is sich (=REFL) interessiere fer 'be interested in'. Example (27) illustrates the use of this verb with the PP in the middle field position. • PalG sich (=REFL) indressiere fer: (27) [PalGwoi9/2-1999] Wann derr eisch fer Dialekte orrer fer de Ourewaold indressiert ... if you-PL REFL for dialects or for the Odenwald interested-are 'if you are interested in dialects or in the Odenwald' Due to the small number of examples in 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 (the qualitative analysis of PP positioning) I cannot draw definite conclusions here. There is a clear tendency, however, particularly when the PG data and the PalG data are compared: The analysis of the PG data strongly implies that contact with English promotes PP extraposition in PG while, for PalG, contact with StG seems to diminish it, at least in written data.

7.3 Interpretation of results The analysis of four different factors affecting PP position indicates that the data support my hypothesis of English influence on PG PP-extraposition. Further, I found that the types of PP that can appear in the middle field position are more restricted than the types of PP occurring postverbally. Only very rarely do we find an optional argument (in the sense of Ehrich 1997) in middle field position. In contrast, there are no restrictions on PPs in postverbal position, either semantically or with respect to the heavy/light distinction. These findings point towards a functional restriction of the middle field position and indicate that an asymmetry is developing favoring the postverbal position of PPs. This development, I argue, results from an increased use of the gray area between German and English. I presume that English-based verb-PP combina-

�� 6 The information that a historical figure is concerned is included in the larger context of this clause.

226 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

tions promote this development as they are "linked" (in the sense of Clyne 2003:198, 211) to the notion of a postverbal PP position. By way of borrowings and loan translations from English, the pattern becomes increasingly familiar to PG speakers and is then applied to German-based combinations as well (cf. Fuller 1997:137ff., 205f. for a similar line of argumentation). I propose that an increasing frequency of PP extraposition supports the development of favorable preconditions for structural change: The middle field is used less frequently; thereby it loses saliency in the linguistic awareness of PG speakers. In addition, the number of ambiguous clauses increases the frequency of contexts where it is impossible to determine whether the underlying word order is S(O)V, V2 or SV(O). Examples of this kind are the following two sentences: (28) [SB2/20-1991] alle ebber dos wuhnt in Barricks Kounti everybody that lives in Berks County 'everybody who/that lives in Berks County' (29) [SB8/8-1990] Owwer wos ich sawga will fun George is dos er is un die but what I say want of George is that he is at the Goshahuppa Fesht. Goshenhoppen Festival 'But what I want to say about George is that he is at the Goshenhoppen Festival.' The surface structure of PG and English is identical in these cases. This does not automatically imply that the underlying syntactic structure of PG has changed. It becomes, however, increasingly difficult for a language learner to detect a difference in the underlying structures of English and PG in this context. According to Lightfoot (1991, 1998, 1999), unambiguously structured sentences provide necessary cues for learners to recognize underlying structures. If the number of ambiguous structures is high, the learner may re-interpret syntactic structures according to other frequently provided patterns. In the presence of ample English input, the PG learner is likely to draw on English SVO structures for support, when interpreting PG input as well as when constructing his or her PG output. In this way the path is smoothed for a structural language change.

Concluding remarks � 227

7.4 Concluding remarks So far, the discussion has been concerned with data from non-plain PG speakers. For further comparison it is interesting at this point to take a look at plain PG. Plain PG is generally judged to be more open towards English influence than non-plain PG (cf. chapter 2). Louden (1988, 1994) notes that PG, in contrast to other languages in contact, shows surprisingly little syntactic interference from English. Plain PG has the same underlying structure as non-plain PG and other varieties of German, i.e. SOV with V2 effects (cf. Louden 1990, 1994), and it has also preserved the verbal frame, which allows an identification of middle field and postverbal field. Just like non-plain PG, also the plain variety has a strong preference for PP-extraposition (Louden 1988). The examples cited by Louden (1994) show, however, that plain PG indeed is one step further than non-plain PG since the middle field position for a "regular" PP is not particularly good (though not ungrammatical), and, surprisingly, it is ungrammatical for light PPs (examples from Louden 1994:897). (30) Sie hot ihre Supp gesse mit en Leffel. she has her soup eaten with a spoon 'She ate her soup with a spoon.' (31) ?Sie hot ihre Supp mit en Leffel gesse. she has her soup with a spoon eaten 'She ate her soup with a spoon.' (32) Sie hot ihre Supp gesse demit. she has her soup eaten with-it 'She ate her soup with it.' (33) *Sie hot ihre Supp demit gesse. she has her soup with-it eaten 'She ate her soup with it.' �� 7 Louden collected his data in free conversation (participant-observer method) and by eliciting grammatical judgements (Louden 1988:141ff., Louden 1994:89).

228 � Extraposition of prepositional phrases

The behavior of the light PP is in sharp contrast to what is common in other German varieties. Louden (1994) does not comment on this discrepancy. One can imagine that the light PP is excluded from the middle field because it cannot be stressed (not in this phonetic form, at least). There are some hints in the PalG data pointing in the direction of a link between middle field position and "stressability" (unstressed form: demit 'there-with'/ stressed form: dodemit 'there-there-with')8. The plain PG examples demonstrate that the middle field position is still available for different kinds of constituents and definitely for non-prepositional arguments of the verb (e.g. ihre Supp 'her soup'). It is interesting, however, that PP-extraposition has apparently become a requirement for certain constituents, something that was not evidenced in my non-plain data. Here we see the beginning of a structural language change. Plain PG is with regard to this specific development a fused lect (Auer 1999) in the sense that a surface structure from German has fused with one from English (as a requirement, not simply as an option). As a consequence, it has become difficult to tell which language this structure belongs to, even though the underlying structures of the two languages must be assumed to remain different9. What has happened here is something that, according to Auer (1999), is common in long-term language contact situations: It is the development from functionally determined code-switching to free (i.e., not functionally determined) code-mixing and finally to a fused lect that adheres to a new set of rules. In the case of these structural features of PG it happens 'beneath the surface'; on the level of lexical form it is all German. Non-plain PG has not developed quite as far in this direction as plain PG. Non-plain PG exhibits changed frequency patterns, as was illustrated in comparison with the PalG data. These changed frequency patterns constitute a necessary prerequisite for a structural shift (though not a sufficient one10, cf. chapter 1) and, thus, make a large-scale structural change possible. In the following chapter I take a closer look at one specific facet of PP extraposition in PG, namely word order patterns that show strong surface parallels to

�� 8 Cf. chapter 8 for a closer investigation of this type of light PP and a discussion of stressed / unstressed forms of prepositional adverbs. 9 e.g. because of the OV-order (ihre Supp 'her soup' = obj. / gesse 'eaten'= verb) that would be ungrammatical in English. 10 Thomason (2000) points out that language change is unpredictable. It is possible to identify favorable and even necessary preconditions for language change, but whether change actually happens depends solely on extralinguistic factors. In this sense, linguistic conditions alone are never sufficient for language change.

Concluding remarks � 229

English preposition-stranding constructions. Again, I discuss whether the underlying structure in PG has converged with AE, or whether two distinct underlying structures are employed to create the same (or a very similar) surface.

8 Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German 8.1 Preposition stranding: A brief description 8.1.1 Preliminaries Preposition stranding is generally understood to refer to a structure in which the complement of a preposition and the preposition itself have been separated, with the preposition located at the right periphery of the clause and the complement at its left periphery (usually in topic position). The term "stranded" suggests that the complement presumably has been moved out of the prepositional phrase (from a generative perspective; cf. Haegeman 1994:375, Radford 1998:271) while the preposition remains in situ (or is extraposed dently1). For the time being, I use the term "preposition stranding" ("Pstranding") to refer to any type of surface structure where a preposition and its complement are non-adjacent, independent of the underlying syntactic structure. Preposition stranding (P-stranding), a well-established phenomenon in English but fairly restricted in German, is illustrated by the following two examples: (1) This man you can rely on. (2) Da

habe ich nicht mit gerechnet. have I not with counted 'That I did not expect.' THERE

Restrictions on P-stranding are much more rigid in German than in English (Trissler 1993). Fleischer (2002) provides an exhaustive presentation and discussion of preposition stranding and related phenomena for German. He explicitely excludes German language island varieties (Fleischer 2002:10), therefore information on Pennsylvania German stranding phenomena is not offered. In general, stranding in German is only possible if the preposition (P) is used in combi�� 1 It is irrelevant here whether the preposition (with the trace of the complement) is extraposed after the complement has been moved, or whether the PP as a whole is extraposed first, and the complement is moved out of the PP afterwards.

Preposition stranding: A brief description � 231

nation with a specific phrasal category, a so-called R-pronoun (da(r)-, wo(r)-). Zwarts (1997:1092; cited in Fleischer 2000:117) notes that "[t]hese pronouns are usually called R-pronouns (following Van Riemsdijk 1978), because they all have the r-sound in their phonological form (...)." For German, this is only true from a historical perspective: Around 1500, dar- and wor- were still in use, but today the -r- is only preserved before a vowel-initial preposition, i.e. it links the pro-form (da-, wo-) to the vowel-initial preposition (e.g. da-r-auf, wo-r-über, as compared to e.g. da-mit, wo-von). An R-pronoun can be used to substitute for an inanimate nominal referent, in some varieties of German also for an animate referent (e.g. as the invariable relative pronoun wo).2 R-pronouns must precede prepositions in a PP. This can be interpreted as a form of cliticization (as a pro-clitic), expecially where weak forms of R-pronouns are involved. Cliticization to the left of an otherwise rightgoverning element is a phenomenon also found in OE, where cliticized subjects in non-subject-initial V2 clauses could attach to the left of the inflected verb even though a full-form subject had to appear to its right (cf. van Kemenade 1993). Cases like example (2) above can also be referred to as PP-split (cf. Allen 1977), because the linear order of the two elements remains unchanged, in contrast to English P-stranding. Compare the stranded prepositions in (1) and (2) to their un-stranded/un-split counterparts in (3) and (4): (3) You can rely on this man. (4) Damit habe ich nicht gerechnet. / Ich habe nicht damit THERE-with have I not counted. /I have not THERE-with gerechnet. counted 'That I did not expect.'/ 'I did not expect that.'

�� 2 This applies whenever the R-pronoun has a specific referent, as in relative clauses; cf.: Das ist das Haus, wovon ich dir erzählt habe. 'This is the house that I told you about.' ??/* Das ist der Mann, wovon ich dir erzählt habe. 'This is the man that I told you about. Das ist der Mann, von dem ich dir erzählt habe. 'This is the man who I told you about. When the referent is unspecified as e.g. in questions, the R-pronoun may be used even if the answer makes reference to an animate entity; cf.: Wovon wolltest du mir erzählen? 'What did you want to tell me about?' - Von meinem Chef. 'About my boss.' Wovon träumst du? 'What are you dreaming of?' - Von einem Hund. 'Of a dog.'/ Von einem Haus im Grünen. 'Of a house in the country side.'

232 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

There is some evidence in my data that PG allows a kind of P-stranding leading to a surface structure that would be ungrammatical in German. The result is an English-like surface form, as exemplified in (5). (5) [SB6-1992] Es hutt feel waerdta drin dos ich nat bekondt been mitt. it has many words THERE-in that I not familiar am with 'There are many words in there that I am not familiar with.' It is this type of surface structure that is analyzed and discussed in the following sections.

8.1.2 The range of stranding phenomena The focus here is to describe the PG data on P-stranding against the background of P-stranding constructions found in German and English. I discuss deviations from German and from English and try to pinpoint what exactly it is that is different in PG. Concluding, I assess what the results imply with regard to structural change in PG. With respect to the phenomenon of P-stranding, there are both synchronic and diachronic aspects. Synchronically, P-stranding is not common among the world's languages; with regard to Germanic languages, it seems to be restricted to SVO languages (the Scandinavian languages and modern-day colloquial English; cf. Fleischer 2000:117). From a diachronic perspective, there is no evidence so far that a language that allowed P-stranding at one point in its history has ever lost this feature. In fact, P-stranding appears to be a recent development: Old English as well as Old Swedish have been shown to lack P-stranding in the form in which it exists today (Allen 1977, Delsing 1995). Instead, both varieties provide evidence for an operation more appropriately called PP-split (Allen 1977) which is no longer possible in the modern forms of these languages. The option for PP-split survives in some languages that do not have P-stranding of the kind found in modern-day English (e.g. German, Frisian and Dutch); it will be illustrated and discussed below. English and Swedish exhibit a diachronic development of P-stranding over a period of several hundred years, resulting in P-stranding as it is found today. What may play a role here is that case merger seems to facilitate stranding phenomena (Clyne 2003:191). Both English and Swedish have undergone case merger, and so has PG to some degree (cf. chapter 4). This link may offer a motivation for the development of P-stranding in PG. The question remains, however, why PalG has not developed P-stranding

Preposition stranding: A brief description � 233

as well since the extent of case merger found there is almost the same as in PG, as I have illustrated in chapter 4. It seems, then, that case merger can facilitate stranding phenomena but it is not a sufficient precondition. Fleischer (2000) points out that it is the SVO languages among the Germanic languages that have developed P-stranding while Germanic SOV languages "do not seem to have a direct equivalent" (Fleischer 2000:117)3. Thus, certain structural features apparently have to be met too. This puts PG in a special place: It is not a SVO language but it shows a tendency to develop a stranding-like surface not attested in related varieties of German. In this case close contact with English appears to be the distinguishing factor, promoting surface convergence between PG and AE and thereby separating PG from other German varieties. P-stranding is the "counterpart" construction of pied-piping in the sense that in pied-piping the preposition moves along with its complement (e.g. Haegeman 1994). Different Germanic languages utilize these structures to a different extent. English, for example, allows both, but they are subject to certain restrictions: The invariant relative marker that forces P-stranding, while the inflected relative pronoun whom triggers (a preference for) pied-piping (Radford 1998:142). The use of who seems to allow either construction. 1. Preposition stranding: the man that I talked to the man who I talked to ?/* the man whom I talked to4 2. Pied-piping: * the man to that I talked (?) the man to who I talked5 the man to whom I talked

�� 3 Fleischer (2000:144) notes that among the Germanic SOV languages Frisian (cf. Hoekstra 1995), spoken Dutch, and two north-western varieties of German show liberal preposition stranding, but he emphasizes that in these cases the underlying structure is clearly different from that of P-stranding in SVO languages (where movement out of the PP is assumed). Cf. section 8.5 below for further discussion. 4 Radford (1998:142) considers P-stranding in combination with whom as ungrammatical while it is acceptable for Haegeman (1994:375). 5 The accepability of the undeclined pronoun who (as opposed to whom) in the pied-piping construction varies among native speakers of English.

234 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

In English, P-stranding results from topicalization (6), from relativization in relative clauses (7) and in infinitival relatives (8), from passivization (9), and from cleft sentences (10)6: (6) [One thing]i I am sure about ti. (7) the womani (that) I talked to ti (8) There was nothingi to talk about ti. (9) Hei was laughed at ti. (10) It was Janei (that) I talked to ti. PP-split, resulting in a surface similar to P-stranding, is not a structure available in Modern English, but it was common in Old English (Allen 1977) and Old Swedish (Delsing 1995). Today, it is productive in Modern German and Modern Dutch, among others. An example of PP-split in (colloquial) StG is the following: (11) Dai

habe ich nicht ti-mit have I not ti-with 'That I did not expect.'


gerechnet. counted.

In German, only PPs consisting of an R-pronoun (da(r)- or wo(r)-) that is followed by a preposition can be split. Historically related PP-forms are found in Old English and Old Swedish, and to a limited degree they still exist in the modern forms of these languages, often with an archaic or formal flavor (e.g. Modern English: therewith = with that, thereto = to that, thereof = of that); they are more common in the Modern Scandinavian languages than in Modern English. Even though the prepositions in these PPs follow their complements, for German they should not, in my opinion, be referred to as postpositions (cf. also Fleischer 2000, 2002, among others). The reason is that with full DPs, these prepositions always precede their complements (see (12) below). In contrast, true postpositions (which follow their complements) do not form pro-PPs (cf.

�� 6 't' stands for the 'trace' that is left behind by an element that has been moved. The trace is co-indexed with the moved element (cf. chapter 5).

Preposition stranding: A brief description � 235

(13)); only prepositions are able to do so.7 The following examples illustrate this contrast: (12) Prepositions: a. auf dem Schrank on the cupboard auf → darauf, worauf, (drauf) b. in der Kiste in the box in → darin, worin, (drin) c. zu dem Buch to the book zu → dazu, wozu, (regional variants: dezu/zu) d. mit dem Löffel with the spoon mit → damit, womit, (regional variants: demit/mit) (13) Postpositions: a. des Wetters wegen the weather because-of wegen → deswegen, weswegen; *dawegen8, *wowegen b. dem Faltblatt zufolge the brochure according-to zufolge → demzufolge, (wemzufolge); *dazufolge, *wozufolge The examples in (12) illustrate that prepositions assign overt case to the right (dative case in the examples given). Postpositions, in contrast, assign overt case to the left (cf. (13); des-/wes- = genitive case, dem-/wem- = dative case), to DPs as well as to pronouns. Da/wo are pronouns that cannot be overtly case-marked, and this may be the reason why they are not eligible as pro-clitic complements of postpositions because these assign case to the left. What makes cases like (11) different from the P-stranding cases in English is the fact that the order of constituents of the original PP has not been changed. �� 7 Similar observations seem to apply to Dutch which also has R-pronouns and pro-PPs (cf. Hoekstra 1995, Fleischer 2000). 8 In several regional dialects (e.g. Swabian, PalG, Bavarian) wegen is a preposition (taking a dative complement), not a postposition (taking a genitive or dative complement) as in StG, and as such it can take an R-pronoun as its complement. Cf. Trissler (1993), Müller (1991) for further discussion of dawegen.

236 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

The PP has been "pulled apart", with the complement at the left periphery of the clause and the preposition either in base position (within the VP, where it originated) or extraposed, i.e. moved to the right and out of the VP. But the original ordering pronounpreposition is preserved. In contrast, English P-stranding entails a juxtaposition of elements in the sense that the complement of the preposition originates to the right of the preposition but ends up to the left of it (and usually separated from it by a number of other elements). Therefore the term PP-split seems more appropriate for the phenomenon found in German and Dutch, while P-stranding in a technical sense refers more properly to the structure found in English and the Scandinavian languages. Some authors refer to PP-split as (a variant of) P-stranding. This is not unproblematic, however, since there are clear differences between the two structures (cf. the discussion in Trissler 1993). While I acknowledge the structural differences between the two phenomena, I still decided to use 'P-stranding' as a cover term when referring to the phenomenon in PG in the following sections. This is done in order to use a unifying term with respect to ambiguous structures in PG and to highlight the surface similarity with the English structure. It is not intended to entail a statement on the underlying structure in PG.

8.2 Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German PG displays structures different from what is grammatical in German, but they are different from AE P-stranding, too. Louden (1988:193) notes that his plain PG data and AE are "superficially similar" with respect to the placement of the proPP (in PG) resp. the stranded preposition (in AE). He considers this to be "an instance of parallel development", with the reservation that in (plain) PG the finite verb is still underlyingly clause final, in contrast to AE. I take up such structural considerations in the concluding subsection of this part where I also discuss to what extent such parallel development can be attributed to influence from English and hence represents an instance of contact-induced language change. Even though the examples found in my corpus are limited in number, their reliability is supported by the results of an informal survey I undertook to elicit judgements of the relevant clauses from PG speakers from southeastern Pennsylvania (own data, 1998). The speakers were not informed about the syntactic focus of the survey but simply asked to judge whether these sentences were acceptable to them. Some speakers commented on religious and other contentrelated aspects, but none of them considered the syntactic structure of these

Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German � 237

clauses to be deviant or unacceptable. Frey (1985) offers corresponding examples in his PG grammar, pointing out that "[w]hen the English relative pronoun is preceded by a preposition, this is [in PG] usually expressed by a form in de- or dr- (plus the preposition), which is placed at the end of the relative clause (after the verb) [my emphasis, DS]; ex: do iss der Mann, as mer so viel schwetze devun here is the man about whom we talk so much (or, that we talk so much about). sell iss's Buch, as er zwee Daaler bezaahlt defor that is the book for which he is paying two dollars (or, that he is paying two dollars for)." (Frey 1985:33f.)

The following sentences are drawn from my PG corpus and provide the basis for the discussion of P-stranding in PG (place and year of publication of the respective sources are indicated with each example).

8.2.1 Pennsylvania German data Bare prepositions and pronominal PPs in finite relative clauses Bare prepositions in finite relative clauses (14) [SB6-1992] Es hutt feel waerdta drin dos ich nat bekondt been mitt. it has many words THERE-in that I not familiar am with 'There are many words in there that I am not familiar with.' (15) [SB16-1990] Alle ebber dos ich schwetzt hob mitt hen gsawt's waert en gutie every-body that I talked have with have said-it were a good Progrem. program 'Everybody that I talked to said it was a good program.' Pronominal PPs in finite relative clauses (16) [SB19-1991] Helf mich frei mocha fuun da sinda das ich waes dafun, un help me free make of the sins that I know THERE-of and luss sie net ivver mich gae. let them not over me go 'Help free me of the sins that I know of and do not let them overwhelm me.'

238 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

(17) [SB28-1990] Doh is ebbes dos ferleicht dale fun eich g'interest drin seit. there is something that maybe some of you interested THERE-in are 'There is something that some of you may be interested in.' (18) [SB29-1991] sin tzwae dinger dos ich schreiva will dafun. are two things that I write want THERE-of 'There are two things that I want to write about.' (19) [Sim138-1913] Sie hen olsfot nuchberer os sie derfoon schwetza kennen. they have always neighbors that they THERE-of talk can 'They always have neighbors that they can talk about.' (20) [MS6-1912] ... was se s'beshd gleicha daida fun da socha ... what they the best like did of the things wos gshriwa is dafun. what written is THERE-of '... what they liked best of the things that were written about.'

Pronominal PPs in infinitival relatives (21) [SB9-1989] Die woch howich drei dinger fer schreiva dafun. the week have-I three things for write THERE-of 'This week I have three things to write about.' (22) [SB10-1989] des is ferdultsei gute socha fer schreiva dafun. that is truly good things for write THERE-of 'Those are truly good things to write about.' (23) [EDS10-1978] Es sinn noch so viele Sache fer verzeehle unn schwetze driwwer. it are still so many things for tell and talk THERE-about 'There are still so many things to tell and talk about.'

Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German � 239

(24) [EDS5-1978] Der yung Mann hot mich draagemaahnt an ebbes THERE-on-reminded on something the young man has me ass ich gleiche deet schwetze devun heit. that I like did talk THERE-of today 'The young man reminded me of something that I would like to talk about today.' (25) [EDS9-1978] Es gehne mir so oft so viele Sache darrich der Kopp it go me so often so many things through the head ass ich gleiche deet zu schreiwe driwwer. that I like did to write THERE- about 'I often have so many things on my mind that I would like to write about.' (26) [Sim119-1913] Un du husht nix g'saener (...)? - Nix os derwaert is and you have nothing seen? -nothing that worth is tzu schwetza derfoon. to talk THERE-of 'And you did not see anything? -- Nothing that is worth talking about.'

Pronominal PPs in other constructions Pronominal PP with DP-topicalization (27) [EDS7-1979] Awwer ee Ding kann mer sich druff verlusse. but one thing can one REFL THERE-on rely 'But one thing one can rely on.' Pronominal PP in coordination (28) [SB8-1989] sie hen widder mechtich gut essa k'hotta un aw blenti dafun. they have again mighty good eating had and also plenty THERE-of 'They again had really good food, and lots of it, too.'

240 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

Pronominal PP in a participial complement (29) [SB10-1989] Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, Schand Mauer (…) worra dale fun die Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, Shame Wall (…) were some of the nawma gevva datzu names given THERE-to 'Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, Shame Wall (…) were some of the names given to it'

Quantitave and distributional overview The PG data show a range of constructions in which P-stranding occurs. The follow-ing table provides a quantitative overview of the data. Table 8.1: Stranding constructions in PG across construction types and time Type of preposition stranding R-pronoun + stranded (bare) preposition finite relative clauses: - with case-marked relative pronoun - with invariant relative marker infinitival relatives other constructions: - DP-topicalization - coordination - participial complement total:



2 1




5 2

7 6

1 1 9

1 1 1 16





total -

Even though the numbers are small, a change in quantity as well as in quality can be observed over time: There is an increase in the number of total occurrences of P-stranding as well as in the environments where this phenomenon appears.

8.2.2 Extraposition preferences Let us consider the examples listed in (14) - (29) in more detail. Two facts attract attention as being relevant for the question of whether these examples are "true" cases of P-stranding (as in AE): 1. In only two (of 16) sentences, namely (14) and (15), is a bare preposition stranded (mit 'with'); in all other cases, what is stranded is a pronominal PP (i.e. an R-pronoun PP, a preposition preceded by dr-/da-/de-). This makes the PG cases different from AE P-stranding, and similar to German.

Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German � 241

2. The majority of the split-off prepositions and pronominal PPs in the stranding data are located to the right of the verbal complex rather than in the middle field. This makes the PG data different from German PP-split or Pstranding data, where such word order is at least unusual (for written data). In German, a middle field position for the stranded preposition or the pro-PP is clearly preferred (cf. Breindl 1989). Compare examples (18) and (19), repeated as (30) and (31) respectively, for the difference between the middle field position and the extraposed position of the pro-PP. Extraposed pro-PP (30) [SB29-1991] (= (18) above) sin tzwae dinger [[dos ich schreiva will] dafun.] are two things that I write want THERE-of 'There are two things that I want to write about.' Pro-PP in the middle field (31) [Sim138-1913] (= (19) above) Sie hen olsfot nuchberer [os sie derfoon schwetza kennen]. they have always neighbors that they THERE-of talk can 'They always have neighbors that they can talk about.' In the PG data, only three cases, i.e. examples (17), (19) and (27), have the proPP in the middle field, while in 13 cases the pro-PP or preposition is extraposed to the right of the verb or verbal complex. In spoken (colloquial StG and regional) varieties of German, extraposition of full PPs, consisting of a P + DP, is a common phenomenon, e.g. (32) Er hat lange Zeit überhaupt nichts ti gewusst [von solchen Plänen]i. he has long time at-all nothing known of such plans 'For a long time, he did not know anything at all about such plans.' Extraposition of pro-PPs and stranded (or split-off) prepositions is dispreferred (cf. examples (33)-(35))9, even though it is not ungrammatical. Note that this kind of extraposition is generally more acceptable in spoken discourse than in written data.

�� 9 cf. the discussion of light and heavy PPs above

242 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

(33) Er hat lange Zeit überhaupt nichts davon gewusst. he has long time at-all nothing THERE-of known 'For a long time, he did not know anything at all about it.' (34) (?) Er hat lange Zeit überhaupt nichts ti gewusst davoni. THERE-of he has long time at-all nothing known 'For a long time, he did not know anything at all about it.' (35) ? Daj

hat er lange Zeit überhaupt nichts ti gewusst [ej von]i. THERE has he long time at-all nothing known of 'About that he did not know anything at all for a long time.' The PG data I investigated deviate from StG at least in terms of preference with respect to extraposition of prepositional elements, I argue. Regarding plain PG, Louden (1988:191) remarks that pro-PPs "occur in the post field [i.e., the postverbal field] almost without exception." The verbs schwetze (to talk) and schreive (to write) are the verbs used most frequently with P-stranding constructions in my corpus, while dafun (THERE-of) is the pro-PP with the highest frequency (see Table 8.2). Table 8.2: Verbs and prepositions/pro-PPs (stranding data) dafun 'THERE-of' bekondt sei 'be familiar' gevva 'give' g'interest sei 'be interested' hovva 'have' schreiva 'write' schwetze 'talk' (sich) verlusse 'rely on' wisse 'know' total

datzu drin druff driwwer 'THERE- mitt 'with' 'THERE-to' 'THERE-in' 'THERE-on' over/ THERE-above' 1 1

1 1

1 1 4 3

1 1




1 1 9



total 1


1 5 5 1 1 16

I do not suggest that P-stranding is a lexical phenomenon linked to certain lexical entries only. It is conceivable, however, that high-frequency V-P combina-

Preposition stranding in Pennsylvania German � 243

tions in AE are also frequent in P-stranding constructions (in AE). When the bilingual speaker uses the corresponding PG item, the AE item, too, including its distributional information, is activated via the conceptual level. The simultaneous activation enhances the potential for transfer not only of semantic or subcategorizational features but also of distributional features such as stranding or extraposition (cf. Fuller 1999 regarding subordinate clause word order with AE complementizers). Thus, lexical co-activation can be a trigger for syntactic interference (cf. Clyne 2003; see also sections 7.2.4 and 7.3, where I argued along similar lines). In order to test whether there is a preference for PP-extraposition with specific V-P combinations, I counted all PPs occurring as complements of the verb schwetze in the corpus. Of a total of 117 VPs with schwetze, 63 included a PP complement (pro-PPs are included) and a VP-final verb, i.e., an infinitive, a participle or a finite verb, marking the right border of the verbal frame (cf. section 7.2). Of these 63 VPs, the PP was extraposed (positioned to the right of the VP-final verb) in 41 cases, while the PP appeared in the middle field, i.e. before the VP-final verb, in 22 cases. Thus, extraposition of PPs (with or without stranding) is the preferred option in this data set. The prepositions used with schwetze show the following distribution (ordered by frequency of total occurrence). Table 8.3: Prepositions occurring with schwetze 'talk, speak' preposition fun 'of, from' mit 'with' tzu 'to' iwwer 'over, about' in 'in, into' (fun) weaga 'because of' fer 'for' total:

total occurrences 27 17 6 5 3 3 2 63

extraposed 24 7 3 3 3 1 41

in middle field position 3 10 3 2 2 2 22

Schwetze fun 'speak of', is the most frequent combination found, and the one with the highest extraposition rate. This specific V-P combination, as well as the preferred position of its (stranded) preposition/PP, could be an instance of AEinfluenced preference. It is remarkable that mit-PPs display the strongest tendency to remain in the middle field position while mit is the only preposition that appears stranded in the bare form, i.e. it is the one preposition that is treated most English-like in stranding constructions. Interestingly, Fleischer (2000:124, 138ff.) notes that the

244 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

stranding construction with mit 'with' is the only exception to the rule that stranding constructions are restricted to the north and a few central regions of the German speaking area. Its distribution includes High and Low Alemannic and Swabian, varieties that contributed to the development of PG and where "the stranding construction and the orphan preposition construction are totally unknown with prepositions other than mit" (Fleischer 2000:138). Hence, the parallel to English in this case is most likely not due to interference but to accident, with the form and distribution pattern of mit having been preserved in PG and having originated in its source varieties. Within the time-range of the corpus, extraposition of mit-PPs shows the highest frequency in the most recent text block (six of seven extraposed mit-PPs occur in 1978 or later). One extraposed mit-PP, on the other hand, appears in the oldest text block (1868); it is not a stranded preposition, though. PPextraposition in general is thus not a recent innovation in PG, although there is a recent increase in frequency. Differences between the PG data and AE as well as German will be taken up and discussed below. It is important here to note that these distinctions exist, i.e. that PG follows neither German nor AE completely with regard to Pstranding structures. The (morphological) form of the "stranded" element is usually as in German, while its position in the surface sentence structure (i.e., within the 'structural frame' in the sense of Myers-Scotton 1993) appears to be influenced by English.

8.3 Preposition stranding and PP-split In order to reach a better understanding of P-stranding or PP-split constructions in PG, we will first take a look at similar constructions in German and English. Standard German (StG) is drawn on for comparison, even though it is not one of the immediate source varieties of PG. It is relevant here for its close relationship to the original settlers' dialects of German as well as for reasons of diachronic documentation: As the standard written language of Germanspeaking areas, it has been documented over a longer period of time than most regional variants.10 Structural similarities between StG and PG were discussed

�� 10 This observation pertains to the period of time that is relevant here, i.e. beginning with the late 17th century. The earliest written documents in PG originate from the late 18th century (cf. Louden to appear) but a larger text corpus can only be compiled for a period starting in the mid-1800s.

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 245

above. In the current context, the following shared features are particularly relevant: - Both StG and PG have R-pronouns and make use of PP-split constructions. - The generally high frequency of extraposed PPs in PG correlates with PPextraposition in spoken (colloquial) StG and regional variants of German. P-stranding in Modern English is presented first, followed by an outline of resumptive structures leading to a stranding-like surface in German. This overview provides the base for the discussion and evaluation of the stranding data in PG.

8.3.1 Preposition stranding in English Under a generative approach, English P-stranding is generally interpreted as a result of wh-movement (i.e., movement to specCP, the topic position). Relevant accounts (e.g. Baker 1988, Müller 1991) are based on the assumption that verb and preposition are reanalyzed as a complex verb. As a merged unit, verb + preposition are able to function like a simplex verb and can assign structural case. The original complement of the preposition is treated as the complement of the 'new' complex verb and can now be moved and topicalized like the object of any other verb. For this analysis it is crucial that verb and preposition assign case in the same direction (a condition that is met by English but not by StG or PG) and that the PP is adjacent to the verb. Even though P-stranding is possible in a considerable number of syntactic contexts, its use is not unrestricted. For a detailed discussion cf. Baker (1988, esp. chapter 5); the examples below illustrate the most important contexts in which P-stranding is not allowed in English. • pseudo-passives (36) The monster emerged [from [the kitchen]]. (37) [The kitchen]i was emerged [from ti] by the monster.

246 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

• local and temporal adverbials (38) We always oversleep [on [Mondays]]. (39) *[Monday]i is always overslept [on ti] The restrictions that hold for P-stranding in English are not violated in the PG examples. Each of the PG instances of stranding is immediately transferable into English (with regard to the stranding construction, verb position aside), and none leads to any grammatical violations in English. Hence English stranding and PG stranding are compatible. Aside from this compatibility, differences between English and the PG data exist with respect to the (underlying and surface) position of the verb and with respect to the direction of case assignment (cf. above): - In the relevant PG clauses the finite verb is in clause-final position (SOV in PG vs. SVO in English). - Verb and preposition assign case in different directions, as in other German varieties (VP is head-final, PP is head-initial11), while in English both VP and PP are head-initial (i.e., assign case in the same direction). See example (40) (= example (16) above) for illustration: (40) [SB19-1991] Helf [mich frei mocha]VP CASE

[fuun da

sinda]PP (...)


help [me free make] [of 'Help free me of the sins (...)'

the sins]


The following table offers a comparative overview of the relevant characteristics of P-stranding in English and PG (as derived from my data).

�� 11 Postpositional phrases are head-final, i.e., a postposition is preceded by its complement (see the examples in (13)). As explicated above, however, in the context of P-stranding only prepositional PPs come into play, and they are head-initial.

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 247

Table 8.4: Preposition stranding in English and PG English preposition stranding - possible in all clause types

PG preposition stranding - relative clauses are strongly preferred

- the preposition is adjacent to the verb; therefore, a reanalysis is possible (incorporation of the preposition into the verb) resulting in a complex verb with a movable object

- the preposition is typically extraposed, i.e. to the right of the finite verb in verb-final clauses; it is not clear whether this position can be considered as verb-adjacent or eligible for incorporation (since the verb governs to the left, as in StG)

- the reanalysis is based on a consistent direction of case assignment for verb and preposition

- verb and preposition assign case in different directions, which poses a problem for the reanalysis approach

- there is no extraction-restriction with respect to the type of PP-complement (full/pronominal DP)

- the identification of the extracted element is unclear (one case of a full DP; no R-pronouns as in other German varieties)

regarding relative clauses: - who(m), which, that and an empty relative pronoun (cf. Haegeman 1994:466) are available as relative pronouns/markers; all of them can be co-indexed (i.e., interpreted as being co-referential) with the PP complement (form identity is irrelevant)

- "stranded" prepositions / pro-PPs are linked to a morphologically underspecified relative marker which is not identical in form with the pronominal element (R-pronoun) of the pro-PP (in contrast to other German varieties) – a parallel to E that (as relative a operator) is conceivable

The comparison suggests that the structure of the relative clause could play a role in PG P-stranding. It is imaginable that English exerts an influence on PG relative clauses without being responsible for a whole restructuring of PG Pstranding constructions, since neither English nor German P-stranding presents a consistent model of how to interpret PG P-stranding. The next section deals with P-stranding / PP-split structures in German.

8.3.2 PP-split and the resumptive-pronoun strategy in German PP-split constructions are a well-established phenomenon throughout the history of High German. Split pro-PPs are documented for Old High German (Russ 1981) as well as Middle High German (Paul 1919), side by side with their unsplit

248 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

counterparts. For New High German (from ca. 1600 onwards), Paul (1919) provides evidence for four possible constructions involving pro-PPs: • split pro-PP (i.e. R-pronoun + P, with intervening elements; cf. Paul 1919:157); see examples (41) – (48) below • "doubled" pro-PP (R-pronoun + full pro-PP, with intervening elements; Paul 1919: 158); see examples (49) – (50) below • "short doubling" (R-pronoun + full pro-PP, no intervening elements; Paul 1919: 159); see example (51) below • bare preposition (as early as the 17th century; Paul 1919: 159); see example (52) below "[B]ei Luther ist die Trennung noch sehr gewöhnlich" ('In Luther's texts, the split [of pro-PPs] is still very common'), Paul (1919:157) notes. Data from this period provide rich evidence for the use of bare prepositions in PP-split constructions, even when the preposition started with a vowel – something that is today strongly restricted to a few regional (northern) variants of StG (Fleischer 2000, 2002). According to Paul (1919), PP-split constructions show a decline in frequency over time, but literary evidence can still be found throughout the 19th century. The following examples serve to illustrate the range of occurring constructions. They are taken from different sources; those marked [Luther] or [Goethe] are from Paul (1919:157ff.) who derived them from the respective sources. • split pro-PP (41) [Luther; Bible, 1. Mos. 26, 21] da gruben sie einen andern Brun, da zanckten sie auch über THERE dug they another well, THERE quarreled they also over 'there they dug a new well; about that one they quarreled too' (42) [Luther; Bible, 1. Mos. 43, 29] ewer jüngster Bruder, da jr mir von sagetet your youngest brother THERE you me about told 'your youngest brother who you told me about'

(43) [Luther; Bible, 2. Mos. 3, 5] der Ort, da du auff stehest the place THERE you on stand 'the place that you are standing on'

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 249

(44) [Goethe] manches, wo man sonst nicht mit hin weiß some things, WHERE one otherwise not with to knows 'things that one otherwise doesn't know where to put' (45) [modern colloquial German; Breindl 1989:143f.] son Telefonadapter ... wo de also auch Telefongespräche such-a telephone adapter ... WHERE you then also telephone conversations mit aufzeichnen kannst with record can 'a type of telephone adapter that you can record telephone conversations with' (46) [modern colloquial German; Breindl 1989:143f.] Straftaten, wo Deutsche weniger für motiviert sind criminal acts WHERE Germans less for motivated are 'criminal acts that Germans are less motivated for' (47) [own data; oral presentation, Berlin; June 1998] ..., wo ich dann gleich zu kommen will. ..., WHERE I then immediately to come want '…, which I will take up immediately' (48) [own data; informal conversation, Hannover; Dec. 1999] Der Schrank hatte Füße; da konnte man únter sehen. the wardrobe had feet; THERE could one under look 'The wardrobe had feet; one could look underneath.' • split pro-PP with "doubled" R-pronoun (49) [Goethe] aus dem Hause..., wo ich bißher alle Tage drinne war out-of the house..., WHERE I until-now all days inside was-1sg 'from the house… that I until now visited/entered every day' (50) [own data; ARD – TV newscast, on-site commentary; Jan. 2000] Da war das Oberrabbinat dagegen. THERE was the Supreme Rabbinate THERE-against 'The Supreme Rabbinate was against that.'

250 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

• "short doubling": R-pronoun as cataphoric resumptive pronoun (51) [own data; informal conversation in day-care center, Tübingen; Nov. 1999] Es geht drum um die Wahl der Elternbeiräte. it goes THERE-about about the election of-the parental dvisory board. 'This is about the election of the parental advisory board.' • bare preposition (52) [Goethe] machen Sie mit was Sie wollen make you with what you want 'do with it as you like' According to Russ (1981:316), the P-stranding/PP-split construction began to become stigmatized during the 18th century, possibly in connection with an increasing regional restriction to northern German dialects. Paul's literary examples suggest, however, that the 'stigma' was not very strong; in any case PPsplit apparently continued to be generally acceptable for written purposes. Thus PP-split is an old phenomenon that used to be more widespread in German than it is today. A comparison of the German stranding/PP-split construction (where there is solid evidence) with the PG examples reveals the following differences: • In P-stranding/PP-split constructions, German does not show any significant preference for V2 or verb-final clauses (including relative clauses). In contrast, in PG stranding is clearly more frequent in finite and non-finite relative clauses (both verb-final). Only one declarative clause (example (27) above) exhibits this construction, and there it appears in a way that would be ungrammatical in German. • Colloquial German exhibits a strong preference for leaving the stranded preposition in the middle field, i.e. within the VP, thus indicating the origin, or base position, of the whole PP12, while in PG extraposition of the stranded preposition to the postverbal field is considerably more frequent (as PP extraposition in general). For colloquial German, Breindl (1989) offers some examples of (unsplit) pro-PPs in extraposed position (to the immediate right of a non-finite verb), but there are no examples of extraposed pro-PPs or stranded prepositions in finite verb-final clauses. In the PG data, in contrast, the pro-PP or stranded preposition is almost always in extraposed po-

�� 12 in the same way that floating/stranded quantifiers such as both indicate the origin of a DP within the VP in English, cf. Radford (1998:158f.).

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 251

sition. The validity of these findings is supported by Frey's (1985) note on the clause-final position of (pro-)PPs (cf. above). The contrast in PP-extraposition frequency is the most important difference between German and PG with respect to a possible word order change (cf. chapter 7). The difference suggests that some kind of shift or (precursor of) change is in process in PG. What we find is not an immediate transfer of the English stranding construction, but it is also different from German. Interference from English is a likely explanation, but the kind and extent of this interference is not easy to determine. The following table provides an overview of how the data in colloquial StG and PG present themselves in comparison.

252 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

Table 8.5: Preposition stranding/PP-split in German and PG (Colloquial) German preposition stranding / PP-split - in declarative, interrogative and relative clauses

PG preposition stranding

- the preposition is adjacent to the finite verb (in verb-final clauses) but verb and preposition govern in different directions → reanalysis / incorporation (Baker 1988) is not possible - in verb-final clauses, the "stranded" preposition generally is not extraposed, i.e. it does not surface to the right of the verb

- the preposition is typically extraposed, i.e. to the right of the finite verb in verb-final clauses; it is not clear whether this position can be considered as verb-adjacent or eligible for incorporation (since the verb governs to the left, as in StG)

- there is no extraction of full DPs from PPs13; apparent extraction of R-pronouns (da-, wo-) is permitted

- in my data set, there is one instance of an extracted full DP (ex. (96)); no extraction of Rpronouns (da-/de-/der-); and no instances of pro-PPs with wo- as pronominal element (extracted or in place) are documented

- "stranded" prepositions (and pro-PPs) cooccur with a pronominal element/R-pronoun of matching surface form (e.g. damit / da ... mit)

- "stranded" prepositions (and pro-PPs) cooccur with a morphologically underspecified relative marker of a diverging surface form (demit / dos ... mit)

- mainly in relative clauses; there is one declarative clause and no interrogative clauses in my data

Oppenrieder (1991) suggests a deletion-under-identity analysis for German Pstranding/PP-split. In his approach, a pro-PP with a doubled R-pronoun provides the base form, coupled with an elision filter. In southern German varieties the elision filter prohibits elision of R-pronouns (only "complete" pro-PPs consisting of R-pronoun and preposition pass the elision filter and are considered grammatical); in stranding varieties (mainly northern German), elision is preferred or required (depending on the variety) and is blocked by the elision filter only if the preposition begins with a vowel. Oppenrieder (1991) points out that in Low German (spoken in northern Germany) and Dutch the –r of the R-

�� 13 Fleischer (2000:130f., 142) notes that a few regionally restricted varieties in the north-west of modern-day Germany are an exception to this rule. He points out, however, that this extraction type (which he refers to as "liberal preposition stranding") is strictly limited to North Saxon and Westphalian. These varieties (and regions) have not contributed to PG, hence they can have played no role in the development of a similar structure in PG.

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 253

pronouns dar- and wor- (and of the corresponding elements in Dutch, daar- and waar-) is preserved (e.g. Lower Saxonian dar-bi14 'at that', Dutch daar-mee 'with that'), in contrast to High German varieties, where the –r is lost except before vowel-initial prepositions (cf. da-bei 'at that', da-mit 'with that' vs. dar-in 'in that'). He suggests that the existence vs. the non-existence of an elision filter could be a consequence of loss vs. preservation of the –r: In Low German and Dutch an R-pronoun always has the same form, independent of whether a consonant or a vowel follows; a hypothetical filter could not distinguish between the two environments, since they have no impact on the form of the R-pronoun. Accordingly, vowel-initial prepositions appear in stranding constructions as bare prepositions, just like consonant-initial ones. In High German varieties, in contrast, the asymmetrical loss of the final –r caused a detectable distinction based on phonetic environment, so that the kind of filter Oppenrieder postulates can recognize different environments and produce different phonetic outputs. Considering the Low German facts, I suggest that the acceptance of bare vowel-initial prepositions in High German/StG found with some speakers (cf. Breindl 1989 and example (48) above) can be seen as a reflex of Low German interference (or assimilation based on language economy) in northern StG (cf. Fleischer 2000 for the same proposal). Oppenrieder (1991:170) assumes that dr- before a preposition is the doubled instantiation of the full form dar-. This account is problematic, as examples in Trissler (1993:265) show. Trissler notes clear syntactic differences between PPs with dr- and those with dar-. (Her examples (38a) and (38b) are repeated here as (53) and (54) respectively). (53) Wo

hast du dich den ganzen Tag drauf gefreut? WHERE have you REFL the whole day THEREw-at looked-forward 15 'What have you been looking forward to the whole day?' (54) *Wo WHERE

hast du dich den ganzen Tag darauf gefreut? have you REFL the whole day THERE-at looked-forward

�� 14 Fleischer (2000:137) 15 'THEREw' refers to the reduced or weak form of the R-pronoun (dr-, de-). 'THERE' is used to refer to the full or strong form.

254 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

This contrast, I suggest, coincides with a contrast in the stress pattern between free and cliticized resumptive R-pronouns, as in the following examples. (55) Dá

weiß ich nichts von/davonunstressed. know I nothing of/THEREw-of 'That I know nothing about.' THÉRE

(56) *Da THERE

weiß ich nichts know I nothing

dávon. THÉRE-of

(57) Dávon weiß ich nichts. THÉRE-of know I nothing The unstressed cliticized form of an R-pronoun without –r (i.e., in combination with a consonant-initial preposition, e.g. da-vonunstressed 'THERE-of') correlates with the phonetically reduced cliticized form dr- that appears before a vowelinitial preposition (e.g. dr-auf 'THERE-at, THERE-on, THERE-upon'). Oppenrieder, who passes over the syntactic difference between dr- and dar-, does not take into account the distinction between full and reduced forms of Rpronouns. If this distinction is considered, it becomes obvious that the reduced forms have a special status and a well-defined function and are not identical to the full forms in all respects, in contrast to what Oppenrieder seems to assume. As for PG, here Oppenrieder's analysis is not helpful since it does not fit the data: In PG the postulated "doubled" elements are clearly non-identical in form. The antecedent (or, in Oppenrieder's account, the split-off doubled R-pronoun) is unambiguously different from the elided R-pronoun or the preserved Rpronoun in the pro-PP (dos/as etc. vs. da-/de-/dr-). As Oppenrieder explicitly presupposes identity in form as a prerequisite to the postulated deletion (to secure recoverability of the deleted element), his account cannot explain the PG data. On the other hand, the evidence from PG can shed light on distinctions in StG (and other German varieties) that are less easily noticeable due to their specific morphological realization. In written PG the paradigmatic existence of a reduced form for R-pronouns is more obvious than in written StG, since PG orthography is less standardized and often closer to real pronunciation than StG orthography. Thus the (stress)reduced form of R-pronouns without –r (before consonant-initial prepositions) is often reflected in the use of a different vowel (de- instead of da-/do-). Summa-

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 255

rizing the difference in stress and other noticeable contrasts between full and reduced forms of R-pronouns, I propose the following paradigm: Table 8.6: Paradigm of R-pronouns (PG/StG)


full/strong form da-, wo-

reduced/weak form (clitic) Ø [empty] (mainly northern German) da-, de- [unstressed] (mainly southern German)


dar-, wor-


free form

da, wo16


subject to regional variation

The reduced form cannot carry sentence stress; it cannot be focussed; it can never stand alone because it has lost its syllabicity (pre-vocalic form) resp. is always unstressed (pre-consonantal form); it is always cliticized to a preposition (as a pro-clitic). A clear distinction between the full and the reduced form in doubled pro-PPs is reflected in dialect spellings like dodemit (do-de-mit 'THERETHEREW-with', e.g. in Rhenish-Palatinate, Hessian), emphasizing not only the absence of identity between the two elements but also the vocalic reduction of the clitic expressed by the central vowel e, a common orthographic representation of [schwa], a reduced vowel in an unstressed syllable in German. The fact that the reduced form cannot be focussed is illustrated in the following examples; sentence (58) is unacceptable independent of the placement of sentence stress. (58) Darauf habe ich gewartet. THERE-on have I waited 'That's what I waited for.'

�� 16 wo also functions as an invariant relative complementizer and is as such particularly widespread in southern German dialects. E.g.: der Mann, wo gestern gekommen ist the man WHERE yesterday come is 'the man who/that came yesterday' 17 Some Low German varieties have 'r as a free reduced form, but this form is not found in any of the other varieties of German (Fleischer 2000:137).

256 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

(59) *Drauf habe ich gewartet. THEREw-on have I waited In places where southern German varieties use the reduced, or weak, preconsonantal form, northern varieties have no R-pronoun (cf. Table 8.6 above). This rather drastic reduction results in a surface that parallels that of a Pstranding construction as in e.g. English. The strong form of an R-pronoun may carry sentence stress (but it does not have to). The eligibility to carry sentence stress in turn indicates the presence of the strong form and is thus a distinctive marker when the surface form (spelling) does not reflect the difference between weak and strong form (as in StG orthography). Hence I suggest that all pro-PPs that are able to carry sentence stress on the pronominal part contain the strong form of an R-pronoun. This is typically not the case if the bound R-pronoun of the pro-PP is coindexed with a free R-pronoun. That is, if a free R-pronoun exists as an antecedent, the coindexed bound R-pronoun is always weak. The following examples I present to illustrate further what asymmetries exist with regard to the positioning of weak and strong forms. (Note that weak forms pattern like "zero forms", i.e. bare prepositions.) (60) a. Da muss man drüber reden. THERE must one THEREw-about talk 'That, one has to talk about.' b. Muss man drüber reden.18 must one THEREw-about talk '[That], one has to talk about.' c. *Muss man must one

darüber/ dadrüber reden. THERE-about/ THERE-THEREw-about talk

�� 18 (59b) and (60b) are instances of topic drop, a phenomenon frequent in colloquial German.

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 257

(61) a. Da muss man (da)mit rechnen. THERE must one (THEREw-)with count 'That, one has to expect.' b. Muss man mit rechnen. must one with count '[That], one has to expect.' c. ?*Muss man damit rechnen. must one ?THEREw-with/*THERE-with count (?: if weak/reduced19; *: if strong/stressed) These examples imply that the preceding R-pronoun must not be weaker than the following one. The differences in acceptability emphasize once more the necessity to differentiate between strong and weak forms of R-pronouns; only strong R-pronouns can be antecedents. What remains to be considered is the syntactic relationship between cooccurring strong and weak R-pronouns. Trissler (1993) shows that the Rpronoun cannot be base-generated in the complement position of the PP (i.e., to its right) because of problems with case assignment, among other reasons. She suggests that da(r)-/wo(r)- is base-generated (i.e., originates) in specPP, and from there it can be moved to specCP (A'-movement20/topicalization). I support a modified version of this approach, with binding/coindexation rather than movement. Hoekstra (1995) suggests for Frisian A'-binding without movement, i.e. coindexation with the coindexed elements occupying A'-positions. This suggestion seems to work for German as well.

�� 19 Here, in contrast to (59c), a weak reading is possible and would improve the sentence. The reason why the sentence does not become fully acceptable is that it contains a second problem, viz. a dialect clash: A dropped free R-pronoun (topic drop) in sentences like this one is more common in northern German varieties, while an overt pre-consonantal R-clitic (e.g. da- in damit) is typical of southern varieties. 20 SpecCP is an A'-position, i.e. a non-argument position; movement to an A'-position is referred to as A'-movement (von Stechow/Sternefeld 1988:230; Haegeman 1994:115, 393, 668; Radford 1998:252)

258 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

I consider it a problem with Trissler's approach that she does not distinguish clearly enough between northern and southern German variants21. This has certain consequences for the validity of her proposed solutions. Typical constructions that at first sight seem to imply German P-stranding are relative clauses with wo as the clause-initial element. Trissler treats these constructions together with cases of elided R-pronouns (da(r)-/wo(r)-). This leads to a dialect mismatch since wo as an indeclinable relative complementizer is widely used in southern German varieties but restricted to locative and temporal reference in northern German varieties. On the other hand, elision of R-pronouns from proPPs is a typical northern German phenomenon and rarely if at all found in the southern varieties (cf. Table 8.6). What is needed here is a further distinction between wo as an indeclinable relative complementizer and wo as an R-pronoun (with a [+wh] feature, in contrast to da). The origin of the two words is likely to be the same (namely, as an R-pronoun). The [+wh] feature has probably helped wo to develop additional complementizer characteristics, supported by the fact that in southern German varieties no elision of R-pronouns takes place, so that the strict binding relation between an antecedent R-pronoun and the coreferential doubled form was loosened by reanalysis. Eventually wo could be interpreted as a complementizer and no longer as a pronominal antecedent. In northern German elision of R-pronouns makes the binding relation more immediately noticeable; the empty element must be coindexed with an overt element, which in the case of wo-initial relative clauses is the R-pronoun wo. This explains also the stronger semantic limitations (to locative and temporal reference) to which the use of wo is subject. Wo is also the locative question marker and as such semantically indexed as referring to location. An extension of locative referents to temporal contexts by metaphor is common, not restricted to individual languages and well supported by cognition research (e.g. Lakoff/Johnson 1980). Note that there are certain asymmetries between da and wo regarding reference and coindexation. Consider the following differences in acceptability. (62) Dai

hat er nichts daigegen/ei-gegen. has he nothing (THEREw-)against 'He has nothing against it.' THERE

�� 21 According to Fleischer (2000:121) this criticism holds for most of the earlier investigations of P-stranding/PP-split in German.

Preposition stranding and PP-split � 259

(63) Woi

hat er nichts daigegen/ei -gegen? has he nothing (THEREw-)against 'What does he have nothing against?' WHERE

(64) Dai

hat er gesagt, dass er nichts has he said that he nothing 'That, he said he had nothing against.'

daigegen/ei-gegen (THEREw-)against

hätte. had-SUBJUNCTIVE

(65) *Woi hat er gesagt, dass er nichts daigegen/ei-gegen WHERE has he said that he nothing (THEREw-)against 'What did he say that he had nothing against?'

hätte?22 had-SUBJUNCTIVE


(66) er nichts Wasi hat er gesagt, woi what has he said WHERE he nothing 'What did he say he had nothing against?'

daigegen/ei-gegen hätte? (THEREw-)against had-SUBJUNCTIVE

These examples imply that wo requires binding within its binding domain (i.e. inside the lowest maximal projection (XP) containing wo and its coreferent), otherwise the index cannot be identified. This problem does not exist with regard to da, as (63) illustrates. I do not discuss this asymmetry further but only suggest that wo, as a consequence of its multiple functions, can be, and therefore is, interpreted within the first XP in which it appears (garden path effect). If this XP does not contain a coreferential R-pronoun, and an interpretation as a relative complementizer is excluded for syntactic reasons, wo is interpreted as a locative question marker, and coindexation with a referent in a lower XP breaks down (as in ex. (64)). PG, which is based on southern German varieties, has taken the distinction between the indeclinable complementizer and the R-pronoun one step further. Considering the above discussion, the development found in PG seems like a logical consequence of the development in European German: In PG the form dass 'that' (and its variants, such as os, ass, dos) has taken on the function of a relative complementizer (replacing the relative complementizer wo). It can thus

�� 22 This sentence is only acceptable with wo used in the locative sense, meaning 'where did he say that he had nothing against it?'

260 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

no longer be confused with an R-pronoun, making the distinction between the two, relative complementizer and R-pronoun, more salient. Possible reasons for this change can be a desire for a parallel structure to English with a loan translation of that as a complementizer (motivated by a language-economic impetus), and, as an additional and supporting factor, the disambiguation of the two functions of the word form wo. In fact, wo only rarely occurs as an indeclinable relative marker in my PG data, and only in the earlier texts. Dass (in the function of a relative complementizer) is more frequent in general and the exclusive choice in recent texts. There are no instances of wo as the antecedent of an empty R-pronoun, i.e. constructions of the type exemplified and discussed in Breindl (1989), Oppenrieder (1991), and Trissler (1993) do not occur in my PG corpus.

8.4 The place of Pennsylvania German Two approaches to the classification of divergent stranding data in German can be imagined: On one hand, it is desirable to find a way to interpret the variation between northern and southern German P-stranding/PP-split as graded members of the same structure. On the other hand, one may consider the concept of competing grammars (e.g. Kroch 1996a, 1996b) that aims at an alternation between exclusive possibilities. Kroch's approach would leave room for two independent explanations of the diverging (north/south) data. An important question to be answered is whether it is possible to integrate the PG variant of P-stranding into the variation continuum of German Pstranding. If this is not the case, one has to test whether the competing grammar approach can be applied, i.e., if PG P-stranding is a phenomenon completely different from German but similar to English, and as such an instantiation of syntactic code-switching (comparable to the concept of theoretical bilingualism, cf. Roeper 1999). For this explanation to be convincing, it must be demonstrated that PG Pstranding shows characteristics which are in open contrast to German Pstranding. A possible case in point is the indeclinable relative marker (dos) which appears in PG in place of the R-pronoun found in German. The divergence from German in this point becomes obvious if unsplit pro-PPs are considered: Here we find the same forms as in German (aside from phonological divergences based on dialect differences), such as datzu StG 'dazu' / E 'to that', derfoon/devun StG 'davon' / E 'of that', demit StG 'damit' / E 'with that'. Thus the indeclinable relative marker in PG is clearly different from the R-pronoun in pro-

The place of Pennsylvania German � 261

PPs and can therefore not be a split-off element, in contrast to what can be derived for German. In order to identify the origin and function of dos, Oppenrieder's "deletion under identity" approach can be considered for applicability. If applied to PG, it implies the complete deletion of the (doubled/split-off) R-pronoun in the pro-PP plus an independent insertion of the relative marker dos. This hypothesis must be rejected because PG does not generally allow complete deletion of the Rpronoun in pro-PPs (there are only two examples (out of 16) in which a bare "stranded" preposition appears). Besides, PG does not exhibit cases of "short doubling" (in the sense of Oppenrieder 1991:165), as e.g. dodemit, dodevun (as found in PalG), either with da/do or with the word form of the relative marker, dos. It is thus not possible to assume the 'short doubling' form as the base form in PG, as Oppenrieder does for German23. Finally one could suggest that the relative marker is the pronominal element which has been extracted from the regular complement position of the PP (i.e. to the right of the preposition). As pronominal elements which appear to the left of the preposition have the same form in PG as in StG (they are Rpronouns), extraction of dos could only have occurred from the complement position on the right of the preposition. Two facts refute this argument. First, in PG as in other varieties of German the complement of a preposition is marked for case, while the relative marker in question is invariable in form. The data do not provide any examples of the use of this relative marker as an (unmoved) complement of a preposition, as in (67), a hypothetical (unattested) variant of example (66) (= example (15) above): (67) Alle ebber dos ich schwetzt hob mitt hen gsawt's waert en gutie every-body that I talked have with have said-it were a good Progrem. program 'Everybody that I talked to said it was a good program.'

�� 23 As pointed out above, I do not agree with Oppenrieder in this point but assume an overt/covert alternation of resumptive pronouns. Oppenrieder's approach is equivalent to postulating overt resumptive pronouns as the base form for all German dialects; this, I reject.

262 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

not attested in my PG data: (68) *Alle ebber mit dos ich schwetzt hob... every-body with that I talked have ... Second, most of the P-stranding relative clauses with dos as the relative marker include a pro-PP, not a bare preposition. This makes an extraction of dos impossible, since a PP can only have either a complement in the regular complement position (to the right of the preposition) or an R-pronoun in pre-prepositional position, but never both at the same time. There is in fact no position in the PP from which anything could have been extracted. Thus, with regard to PG this approach is not satisfactory either, since it is impossible to identify either an extracted (moved or split-off) element or a place from which it could have been extracted. I sum up the essential points regarding P-stranding in PG: • The large majority of P-stranding occurrences in PG is found in (finite and infinite) relative clauses; the "stranded" preposition/pro-PP is usually extraposed (i.e., extracted from the VP) and follows the lexical verb in verbfinal clauses. • In my PG corpus there is only one example of a stranding-like construction in a V2 clause (example (27)). There are no V2 clauses with bare stranded prepositions in these data. • The indeclinable relative marker dos that co-occurs with a pro-PP is different in form from the pronominal element of the pro-PP, the R-pronoun (in contrast to German). • It is unlikely that the relative marker is identical with the pronominal element extracted from the pro-PP. Accordingly, it is not clear where to find the complement of the stranded preposition resp. the antecedent of the (coindexed) pro-PP. How can the PG data be analyzed? In view of the problems arising with a solution in line with German P-stranding, I suggest an analysis of PG relative clauses with an indeclinable relative marker, as illustrated in Haegeman (1994:466, following Pesetsky 1982). According to this generative analysis the relative marker is located in C0 (in analogy to English that) and treated as a complementizer, while specCP is filled by an empty operator coindexed with the relative marker dos. The complementizer and the operator are contracted (by a process called complementizer-contraction), so that the complementizer receives the characteristics of a relative operator, in addition to its complementizer characteristics.

The place of Pennsylvania German � 263

A combination of German and English features seems here to result in a hybrid structure: The apparent P-stranding construction and the structure of the relative clause follow, on the surface, an English pattern, while the VP is invariably German, i.e. right-headed with an underlying verb-final clause structure. The German right-headedness feature does not permit a conclusive Englishoriented analysis of the data, along the lines of a reanalysis of verb+preposition as a complex verb (presupposing that verb and preposition assign case in the same direction, cf. Baker 1988, Müller 1991; this is not the case in German and PG). The preference for extraposition of the "stranded" preposition or the coindexed pro-PP beyond the verbal frame (exceptions are rare) is syntactically compatible with German (cf. examples in Breindl 1989), but its frequency is considerably higher in PG. This seems to reflect the tendency to converge to English word order (on the surface) without giving up the (deep) syntactic structure of German. The fact that in PG pro-PPs never occur in split form (as they do in other German varieties) leaves room for two possible explanations: Either, they have become reanalyzed (and then lexicalized) as complete units in analogy to existing dialect forms such as derwaert (G 'wert', E 'worth (doing sth.)', used as an adverb, cf. example (26)) or demarrige (G 'morgen', E 'tomorrow', cf. Louden 1994: 8924); or, as has been suggested occasionally (Wunderlich 1984, Trissler 1993, Hoekstra 1995), the cliticized R-pronoun is a trace spell-out at PF25, and that would be the reason why it cannot be separated from the preposition and move by itself: It is not an independent lexical element but a syntactic placeholder. The first suggestion (lexicalization) is problematic because of the existence of PPs with full DPs in regular complement position, where the same prepositions are involved as in pro-PPs, thus preserving the transparency of the structure of pro-PPs. The second possibility (trace spell-out) is taken up in the concluding section where I discuss arguments for trace spell-out/movement versus a resumptivity/no movement analysis. My suggestion is that we have to assume a no-movement strategy for the German varieties other than PG, with covert, or empty, resumptive pronouns in the so-called "stranding" varieties (northern German) and overt resumptive pronouns in the "non-stranding" varieties (southern German). In addition, it �� 24 Even though this form is apparently modelled on the English corresponding item 'tomorrow', it is clearly compatible with German morphology as examples like derwaert and (unstressed) pronominal PPs show. 25 PF = phonetic form; syntactic structures are converted into a phonetic representation (phonetic form) that is uttered by the speaker (Radford 1998:268)

264 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

must be stipulated that the resumptive pronoun has to be of the same word category (R-pronoun) as its antecedent to cover the fact that full DPs cannot bind resumptive R-pronouns. Note that the overt resumptive R-pronoun (as part of the pro-PP), where it is used, appears in a reduced form and cannot bear sentence stress, while the opposite is true for free R-pronouns (they occur in full form and can bear sentence stress). The reduced form has developed a special status and cannot appear by itself but must be cliticized to a preposition. For PG, too, I assume that there is no movement involved. A crucial point in this assumption is the fact that there is no possible base position from which the supposedly moved element in specCP could have come (cf. Hoekstra 1995:113 for the same argument concerning Frisian). With regard to its content this element is coindexed with the resumptive R-pronoun in the pro-PP but it cannot have originated in that position, in PG, for several reasons: Antecedent and presumed trace spell-out are of a different word category (complementizer vs. Rpronoun) and of different form. Furthermore, no PPs exist in which the preceding element (dos) appears to the left of the preposition where the cliticized Rpronoun surfaces (e.g. *dosmit, *dos(t)zu, *dos(dr)in). If dos appears as the complement of a preposition at all (as a demonstrative pronoun, neuter acc. sg.), it is always to the right of the preposition. Finally, no evidence exists, either in PG or in other German varieties, that a cliticized R-pronoun can be bound by a moved element of a different word category. If a cliticized Rpronoun is resumptive of a constituent within the same binding domain, it appears only and exclusively with a (full) R-pronoun as its antecedent. I thus take up the "identity" aspect of Oppenrieder's postulated "deletion under identity" and suggest that the cliticized R-pronoun in German can only be resumptive with regard to a free (i.e. non-cliticized) R-pronoun. In contrast to Oppenrieder, however, I claim that no deletion takes place. Rather, the difference between "stranding" and "non-stranding" constructions is that the former make use of covert/empty resumptive pronouns while the latter have overt resumptive pronouns. In any case I consider it plausible to assume a nomovement structure for both types of construction. With Hoekstra I believe that West Germanic relies on homogeneous solutions to produce a P-stranding surface structure, but contrary to his suggestion, I postulate for German a resumptive and not a movement analysis for what might seem to be moved Rpronouns. In a small informal survey speakers of "stranding" dialects, when asked for an intuitive judgement of overt resumptive constructions, reported to me that such constructions seem redundant. This judgement implies that they perceive an element to be in front of the preposition even though it is not overt. It thus

The place of Pennsylvania German � 265

seems inappropriate to speak of "deletion". The question that remains to be answered is how to distinguish between trace spell-outs and resumptive Rpronouns. Hoekstra claims that German has spelled-out traces while Frisian makes use of resumptive pronouns, and he bases his distinction on the argument that in German full DPs cannot be bound by resumptive R-pronouns, in contrast to Frisian. The reason is, according to Hoekstra, that in Frisian the Rpronoun is base-generated (in D-structure/deep structure) and thus able to circumvent subjacency violations26. In German, it is a subjacency violation that makes it illicit for a full DP to bind a resumptive pronoun; the subjacency condition is violated because the resumptive pronoun occupies its position only after the DP has moved, and because it is a trace spell-out (in "stranding" dialects with consonant initial prepositions at S-structure/surface structure, and in "non-stranding" dialects and generally with vowel-initial prepositions in PF; Hoekstra 1995:114). Thus in German the binding relationship between a DP and a resumptive pronoun would be that of an antecedent and its trace, and in this case it is subject to the subjacency condition. In Frisian, on the other hand, we have two coindexed base-generated DPs (full and pronominal), thus subjacency considerations do not come into play. The trace spell-out hypothesis could help to explain the identity requirement of resumptive R-pronouns in German (antecedent and resumptive pronoun must both be [+R-pronoun], i.e., either wo or da). This would not explain the data in PG, however, for the reasons laid out above (antecedent of different word category, etc.). The argument on German P-stranding cannot be settled here, but a possibly clarifying note on the concept of trace spell-outs/movement versus resumptivity in German P-stranding presents itself in this context. As was illustrated above, German (in certain regional variants) shows instances of "short doubling", which can also be seen as cases of "short resumptivity". This is a construction that clearly provides redundant information. Since redundancy is a common and frequently found phenomenon, particularly in spoken language, there is in this respect nothing peculiar about the short-doubling construction. If, then, resumptivity is carried to the point of surface redundancy, one wonders why it is not the general means applied in German when apparent P-stranding takes �� 26 A subjacency violation is a violation of the subjacency condition. This condition is a constraint on movement, stating that "movement cannot cross more than one bounding node" (Haegeman 1994:402). Which nodes function as bounding nodes is subject to variation between languages; in English, IP and DP are bounding nodes. In more recent work on generative grammar (Minimalism, e.g. Chomsky 1995) subjacency is not considered as important a constraint as it was thought to be in, e.g., Government & Binding (Chomsky 1981).

266 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

place. If a strategy is already available, why should movement be employed in addition? This would be particularly noteworthy, since movement is sometimes seen as a costly operation syntactically (Radford 1998:123) and appears to be avoided if no-movement strategies can fulfill the same purpose. This is why I argue for a no-movement interpretation of the German P-stranding facts, including an interpretation of R-pronouns as resumptive elements rather than as trace spell-outs. Two approaches to explaining the P-stranding facts in PG in view of the conditions found in other German varieties are conceivable. One is to assume that PG, as a syntactically German dialect, is coherent with German in its treatment of P-stranding/PP-split. Since PG obviously does not rely on a movement strategy, we would have to infer that German does not use movement either. I believe that this is a possible explanation with the stipulation that resumptive binding is only possible under identity of word category. The second possibility is to assume differences between German and PG, with German opting for movement and trace spell-out and PG using a resumptive no-movement strategy to produce a P-stranding surface. In this case intermediate steps must be postulated for PG because it undoubtedly originated as a German variety using the same options as other German varieties. Since the source varieties of PG are southern and southwestern varieties of German and traditional non-stranding dialects, I assume that PG originally must have been a non-stranding dialect, too. This implies that overt resumptive pronouns were used in all cases of P-stranding constructions. Since the same element (Rpronoun) appeared twice in these constructions, it was possible to reanalyze them as no-movement constructions, and under this reanalysis both Rpronouns could be understood to be base generated. At this point it is interesting to add that in OE "stranding was possible only (…) in constructions in which there was no overt surface evidence of movement" (Allen 1977:75). This observation refers to OE relative clauses, and it is also in PG the relative clauses that are most frequent among the P-stranding constructions. Hence, OE and PG, both of them West Germanic varieties, seem to have taken roughly the same path to P-stranding surfaces.27 Under the presupposition that a reanalysis took place in PG, leading to an interpretation of trace spell-outs as base-generated resumptive elements, the next step seems to have been that the cliticized R-pronoun was taken to be a resumptive pronoun for non-identical DPs with coindexed content, along the lines of Frisian resumptivity. The data reflect this step in two ways: First, we �� 27 More parallels between developments in OE/ME and PG are discussed in chapter 4 above.

The place of Pennsylvania German � 267

find relative complementizers instead of R-pronouns in the initial position of relative clauses (examples (14) – (20)). Second, there is one example of a full DP being coindexed with a cliticized resumptive R-pronoun (ex. (27)), the distinguishing characteristic, according to Hoekstra, between German (movement) and Frisian (resumptivity) and proof of the use of base-generated resumptive Rpronouns. Whichever of these two explanations one is willing to accept, I claim that PG speakers use the "full" resumptive strategy when producing a P-stranding surface, and there is no movement involved. Assuming that PG and its source varieties had resumptive pronouns, Rpronouns and PP-split constructions, I propose that, regarding the concrete development of PG P-stranding, two co-operating developments must have taken place, probably in the following chronological order: As a first step, Rpronouns (wo / da + phonetic variants), in their use as indeclinable relative markers, were replaced by dass (+ phonetic variants). This replacement could be the result of a loan translation of English that which appears in exactly this position in the function of an indeclinable relative marker.28 The substitution of wo is not complete, but it is widespread enough for the second step to be initiated, resulting in structural consequences of this lexical change. Beside this indeclinable relative marker, relative pronouns that are declined for gender, number and case continue to exist. This does not contradict the present approach since English has who/whom beside that, Old Swedish and Old English had fully declinable relative pronouns side by side with an indeclinable relative marker, and Modern Scandinavian languages still do, as well. The second step, I suggest, was introduced via a reanalysis along the following lines. The lexical replacement of wo/da by dass obscured the Rpronoun/PP-split relationship, i.e., it destroyed the analogy between "complete" pro-PPs and split-up pro-PPs. This loss of transparency opened the door to a reanalysis in analogy with English (which, in this bilingual speech community, is a constant source to draw upon) where P-stranding is common and grammatically acceptable. The resumptive-pronoun strategy provides the means for avoiding a true structural innovation, while, at the same time, the new surface form could establish itself because of its parallel to English.

�� 28 Louden (1988:217) arrives at the same conclusion based on his analyses of plain PG relative clauses. He observes that " 'as' [a phonetic variant of dos] does not behave as a relative pronoun distinct from the subordinating conjunction (complementizer) 'as', but is a complementizer in all environments in which it occurs. (...) As we will show, 'as' and 'that' function identically, suggesting the convergence of PPG [i.e., plain PG] and AE in this area of syntax."

268 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

The next step could be a transfer of resumptive relative structures to other areas. We can catch a glimpse of this future development in sentence (27), the only example in my corpus of a full DP separated from the preposition by which it should be governed. This sentence exhibits an exact parallel to Frisian examples as discussed by Hoekstra (1995) in that the DP must be assumed to be basegenerated while the complement position of the PP is occupied by a resumptive pronoun (in its cliticized form) that is coreferential with the DP. Crucially, this type of structure is unattested in all German source varieties of PG. This sentence structure is a true and creative innovation in that it utilizes existing means to produce new results.

8.5 One surface -- two parsing strategies Apparently, it is not uncommon for languages to have wh-movement and the resumptive-pronoun strategy equally available, each with its own place and function in grammar. Haegeman (1994) provides examples of relative clauses from French and English displaying use of the resumptive-pronoun strategy, side by side with examples of wh-movement. English, for example, exhibits a resumptive-pronoun strategy as a substandard alternative to stranding constructions (Haegeman 1994:409): (69) the man whoi John saw himi While a resumptive-pronoun construction may serve to avoid subjacency violations (Haegeman 1994:410), stranding is much preferred and used in the majority of eligible cases. Hoekstra (1995:99) cites Shlonsky (1992) as referring to the resumptive-pronoun strategy as a "last resort" strategy when wh-movement leads to ungrammatical results. He notes, however, that the notion of a "last resort" strategy has a questionable status in a syntactic theory that should not include any kind of evaluation as to which strategy would be preferable (Hoekstra 1995:100). If there is more than one syntactic strategy available to produce similar constructions, this should show us only that there are different means with overlapping functions. According to Roeper (1999:7, 13) one can hypothesize that such different means are distinguished by association with different registers. This hypothesis is supported by the facts in English reported by Haegeman (1994) that stranding constructions are considered standard while the resumptive strategy counts as substandard. Frisian and German take advantage of the resumptive-pronoun strategy when the subjacency condition rules out the option of wh-movement (i.e., when

One surface -- two parsing strategies � 269

the trace cannot be governed properly). What looks like PP-split in German receives a plausible and, for stranding- and non-stranding dialects alike, coherent explanation if we assume that relatives with apparent PP-split are the result of the resumptive-pronoun strategy. We can then assume that the difference between stranding and non-stranding dialects of German is that stranding dialects select a covert (or empty) resumptive pronoun, while non-stranding dialects select an overt resumptive pronoun to satisfy the argument requirements of the preposition. I assume that geographic proximity between related varieties leads to even closer parallels, in the lexicon as well as in syntax. It is not surprising, then, that stranding varieties of German are found mostly in the northern part of Germany, in areas close to other Germanic languages which have covert resumptive pronouns (and a P-stranding-like surface) or even P-stranding proper, i.e. with wh-movement (cf. Fleischer 2000:131, 146 for the same suggestion). Finally, an example from one of the earlier texts in my PG corpus shows that mit 'with' by itself can indeed be used where a pro-PP (damit) would be expected, in line with Fleischer's (2000:124, 138) observation that mit is the only preposition that is used as a bare preposition even in some southern varieties of German. (70) [Sim1913] yusht rouse mit! (cf. colloquial StG nur (he)raus damit!) just out with 'just say it!' This example is reminiscent of earlier Modern High German examples (e.g. example (52)), which suggests that the resumptive-pronoun strategy is a preserved structure, brought to America by the early Pennsylvania German settlers and then developed further under the influence from English, leading to the results discussed above.

Competing grammars The P-stranding structure in PG cannot be explained satisfactorily on the basis of the German syntactic structure alone. Therefore, I now return to the question of whether we are dealing in this case with one grammar or two. In agreement with, e.g., Kroch (1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 2000) and Roeper (1999) I entertain the possibility of more than one grammar competing, or co-existing, within one language, at least in the sense of a local "mini-grammar" (Roeper 1999:6). Kroch

270 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

takes this competition to be one stage in the process of syntactic change (cf. the generative view on language change, chapter 1): "Our explanation for this effect is that syntactic change involves the replacement of one grammar (that is, parameter setting in the sense of generative syntax) by another and that the contexts in which the change manifests itself are all reflexes of a single underlying change." (Kroch 1996b:4) [my emphasis, DS]

Kroch (1998, 2000) points out that variation in the licensing of certain syntactic constructions expresses (optional) preferences rather than setting up fixed rules. Optionality is a characteristic of language use, not of grammar (cf. Roeper 1999:5). One grammar licenses one set of structures, and another grammar licenses a different set; the optionality lies in choosing between two (or more) grammars when using, i.e. producing, language29. Viewing these facts in relation to Hoekstra's (1995) discussion of last resort strategies and based on evidence from English, French and German, I conclude that the choice between Pstranding by movement, on one hand, and resumptivity without movement, on the other, is not provided by the same grammatical system, but by two distinct grammars associated with two different registers both of which are part of the speakers' language repertoires. Even though the distinction is not always highly salient, reference to one option as 'colloquial' or 'substandard' (e.g. the resumptive strategy in English) highlights the fact that the structures are tagged differently with regard to register (cf. Roeper 1999:7, 13). In analogy to the lexicon, there seem to be no true structural "synonyms", i.e. equivalents: When two syntactic structures appear to fulfill the same purpose, secondary features exist (i.e., features of a non-grammatical nature) to distinguish them and assign to each its non-interchangeable place (cf. Kroch 1994:6 for a similar argumentation regarding morphological variation). Variation in language could then be seen as being due to switches between co-existing grammars. I consider it one facet of code-switching (also from the perspective of theoretical bilingualism, cf. Roeper 1999) that grammars come to 'compete' with each other in a language contact situation where speakers typically have several different grammars at their disposal. In language change settings, the speakers have, for some time, a number of structures with overlapping functions available (tagged for different languages or registers). Only after

�� 29 This is spelled out in more detail in the Multiple Grammars (MG) theory put forth by Amaral/Roeper (2014). While focussing on L2, they make explicit that originally, the theory was proposed “to describe the apparent optionality that could be observed in any given language” (Amaral/Roeper 2014:99).

Conclusions: Structural variation and incipient change in Pennsylvania German � 271

an extended transition period does one grammar win (Kroch 1994), and the "defeated" variants are eventually discontinued, unless they are assigned new sociolinguistic functions. Diachronic contexts illustrate that a transition period of this kind may last for as long as 300 years from the first occurrence of a new variant until the original structure has been replaced completely in all relevant contexts (e.g. the change from SOV to SVO in English; Kroch 1996b).

8.6 Conclusions: Structural variation and incipient change in Pennsylvania German In chapters 6 through 8 I investigated three related aspects of word order: First, I looked at the position of the finite verb in subordinate complementizer clauses with dass 'that', showing that most seemingly deviating surface word orders (apparent V2) could be explained by processes of VR, VPR, and extraposition. There are some exceptions to this rule, and these I consider early precursors of structural change. Second, extraposition, as one of these processes, was investigated in depth with regard to PPs, considering the effects of excessive PPextraposition on syntactic cue availability for learners of PG. Finally, Pstranding constructions in PG were analyzed. PP-extraposition plays a crucial role for this type of structure because it leads to the particularly English-like surface form found in P-stranding and PP-split constructions in PG. Due to the high frequency of PP-extraposition in general, speakers of PG have the possibility to create stranding-like word orders that promote convergence between AE and PG in surface structure. These three related areas of structural variation are of special interest because they constitute gray areas between German and English. As such, they are more vulnerable to language change than other areas30, and in my analyses they turned out to be open to shift and to change in interpretation (i.e., reanalysis). I found, as a general result for all three areas, a surface convergence between PG and AE in that the PG word order has been adjusted to parallel the respective English word order, while changes in the underlying (deep) structure do not have to be assumed (with a few potential exceptions). While differences between PG and other varieties of German exist, there is no evidence in the data to imply fundamental changes of word order or sentence structure in a general

�� 30 Roeper (1999:39 n.39) refers to Müller's (1998) claim that "transfer occurs at points of ambiguity"; this is exactly what gray areas are.

272 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

sense. Change is primarily quantitative (i.e., in frequencies) but not (yet) qualitative in the sense of showing novel structures. The development we find here, in the case of apparent subordinate V2 clauses, PP-extraposition, and P-stranding, contrasts with what has happened in the lexicon through the change of argument structures (cf. chapter 4): In the lexicon, the German surface form (of the verb) is maintained while changes come in underneath the surface, even in spite of conscious efforts to evade AE influence, it seems. In the syntax, on the other hand, the surface has adjusted to an AE-like form, while my analyses of the underlying processes revealed that the means put to use are still (P)G means. No new strategies are introduced, and no fundamental structural change takes place. These findings reflect that there are different levels of consciousness in language use. While all Pennsylvania German authors make use of AE loans, fewer loans are found in the texts of more recent authors, and more covert switches (Schmitt 2000) appear, e.g. in form of loan translations and calques. They allow the authors to keep the lexical surface in one language (the explicit goal of at least one of the authors). Such findings imply conscious control of PG vocabulary, in any case for those lexical items the authors recognize as being foreign, i.e. non-German. (Deep) syntactic structures, on the other hand, are considerably less open to choice and to conscious influence, as my data show. The outcome of my investigation coincides with the general observation that syntax is fairly resistant to change in language contact (Kroch 1996b, 1998, 2000; Van Coetsem 1988, 1995; Thomason/Kaufman 1988; cf. chapter 1). The lexicon, as an "open class" matter (compared to the grammar system), is much more open to change and development than the structural parts of a language. This contrast between lexicon and grammar is borne out by the structural aspects of PG that have been discussed here, as compared to the lexical-semantic aspects investigated in chapter 4.

Syntactic code-switching PG structural features that diverge from German but are in agreement with English constructions create the impression of syntactic code-switching. Choosing one structure (or grammar) rather than the other is an option at each given point, if two (or more) structures (grammars) are available to the speaker (Roeper 1999:12). Each structure, by virtue of belonging to one specific language, variety, or register, is tagged in a sociolinguistic sense (cf. Roeper 1999:12ff., 47,

Conclusions: Structural variation and incipient change in Pennsylvania German � 273

50)31. In a way, this is the converse of code-switching under (structural) equivalence (Poplack 1980) or of congruent lexcialization (Muysken 2000) in that in syntactic code-switching the language choice of the lexicon remains the same while a switch takes place on the structural level. In code-switching under equivalence it is assumed, as a tendency, that the language (or code) choice of the lexicon can be switched when the local structure of both languages is equivalent. In congruent lexicalization, the underlying local structure is shared among the varieties involved while the vocabulary is taken from two (or more) different varieties. Muysken describes congruent lexicalization as follows: "A / B

a ..........

b ..........

a ..........


where A, B are language labels for non-terminal nodes, and a, b are labels for terminal, i.e. lexical, nodes. The languages share the grammatical structure of the sentence, fully or in part. The vocabulary comes from two or more different languages." (Muysken 2000:122)

Conversely, I suggest that what we find in PG (in the recent texts) is the use of one vocabulary for surface word orders from two different languages, English and German, at least for the structural aspects of PG I investigated. Adapting Muysken's illustration of congruent lexicalization, syntactic code-switching in PG can be visualized as in Figure 8.132: PG

G ..........

B ..........

E ..........


Figure 8.1: Syntactic code-switching in PG

�� 31 Roeper (1999:13) proposes the hypothesis that "a shift in grammar signals a shift in social register". 32 Please note that this adaptation does not represent a tree structure of the kind Muysken alludes to when referring to terminal and non-terminal nodes.

274 � Stranded prepositions in Pennsylvania German

PG provides the vocabulary (plus morphology and phonology), while local surface structures can be either German (G), ambiguous/both (B) (in the case of gray zones), or English (E). Note that I consider the underlying (deep) structure of PG to be German. Hence, in contrast to Muysken's claim, Figure 8.1 refers to surface word order phenomena I discussed in chapters 6 through 8, and not to deep grammatical structure. Just as with the choice of vocabulary, the decision for one word order pattern and not the other (when several options are available to the speaker) is relevant in terms of constructing a social identity, I claim: Each choice has sociolinguistic significance33, and more than anywhere else this is so in the multilingual setting of a linguistic minority.

New syntactic options I now return to the questions I posed in the beginning of this chapter: As true syntactic change as an immediate consequence of language contact is rare if not unattested (Thomason 2000, Prince 2001), how do we judge new syntactic options? How do they fit into the general picture of contact-induced change? Within the larger context of contact-induced language change, a high frequency of PP-extraposition (especially of required argument PPs and light PPs) as well as the option of P-stranding with an English-like surface can be seen as a sign of incipient structural change in PG triggered by the contact with English. Pointing in the same direction is the occurrence of apparent V2 following the subordinating complementizer dass 'that' (and other subordinating complementizers, cf. Fuller 1997; Gross 2000, 2005), paralleling the word order of a head-initial VP as in English. The only cases that clearly deviate from comparable varieties of German are subordinate complementizer clauses with V2 and the sentence negation or a sentence adverb following the verb, and a stranding structure with a DP moved out of the PP. So, there are indeed only very few instances that reflect new options (considering the total amount of data). I propose that their existence at all, together with the observed changes in frequency and preferences, indicates structural shifts that I consider precursors of structural change. Regarding my PG data, I cannot argue for a true syntactic change or for a clear change in pa�� 33 Cf. the use of the complementizer weil 'because' in StG with either V2 or verb-final word order (e.g. Uhmann 1998). In addition to certain semantic/syntactic differences between weil1 (verb-final) and weil2 (V2), weil2 conveys a connotation of informality whereas weil1 is not specified with respect to a formal or informal speech register. I.e., there is a link here between word order difference and speech register, similar to what Roeper (1999) suggests.

Conclusions: Structural variation and incipient change in Pennsylvania German � 275

rameter setting. What is evident instead is a gradual process that is in part promoted by lexical transfer, e.g. of specific V-PP combinations and the presumed loan translation of the relative marker that. This outcome demonstrates that lexical changes can affect structural conditions in the sense that changes in the lexicon (especially if functional elements such as complementizers are affected) can trigger shifts which eventually can result in changes in the structure of a language.

9 General conclusions and implications 9.1 Applying language contact models to PG: Predictions Based on the Thomason/Kaufman (1988) and Van Coetsem (1995) models of contact-induced effects on language that were presented in chapter 1, a diametrical effect of (American) English on PG and of PG on (PG)English should be expected: PG, the original first language of the speech community, is maintained; it shows influence from English on the lexical level, but it should have preserved most of its structural characteristics. In contrast, the English of the Pennsylvania Germans was affected structurally by PG, as a consequence of imperfect learning, but it should show little influence in the lexical domain. Van Coetsem (1995:69) outlines the expected complementary development of two languages in contact (within one speaker) as follows: "What are now the effects on the RL [recipient language] of the stability gradient as a basic constitutional property of language? Given this stability, a language in contact with another language will naturally tend to maintain its stable components or subcomponents. If the SL [source language] speaker is the agent of the transfer (SL  RL, SL agentivity), he will naturally preserve the more stable elements of his language, e.g., his articulatory habits, which means that he will transfer them to, that is, impose them upon the RL. If, on the other hand, the RL speaker is the agent of the transfer (SL  RL, RL agentivity), he will also naturally preserve the more stable components or subcomponents of his language, that is, he will keep, e.g., his articulatory habits, while transferring, that is, borrowing lexical items, primarily contentives, from the SL."

For PG and PGE this means, accordingly, that L1 speakers of PG, when speaking English, preserve structural elements (the "stable components") from PG and impose them on English, which results in the typical form of PGE (English with phonological and syntactic interference from PG). PG is the source language in this case, and English (or PGE) the recipient language. In the converse setting, that of PG speakers who are in contact with English and are speaking PG, these speakers can be expected to borrow "lexical items, primarily contentives" from English. Here, English is the source language and PG is the recipient language. Assuming a continuum of German and English contributions to PG and PGE, the relationship between the two varieties (PG and PGE) can be hypothesized as illustrated in Figure 9.1.

Applying language contact models to PG: Predictions � 277

English German less stable components

stable components, structure

(e.g. lexicon)

(e.g. phonology)

PGE PG plain / non-plain (lexical influence)

PGE / non-plain AE (structural influence)


easy difficult to learn to learn Figure 9.1: Hypothetical distribution of English and German across the Pennsylvania German language repertoire

According to Thomason/Kaufman (1988) and Van Coetsem (1995), language maintenance coincides with lexical interference: The dominant language is maintained (or spoken, in Van Coetsem's setting), and borrowing from the secondary language takes place mainly on the level of the lexicon. This is the case of PG in the Pennsylvania German speech community, at least at the time of my early sources. In a language-shift scenario, it is the secondary language (the former L2) that is spoken. This type of scenario is usually reflected by structural interference in the language the speech community has shifted to. From this, a tentative reverse implication can be derived: The occurrence of structural interference suggests that the language that is used by the speech community is, or was at some point in the (recent) past, not the dominant language of the speakers. This seems to apply to PGE. Note, however, that for this assumption to be validated, it needs to be supported further by sociolinguistic and sociohistoric evidence, because, as Thomason (2000) points out, extralinguistic factors can influence the outcome of language contact and lead to unexpected results. Thus, purely linguistic evidence is not sufficient to evaluate this claim.

278 � General conclusions and implications

9.2 Findings The data I analyzed in this investigation allow some conclusions with respect to the generalizations made by Thomason/Kaufman and Van Coetsem. The general results of my investigation are presented first, and then their implications in view of the described language contact models are discussed. The non-plain PG data I investigated can be classified according to the types of interference found. They fall into two groups, namely older texts, from 1868 and 1913, and recent texts, from 1978 to 1992. This grouping coincides with a division into pre-World War I and post-World War II texts. The relevance of the two World Wars for the type of interference found in PG texts is discussed below.

9.2.1 Characterization of text groups Data from 1868 and 1913 The older texts display lexical interference that is, apparently, not restricted by attitudes regarding language purism, i.e., there seemed to be no conscious (in any case no explicit) monitoring of the use of English lexical material in a (P)German context. English lexical items are either morphologically integrated (e.g. as English verb stems with full verbal morphology from German), or they constitute embedded language (EL) islands (e.g. Myers-Scotton 1993) consisting of a clause or at least of several grammatically linked words, e.g. what's de madder in the following example. (1) [PS14-1868] “Sell is exactly what's de madder" secht de Bevvy. that is exactly what's the matter says the Bevvy '"That's exactly what's the matter", Bevvy says.' Sell 'that' is the only clearly non-English word in this clause; is is ambiguous. If exactly is analyzed as a word-level borrowing, the first part of the reported speech section can be argued to be PG. The second half represents an embedded language island, with English being the EL. This is the analysis I suggest for example (1). Alternative analyses are possible, as often in code-switching data; one could assume, e.g., that is functions as a pivot for a straightforward codeswitch from (P)German (sell) to English (beginning with exactly). Evidence for the copula being a preferred switch site in German/English code-switching is

Findings � 279

provided by Tracy/Lattey (2001) and Lattey/Tracy (2005). This preference ties in with Clyne's (e.g. 1967, 1980, 2003) observation that bilingual (near)homophones facilitate code-switching. Some lexical blends occur (e.g. ershtounde 'astonish' < G erstaunen 'astonish' + E astound), as well as occasional cross-level blends, i.e. instances of crossover where English collocations are rendered in (mostly) German words or where a verb is borrowed together with its specific arguments. Examples are: (2) [PS16-1868] Sell is kens fun meiner bisness. that is none of my business 'That's none of my business.' (3) [PS1-1868] Ich hab amohl subscribed for an Zeitung. I have once subscribed for a newspaper 'I have just subscribed for a newspaper' In contrast to later texts (from the second group, 1978ff./1989ff.), however, these cases of crossover are local and restricted to individual expressions. There are only few instances indicating semantic shift, and interference on the purely structural level (English structure with PG lexemes) is rare. In general, these data show the free use of lexical material from both languages on the surface, but beneath the surface, the structure is clearly German. PG constitutes the matrix language while English is the embedded language, in Myers-Scotton's (e.g. 1993) terms. Both varieties are, in these written data, combined in a pattern that often is reminiscent of spoken code-switching data. This code-switching pattern occurs sometimes in the context of quoted direct speech, reflecting a stylistically determined distribution of the languages that is also found in oral bilingual code-switching data (cf. Münch/Stolberg 2003, Lattey/Tracy 2005), e.g. with the quoted speech given in English and framing remarks in PG.

Data from 1978-85 and 1989-92 In contrast, the group of more recent texts shows almost no instances of codeswitching, except for some clearly marked or flagged quotes. There are fewer instances of surface lexical borrowing of verbs (cf. chapters 3 and 4), and there are fewer verb types than in the older texts, but with a higher token frequency

280 � General conclusions and implications

(cf. chapter 3), a possible indication of a more limited range of lexical choices in the PG of these authors. As shown in chapter 4, PG has undergone semantic-syntactic changes, i.e. changes in argument structure. These changes can either be due to semantic interference from English, or they result from loan translation (this cannot be determined in every case, especially not for cognates, e.g. wunnere). Structural interference from English leads to structural convergence in that structural gray zones are exploited (e.g. through frequent extraposition of PPs; cf. chapter 7). This development yields ambiguous structures that look like AE structures on the surface, but are not (yet) in conflict with German syntax. Overall, the surface structure of these recent texts appears to be less clearly German. It converges towards English, especially on the level of argument structure and surface word order, while on the word level fewer instances of lexical borrowing from English occur. A word count by language would not be able to capture this development: Its outcome would record fewer English or English-based words in the more recent texts than in the older ones while their surface word order and certain semantic-syntactic features are more similar to English than in the earlier ones.

9.2.2 Theoretical implications In view of the described language contact models the general findings invite a number of conclusions with respect to the relationship between PG and English in the Pennsylvania German speech community: For the pre-World War I data (1868, 1913) the interaction between the two languages can be described as follows: PG is the speakers' first and dominant language (L1). The setting is that of language maintenance (Thomason/Kaufman 1988); the interference pattern with AE corresponds to borrowing transfer with recipient language agentivity (Van Coetsem 1995), PG being the recipient language (RL) and AE the source language (SL). PG can properly be described as the matrix language (ML) in all PG texts in that it provides the structural frame, i.e. the system morphemes (Myers-Scotton 1993; Myers-Scotton/Jake 1995, 2000), while AE contributes content morphemes (borrowings) and embedded language (EL) islands. At the time of the early data, English was available to most PG speakers, but it was at best as strong as PG (balanced bilingualism), not stronger. More often it was the speakers' second language (L2). The make-up of the early PG texts implies that the interaction between the two languages was not restricted by normative or attitudinal constraints, compared to the later texts. It is likely that

Findings � 281

the often limited AE competence of PG speakers was no threat to PG and therefore there was no need to restrict the use of AE items in PG. Thus, for this part of the data the relative contributions of PG and AE (in PG texts) reflect a language maintenance pattern with (mainly lexical) borrowing from the contact language AE and code-switching between the two varieties. A clear ML/EL relationship prevails between PG and AE, with PG unambiguously being the dominant and matrix language. The predictions visualized in Figure 9.1 are met. For the post-World War II data (1978ff., 1989ff.) the following conclusions can be derived: PG is no longer the dominant language of the speech community. It shows structural interference from AE, pointing to AE as the stronger language and possibly the L1. In these texts PG is the recipient language of imposition transfer from AE, with SL agentivity (AE is the SL); it is no longer PG, the recipient language, that is the agent of the transfer (cf. Van Coetsem 1995). The make-up of PG in these texts does not match the predictions presented in Figure 9.1. PG has changed from being the ML to being a composite ML, in MyersScotton's (1998) terms. Alternatively, one could say that there is no ML in the texts, because the contributions of PG and AE interact on various levels. In relation to my data, I state that the concept of a composite ML does not clearly define nor constrain the make-up of the texts. It only conveys the notion that the two languages' contributions can no longer be divided up along the lines of content morphemes vs. system morphemes, but it makes no predictions about the extent of each language's contribution. Thomason/Kaufman's (1988) concept of a language shift setting aims at a different descriptive and explanatory level than Myers-Scotton's (1998) composite ML and ML turnover concepts. I consider their concept to provide a more conclusive and informative description of the conditions found in the recent texts than that offered by the notion of a composite ML. The amount of lexical interference from AE is similarly low in both of the recent text blocks, compared to the early data1. This is true although one author (RD, 1978ff.) knows StG, and his explicit intention is to preserve PG as a German variety and to limit AE influence. He follows StG orthographic rules (including capitalization patterns) and consciously tries to restrict AE (lexical) interference. In the most recent text block (1989ff.) orthographic patterns deviate considerably from StG and tend to follow AE grapheme-phoneme correspondences,

�� 1 The amount of lexical interference is higher in the 1989ff. text block but still lower than in the early texts.

282 � General conclusions and implications

though not consistently so. The texts display a mixture of German, AE and idiosyncratic spellings, where occasionally the same word is spelled in different ways (even within one text). Inconsistencies of this kind can be interpreted as one sign of incipient language loss in the speech community, similar to the receding knowledge of writing Fraktur (for AHG) in the plain PG speech community (cf. section 2.4.2). The author of the 1989ff. texts (CA) does not indicate any preservationist attitudes. Therefore I assume that his use of PG is not "manipulated" and reflects actual (written) language use in the speech community. The similarity in the extent of lexical interference indicates that conscious attempts of keeping PG "pure" have their limits because a large part of interference is the result of the two language systems' psycholinguistic interactions in the speaker's/writer's mind. Thus, the similarity in interference patterns between the two recent text blocks, in spite of one author's conscious preservationist attempts and the other's probably less monitored use of PG, gives evidence for the robustness of a bilingual's production pattern in language contact.

9.3 Conclusions Clearly, AE is the dominant language for most if not all members of the nonsectarian/non-plain Pennsylvania German speech community today. It is used more frequently and in more contexts than PG, and it is usually the L1, in contrast to the time when the older data were produced (in the 19th and early 20th century). It has become apparent that AE and non-plain PG are primarily distinguished via the surface lexicon today (one for AE, a different one for PG) while showing signs of convergence beneath the surface, i.e. in argument structure and word order. As can be derived from the word order analyses in the previous chapters, there is no substantial structural change evident in the PG data. Most instances of surface convergence with English are well covered by structures attested in related varieties of German. There is a small set of data, however, that exhibits tendencies for structural change. While most of these instances can be analyzed as adjusting to English surface structures by maximally exploiting the options German syntax offers, there is a small number of structures that goes beyond that. It seems that in the process of convergence structural knowledge of PG is being lost to some degree (cf. Huffines 1993). A possible result of this development, if it continues to proceed in the same direction, is what Muysken (2000) refers to as the "congruent lexicalization" of the two languages: A shared underlying structure is lexicalized by either the AE or the PG

Conclusions � 283

lexicon, according to context and need. The increase in structural parallels reduces the cognitive load of using two languages, while separate lexicons are maintained to emphasize the distinctness of both languages for sociolinguistic reasons. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to keep the PG lexicon German and to "cleanse" it from (surface) AE interference, i.e. to keep the number of AE(-based) lexical items as low as possible, a tendency that is reflected in my data. My study allows the conclusion that non-plain PG does not exhibit a linear development with regard to contact-induced change in the sense of Thomason/Kaufman (1988) (i.e. first lexical borrowing, then with time and intensity of contact also structural borrowing). Rather, there is a change in the type and quality of contact-induced change: • In the 19th and early 20th century the data are characterized by lexical borrowing and code-switching; in addition, we find locally restricted (and lexically motivated) structural borrowing. The general impression is that of German texts with insertions from English (single items; sets of items, e.g. as embedded language islands; isolated idioms in word-by-word translations) that are integrated into the morphological and clausal structure of a German variety. • In the texts of the late 20th century, the pattern is different: The texts show noticeably less (surface) lexical borrowing than the older texts; at the same time, more general patterns of convergence in surface structure (e.g., word order) and lexical semantics can be observed that are not restricted to local or lexically motivated contexts. The texts leave the impression of a mixed variety although on the surface the lexical items are mainly German. Therefore, the data do not reflect an unbroken line of contact-induced interference. If it were simply the time and intensity that lead to increased interference here, there should be "more of everything", i.e. more structural interference, but also more, or at least the same amount of, lexical interference. This is not the case. Furthermore, the data also exhibit a changed type of structural convergence. Formerly restricted to some collocational and idiomatic expressions (cf. examples (2) and (3) above), it now affects structural patterns (and their frequencies) of non-plain PG: Gray zones are exploited to the extent that the listener and the language learner cannot reconstruct the underlying clause structure unambiguously, and various non-local tendencies create, in combination, a PG surface structure ever closer to that of English. While this new quality of structural convergence could, in theory, be the result of an increase in intensity of contact, there are two accompanying factors that suggest that this is not the only explanation. One factor is the decrease in

284 � General conclusions and implications

lexical borrowings. The other factor is a change in patterns of language acquisition and language use among the Pennsylvania Germans. When combined, these three factors – changed quality of structural convergence, reduced lexical interference, changed patterns of acquisition and use of the two languages in contact – imply that what has happened is a non-linear development, with a break between the two older text blocks (pre-World War I) and the two more recent blocks (post-World War II). The explanation for this break is extralinguistic, and this fact supports Thomason's (2000) claim that contact-induced language change cannot be predicted; even under favorable conditions, there is no certainty that (linguistically) likely changes will occur. Non-plain PG is a case in point, in two ways: It survived as a minority language for three hundred years, due to social and economic (i.e. extralinguistic) factors. Then, its patterns of use and acquisition changed, again due to extralinguistic factors. For the early texts, we know from historical sources (among others, the authors of PG texts themselves, but also from information about the distribution of German newspapers, e.g. Wood 1939, and statistical information on population and language use) that PG was widely spoken in Pennsylvania up to the first half of the 20th century, while English was not an equally strong language for all speakers of PG. That is, there were monolingual speakers of PG, unbalanced bilinguals with PG as their stronger language, and probably a smaller number of balanced bilinguals (PG/AE). For the majority (if not all) of the PG speakers, PG was their first language. Due to a change in attitude towards Germans and the German language during and between World Wars I and II, as well as a fundamental school-district reform in Pennsylvania in the 1960s (details below), this situation changed crucially. During the first half of the 20th century, peaking during and shortly after World War II, many non-sectarian speakers of PG chose to use English, their second language, with their children instead of passing on PG, in order to spare them the bitter experience of drawing negative reactions for being German(-Americans). The outcome of this well-meaning practice was not only the loss of the speech community's original L1, because it was not passed on to the next generation (a typical setting for language shift as described by Thomason/Kaufman 1988), but also a diverging linguistic competence in English, the new L1, because the input the new generation of speakers had was a learner variety of English. The variety they acquired is referred to as Pennsylvania German English (PGE) (cf., e.g., Huffines 1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1986a, 1986b and chapter 2 above). Huffines distinguishes between PGE on one hand, and AE with PG interference as a result of the interaction between the two languages during the on-going language production of (unbalanced) bilingual speakers, on the other hand. While the outcome may look similar, one

Conclusions � 285

important difference between the respective speakers is that speakers of PGE need not have a command of PG (cf. Jordan 1978; Huffines 1980, 1984a). In the 1960s and 1970s, a consolidation of school districts was carried out in Pennsylvania. The number of school districts was reduced from 2,530 (around 1950) to 505 (late 1970s), resulting in greatly increased school sizes (Wenders 2003). While the primary intention was to reduce costs, the consolidation led to a number of side effects. One of them immediately affected the Pennsylvania Germans (as it probably did other minority groups as well) in that children from the same or very similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds, who had been schooled together in relatively small schools, now had to attend much larger schools with a much more diverse student population. For their language behavior, this meant that Pennsylvania German students who before spoke like everybody else around them found themselves, after the school district consolidation, together with a large number of students from widely different backgrounds, and their idiosyncratic variety of English elicited negative reactions and caused social isolation. Several Pennsylvania Germans from the Allentown area confirmed this connection to me, based on their personal experience (p.c., spring 1997). This situation exerted a high social pressure on the Pennsylvania German students, and due to their experience of becoming outsiders and being ridiculed for speaking the way they did they adjusted to the language of their environment, i.e. to mainstream AE. Practically all PG speakers today are fully fluent in AE. Some of the oldest non-sectarian speakers have two varieties of English at their disposal: PGE and mainstream AE. The result of many parents' decision to abandon PG when interacting with their children is that, today, English is the first language acquired in the (former) non-plain Pennsylvania German speech community. Thus, while both languages are still in use at least among older Pennsylvania Germans, a language shift has indeed taken place because the first language acquired in the non-plain speech community is no longer PG but AE. Today, only PG speakers of age 60 or older acquired PG as their first language or side by side with English (bilingual L1 acquisition). Younger speakers acquired English first (with very rare exceptions), while PG was acquired "on the side", usually from older relatives and not from their parents, who didn't speak it with the children and not very often among themselves. PG was not only acquired later and less completely but was also used and supported to a much more limited degree than English, making English the dominant language in all respects. The sociohistoric developments that took place in the non-plain PG speech community are mirrored linguistically in the texts I analyzed: The type of interference found in PG over time has changed from a language-maintenance, or

286 � General conclusions and implications

recipient-language agentivity, type (for the time of the older data) to a language-shift, or source-language agentivity, type (for the more recent data). That is, in pre-World War I texts PG corresponds to the L1/dominant language in the models by Thomason/Kaufman (1988) and Van Coetsem (1995) and, with respect to its pattern of use, to the matrix language in the MLF model (e.g. Myers-Scotton 1993), with contact-induced effects mainly on the lexical level. In the recent texts, in contrast, PG holds the position of the L2/weaker language of these models, which is reflected in tendencies towards change that affect certain structural patterns of PG. While the ML/EL distinction of the MLF model works well for the older texts, it does not fit the structure of non-plain PG in the more recent data. Here, the model offers the two concepts of a composite ML and of a ML turnover (cf. section In both cases it is assumed that a new ML (often the former EL) takes over (part of) the structuring function in the mixed discourse (MyersScotton 1998), but in different ways. A composite ML typically results from imperfect learning in adult SLA (Myers-Scotton 1998:299) and can thus be expected to develop in Thomason/Kaufman's language shift scenario and Van Coetsem's imposition transfer (with SL agentivity). In ML turnover, on the other hand, the former ML becomes the new EL while (one of) the former EL(s) becomes the new ML. The difference between the two concepts is that in the composite ML a "covert" ML turnover takes place in that it is the language that is not spoken at the moment that actually provides the structure (or parts of it) for the language that is spoken. An example is the case of PGE, English with an underlying (P)German structure and phonology. In ML turnover, in contrast, the turnover takes place on the surface. I believe that, while the two concepts of composite ML and ML turnover are distinct in theory, they can be difficult to differentiate in practice. If the speaker or the speech community shifts to a new ML/L1 but this language has not been mastered completely, as in Thomason/Kaufman's rapid language shift, this corresponds to a ML turnover, and the outcome is a composite ML. The concept of a composite ML adequately describes the new ML but it does not explain its occurrence. Van Coetsem's psycholinguistic view is more helpful here, as well as Thomason/Kaufman's speech community perspective, in highlighting the reasons behind a language shift (overt ML turnover) and the psycholinguistic factors conditioning the result. All analyzed PG texts reflect non-plain PG speech practice to a certain degree, I assume (with the reservation that written language often is more conservative than spoken language). In general, the older data allow a fairly clear ML/EL distinction. Applying the MLF model I derive that interaction between PG and AE involved extensive code-switching at the time of the text production but

Conclusions � 287

PG was clearly the matrix language. Towards the end of the 20th century, however, this is no longer an appropriate characterization. From the perspective of the MLF model, PG now is a case of composite ML, with system morphemes (especially word order) from both languages. This is similar to a fused lect as described in Auer (1999). However, while 'composite ML' may adequately describe the form non-plain PG displays in the later texts, it does not offer any hints as to why it changed from a ML/EL variety to a composite ML. This is only achieved by including Thomason/Kaufman's and Van Coetsem's perspectives; then it becomes clear, also from a linguistic point of view, that a break in transmission has taken place, an interpretation that is matched by the sociolinguistic and sociohistoric facts. Therefore the explanatory power of the MLF model with respect to my findings is limited. To conclude, it was not possible to demonstrate that, in accord with Figure 9.1, non-plain PG showed more AE influence in the lexicon and less in the structural components (presumed indicators of language maintenance) over time. While the proposed pattern matches the older PG (and PGE) data, the more recent data present a different picture, with fewer borrowings on the lexical level and more convergence on the structural level (with the exclusion of phonology that cannot be judged on the basis of written data and was therefore not considered in the present diachronic study). From this outcome, in combination with the extralinguistic factors I described above, I conclude that a language shift has taken place in the speech community, making the former L1 (PG) the weaker language and the former L2 (AE) the dominant language and the speech community's new L1. It is this interpretation that provides a plausible explanation for the types and relative frequencies of interference from English both from a language contact and an acquisitional point of view.

List of analyzed texts � 289

Appendix List of analyzed texts Pit Schwefflebrenner (Lancaster, Pa. , 1868) 1 1868 [no date] 2 1868 25 May 3 1868 8 June 4 1868 16 June 5 1868 23 June 6 1868 30 June 7 1868 2 July 8 1868 7 July 9 1868 14 July 10 1868 21 July 11 1868 28 July 12 1868 3 August 13 1868 11 August 14 1868 17 August 15 1868 24 August 16 1868 1 September 17 1868 5 September 18 1868 15 September 19 1868 12 September [sic] 20 1868 28 September 21 1868 30 September 22 1868 5 October 23 1868 14 October 24 1868 19 October 25 1868 19 October [sic] 26 1868 2 November 27 1868 4 November 28 1868 10 November 29 1868 [no date] 30 1868 3 December 31 1868 20 November

290 � Appendix

Sim Schmalzgsicht's Own Magazine (Allentown, Pa., 1913) July 1913: 26 pages August 1913: 23 pages September 1913: 23 pages October / November 1913: 24 pages

Es Deitsch Schtick (Allentown, Pa., 1978 – 1985) 1 1978 13 February 2 1978 20 February 3 1978 7 August 4 1978 14 August 5 1978 21 August 6 1978 28 August 7 1978 11 September 8 1978 18 September 9 1978 25 September 10 1978 9 October 11 1978 16 October 12 1978 23 October 13 1978 30 October 14 1978 6 November 15 1978 13 November 16 1978 26 November 17 1978 4 December 18 1978 26 December 19 1979 2 January 20 1979 8 January 21 1979 5 January 22 1979 22 January 23 1979 29 January 24 1979 5 February 25 1979 26 February 26 1979 12 March 27 1979 19 March 28 1979 26 March 29 1979 2 April 30 1979 30 April 31 1979 [7?] May 32 1979 4 June

List of analyzed texts � 291

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1982 1985

11 June [?] June 2 July 29 July 8 October 10 December 3 May 29 July

Der Schnitzelbonk (Pennsburg, Pa., 1989 – 1992) 1 1989 30 August 2 1989 20 September 3 1989 27 September 4 1989 4 October 5 1989 8 October 6 1989 25 October 7 1989 1 November 8 1989 8 November 9 1989 15 November 10 1989 22 November 11 1989 27 December 12 1990 3 January 13 1990 10 January 14 1990 17 January 15 1990 24 January 16 1990 31 January 17 1990 7 February 18 1990 21 February 19 1990 28 February 20 1990 7 March 21 1990 14 March 22 1990 28 March 23 1990 4 April 24 1990 18 April 25 1990 2 May 26 1990 16 May 27 1990 30 May 28 1990 6 June 29 1990 12 June

292 � Appendix

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991

4 July 25 July 1 August 8 August 15 August 22 August 12 September 19 September 26 September 3 October 17 October 24 October 31 October 7 November 14 November 21 November 28 November 5 December 19 December 26 December 9 January 16 January 30 January 6 February 13 February 20 February 27 February 6 March 13 March 20 March 27 March 3 April 10 April 17 April 24 April 1 May 8 May 15 May 21 May 29 May

List of analyzed texts � 293

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992

5 June 19 June 26 June 3 July 10 July 17 July 24 July 21 August 28 August 5 September 11 September 9 October 16 October 31 October 7 November 13 November 21 November 28 November 5 December 12 December 19 December 26 December 9 January 16 January 23 January 30 January 13 February 27 February

Bibliography � 295

Bibliography Data sources and primary literature 1864. Father Abraham 9/6/1864, 10/18/1864. In: Reading Eagle, Sept. 6 and Oct. 18, 1864 (reprinted in Haag 1956) [originally a PG feature in an otherwise English newspaper] 1868. Pit Schwefflebrenner: Rauch, E.H. 1868. Pennsylvanish Deitsch! : de Breefa fum Pit Schwefflebrenner, un de Bevvy, si Fraw, fun Schliffletown on der Drucker fum "Father Abraham", Lancaster, Pa. Grant Campaign, 1868. Lancaster, Pa: Rauch & Cochran [all texts in PG] – analyzed texts, cf. ch. 3 and appendix 1873. The Pennsylvania Dutchman. Published by E.H. Rauch, Lancaster, Pa. Wylie & Griest, Printers, Stereotypers and Book Binders, Lancaster, Pa. [PG and English] Vol. 1 no. 1 (January 1873), no. 2 (February 1873), no. 3 (March 1873). 1912-14. Die Muttersproch. In: The Penn Germania : a popular journal of German history and ideals in the United States. 1912-14. Cleona, Pa.: H.W. Kriebel [English with PG section "Die Muttersproch"] Vol. I: no. 1 (January 1912), p. 59; no. 2, p. 131-3; no. 3 (March 1912), p. 214-6; no. 6 (June 1912), p. 470-2; no. 7 (July 1912), p. 568; no. 8, p. 656; no. 9/10 (Sept. – Oct. 1912), p. 784-5. Vol. II no. 1 (January 1913), p. 67-8; no. 2 (February 1913), p. 119-121; no. 3 (March 1913), p. 1767, 230-1. 1913. Sim Schmalzgsicht's own magazine: the only Pennsylvania German humorous publication in the United States. Edited by Ch.W. Weiser & Ch.W. Rinn. Allentown, Pa. (104 N. Seventh St.): Rinn & Weiser [all texts in PG] No. 1 (July 1913), no. 2 (August 1913), no. 3 (September 1913), no. 4 (October – November 1913) – analyzed texts, cf. ch. 3 and appendix 1943-46. Der Eileschpiggel: Frey, J.W. 1943-46. Der Pennsylvaanisch Deitsch Eileschpiggel. En Zeiding, Schmetzbrief un Blanderschtick far die Deitsche [for scholars and laymen]. Bethlehem, Pa. [English, some short texts in PG] September 1943; June 1944; Spring 1946. 1949-54. The Pennsylvania Dutchman. 1949-54. Lancaster, Pa.: Pennsylvania Dutch Folklore Center [mainly English; selected pages with PG texts] Vol. I no. 4 / May 26, 1949; vol. I no. 7 / June 16, 1949; vol. V, no. 9 / January 1, 1954; vol. V no. 11 / February 1, 1954; vol. V no. 14 / March 15, 1954. 1978-85. Es Deitsch Schtick. By R. Druckenbrod. In: Allentown Morning Call. Daily newspaper, published in Allentown, Pa. [weekly PG column in an otherwise English newspaper] – analyzed texts, cf. ch. 3 and appendix 1986-90.

296 � Bibliography Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage. Quarterly magazine of the Lancaster Mennonite Historical Society, Lancaster, Pa. Texts by N. Good: Jan. 1986, July 1986, Oct. 1986, Jan. 1987, Apr. 1987, July 1987, Oct. 1987, Jan. 1988, July 1988, Oct. 1988, Jan. 1989, Apr. 1989, July 1989, Oct. 1989, Jan. 1990, Apr. 1990, July 1990 [texts in PG with English translation] 1989-92. Der Schnitzelbonk. By C. Arner. In: Town & Country. Weekly newspaper, published in Pennsburg, Pa. [PG column in an otherwise English newspaper] – analyzed texts, cf. ch. 3 and appendix 1997-2001. Texte uff Pälzisch. Walter Rupp, Flomersheim(Germany).Online resource. [Palatinate German texts]

Secondary literature Abraham, W. 1997. Kausativierung und Dekausativierung: Zu Fragen der verbparadigmatischen Markierung in der Germania. In: Th. Birkmann et al. (eds.). 13-28 Abraham, W. 2011. 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. In: Putnam, M. (ed.). 233-278 Aertsen, H./ Jeffers, R.J. (eds.) 1993. Historical Linguistics 1989. Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Adams, M. 2000. Lexical doppelgängers. In: Journal of English Linguistics, 28/3. 295-310 Aitchison, J. 2013. Language change: progress or decay? Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press Alexiadou, A./ Anagnostopoulou, E./ Everaert, M. (eds.) 2004. The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press Alexiadou, A./ Anagnostopoulou, E./ Schäfer, F. 2005. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In: Frascarelli, M. (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton Allen, C.L. 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International Allen, C.L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. In: Journal of Linguistics 22. 375-409 Allen, C.L. 1992. Variation and syntactic change: the English 'impersonal' constructions. Second diachronic generative syntax workshop, Preprints. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. Allen, C.L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis. Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press Amaral, L./ Roeper, T. 2014. Why minimal multiple rules provide a unique window into UG and L2. In: Second Language Research 30/1. 97-107 Ammon, U./ Loewer, U. 1977. Schwäbisch. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann Androutsopoulos, J.K./ Ziegler, E. (eds.) 2003. "Standardfragen": Soziolinguistische Perspektiven auf Sprachgeschichte, Sprachkontakt und Sprachvariation. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Angermeyer, P.S. 2006. "Speak English or what?" Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York small claims court. Ph.D. dissertation. New York University Angermeyer, P.S. 2007. Mehrsprachigkeit vor Gericht: Sprachwahl und Sprachwechsel in gedolmetschten Schlichtungsverfahren. In: Meyer, B./ Sh. Kameyama (eds.), Mehrspra-

Bibliography � 297

chigkeit am Arbeitsplatz. Series: forum ANGEWANDTE LINGUISTIK, Publikationsreihe der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag Angermeyer, P.S. 2008. Creating monolingualism in the multilingual courtroom. Sociolinguistic Studies2(3), 385-404 Auer, P. 1999. From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism 3. 309-332 Aurand, A.M. Jr. 1939. Quaint idioms and expressions of the Pennsylvania Germans. Harrisburg, Pa: The Aurand Press Bachman, C.G. 1942. The Old Order Amish of Lancaster County. In: Pennsylvania German Society, 49/3. 61-294 Baker, M.C. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Baker, M.C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In: L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 73-137 Baker, C. 1996. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Barbiers, S./ Cornips, L./ van der Kleij, S. (eds.) 2000. Syntactic microvariation. Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics, Vol. II. Amsterdam Barðdal, J. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German, and Faroese: beyond thematic roles. In: W. Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag Barðdal, J./ Eythórsson, Th. 2003. The change that never happened: the story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39. 439-472 Beals, K./ Denton, J./ Knippen, B./ Melnar, L./ Suzuki, H./ Zeinfeld, E. (eds.) 1994. Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 2. Chicago: Chicago University Press Beam, C. R. 1970. Kleines pennsylvaniadeutsches Wörterbuch. Kaiserslautern: Heimatstelle Pfalz Beam, C.R. 1981. Preface to the second edition. In: Frey, J.W. 21981. A simple grammar of Pennsylvania Dutch. Millersville/Lancaster, Pa.: Brookshire Beam, C.R. 1985/³1989. Pennsylvania German dictionary. English to Pennsylvania Dutch. Millersville/Lancaster, Pa: Brookshire Beam, C.R./ Costello, J. 1985. Pennsylvania German in the media. In: H. Kloss (ed.), Deutsch als Muttersprache. 76-79 Behaghel, O. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 4. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Bender, R. 1929. A study of the Pennsylvania German dialect as spoken in Johnson County, Iowa. M.A. Thesis. University of Iowa Benjamin, S.J. 1979. A select bibliography on the Pennsylvania German dialect. Morgantown: West Virginia University Benjamin, S.J. 1979. Amish bibliography, 1951 – 1977. Morgantown: West Virginia University Berend, N./ Mattheier, K.J. (eds.) 1994. Sprachinselforschung: Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Berend, N./ Knipf-Komlósi, E. (eds.) 2006. Sprachinselwelten. The world of language islands. Entwicklung und Beschreibung der deutschen Sprachinseln am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. The developmental stages and the description of German language islands at the beginning of the 21st century. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang

298 � Bibliography Besch, W./ Löffler, H. 1977. Alemannisch. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann Bibel Based on the translation of Martin Luther. Revised text 1975/1978. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Bierwisch, M. 1963. Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Studia Grammatika 2. Berlin: Akademieverlag Birkmann, Th./ Klingenberg, H./ Nübling, D./ Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (eds.) 1997. Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik. Festschrift für Otmar Werner. Tübingen: Niemeyer Blackshire-Belay, C. (ed.) 1994. Current issues in second language acquisition and development. Lanham, Md: University Press of America Blom J. P./ Gumperz, J.J. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In: J.J. Gumperz / D.H. Hymes (eds.). 407-435. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Börjars, K. [no date]. Final report on the results of the ESRC project Modelling syntactic change in Pennsylvania German: End of Grant report: Börjars, K./ Burridge, K. 2003. Origins and development of the Pennsylvania German '' construction. Ms. Börjars, K./ Burridge, K. 2011. From preposition to purposive to infinitival marker: The Pennsylvania German fer…zu construction. In: Putnam, M. (ed.). 385-411 Bowie, D. 1997a. Voah mei daett sei deitsh: Developments in the vowel system of Pennsylvania German. In: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4/2. 35-49 Bowie, D. 1997b. Was mir wisse: The state of the study of the languages of the Pennsylvania Germans. In: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4/3. 1-18 Boretzky, N./ Enninger, W./ Stolz, Th. (eds.) 1986. Beiträge zum 2. Essener Kolloquium. Bochum: Brockmeyer Boretzky, N./ Enninger, W./ Stolz, Th. (eds.) 1987. Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren. Bochum: Brockmeyer Breindl, E. 1989. Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer Brown, J.R./ Hopkins, L.T.Jr. (eds.) 2006.Preserving Heritage: A Festschrift for C. Richard Beam. Supplemental issue of the Yearbook of German-American Studies, Volume 2. Lawrence, Kansas Brunt, R.J. 1986. Studies on the linguistic repertoire of the Old Order Amish: An introductory research report. In: W. Enninger (ed.). 46-52 Buehne, S.Z./ Hodge, J.L./ Pinto, L.B. (eds.) 1968. Helen Adolf Festschrift. New York: Ungar Buffington, A.F. 1937. Pennsylvania German: A grammatical and linguistic study of the dialect. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University Buffington, A.F. 1939. Pennsylvania German: Its relation to other German dialects. In: American Speech 14. 276-286 Buffington, A.F. 1942. The Pennsylvania German dialect. In: Wood, R. (ed.). 261-281 Buffington, A.F./ Barba, P.A. 1954/ ²1965. A Pennsylvania German grammar. Allentown, Pa: Schlechters

Bibliography � 299

Buffington, A.F. 1968. The influence of the Pennsylvania German dialect on the English spoken in the Pennsylvania German area. In: S.Z. Buehne et al. (eds.). 30-41 Burridge, K./ Enninger, W. (eds.) 1992. Diachronic studies on the languages of the Anabaptists. Bochum: Brockmeyer Bußmann, H. 32002. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist progam. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Clyne, M. 1967. Transference and triggering. The Hague: Nijhoff Clyne, M. 1980. Triggering and language processing. In: Canadian Journal of Psychology 34. 400-406 Clyne, M. 1987. Constraints on code-switching: How universal are they? In: Linguistics 25. 739-764 Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Coleman, R. 1975. Greek influence on Latin syntax. In: Transactions of the Philological Society. London. 101-156 Condoravdi, C. 1989. The Middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 16-30 Cooper, K. 1994. Topics in Zurich German syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Edinburgh [published as: Cooper, K. 1995. Topics in Zurich German syntax. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 38. Groningen] Corum, C./ Smith-Stark, C./ Weiser, A. (eds.) 1973. You take the high node, and I'll take the low node. Parasession to the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Costello, J.R. 1978. Syntactic change and second language acquisition: The case for Pennsylvania German. In: Linguistics 213. 29-50 Costello, J.R. 1985a. Pennsylvania German: Social and linguistic aspects. In: H. Kloss (ed.), Deutsch als Muttersprache. 66-76 Costello, J.R. 1985b. Pennsylvania German and English: Language in contact. In: H. Kloss (ed.), Deutsch als Muttersprache. 111-120 Costello, J.R. 1985c. Pennsylvania German orthography. In: H. Kloss (ed.), Deutsch als Muttersprache. 121-127 Costello, J.R. 1986. Diglossia at twilight: German and Pennsylvania "Dutch" in the midnineteenth century. In: W. Enninger (ed.). 1-24 Costello, J.R. 1989. Innovations increasing syntactic complexity in the native langauge of bilingual children from 5 to 10: The case for Pennsylvania German. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 3-16 Costello, J.R. 1992. The periphrastic duh construction in Anabaptist and Nonsectarian Pennsylvania German: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. In: K. Burridge / W. Enninger (eds.). 242-263 Delsing, L.-O. 1995. Prepositionsstrandning och kasus i äldre svenska. In: Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 110. Lund. 141-178 Dil, A.S. 1972. The ecology of language. Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford , CA: Stanford University Press

300 � Bibliography Dorian, N.C. 1989. The nature and scope of changes in the Pennsylvania German of two multigenerational kin networks: The noun phrase. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 41-70 Dorian, N.C. (ed.) 1989. Investigating obsolescence: Studies in languge contraction and death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Dow, J. (ed.) 1991. Language and ethnicity - Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Dow, J./ Stolz, Th. (eds.) 1991. Akten des 7. Essener Kolloquiums über "Minoritätensprachen/Sprachminoritäten". Bochum: Brockmeyer Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. In: Language 67. 547-619 Drubig, H.B. 1992. On topicalization and inversion. In: R.Tracy (ed.). 375-422 Dürscheid, Ch./ Ramers, K.H. / Schwarz, M. (eds.) 1997. Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer Ebbes fer Alle-Ebber, Ebbes fer Dich. Essays in Memoriam Albert F. Buffington. 1980. Breinigsville, Pa.: Pennsylvania German Society Ebert, R. 1973. On the notion 'subordinate clause' in Standard German. In: C. Corum et al. (eds.). 164-177 Ebert, R. 1975. Subject raising, the clause squish, and German scheinen-constructions. In: R. Grossmann et al. (eds.). 177-187 Ehrich, V. 1997. Wertsteigerung und Wertverlust – Die Veränderung der Valenz. In: Ch. Dürscheid et al. (eds.). 259-276 Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Engel, U. 1974. Syntaktische Besonderheiten der deutschen Alltagssprache. In: H. Moser (ed.), Gesprochene Sprache. Jahrbuch 1972. Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. 199-228 Engel, U. 1996. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag Enninger, W. 1984. Funktion, Struktur und Erwerb der Varietäten Pennsylvaniadeutsch, Amisch Hochdeutsch und Amerikanisches Englisch bei den Altamischen. In: E. Oksaar (ed.). 220-242 Enninger, W. 1985a. Die Altamischen (Old Order Amish) in Kent County, Delaware. In: H. Kloss (ed.). 11-20 Enninger, W. 1985b. Die Altamischen (Old Order Amish): Ihr Zeichenrepertoire als Forschungsgegenstand. In: H. Kloss (ed.). 137-152 Enninger, W. 1985c. Die Gemeindeschulen der Altamischen (Old Order Amish) und deren (geringe) Bedeutung für die Erhaltung deutscher Sprachvarietäten. In: H. Kloss (ed.). 201218 Enninger, W. 1985d. Pennsylvania German: a pidgin(ized) variety? In: N. Boretzky et al. (eds.). 99-125 Enninger, W. 1985e. Diachronische Interpretation von synchronischer Variation im sprachlichen Repertoire der Altamischen. In: P.H. Nelde (ed.). 3-9 Enninger, W. 1986. Structural aspects of Amish High German. In: W. Enninger (ed.). 61 - 106 Enninger, W. 1988. Zur Erhaltung deutscher Sprachvarietäten unter den Altamischen. In: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 69. 33-57 Enninger, W. 1991a. Linguistic markers of anabaptist ethnicity through four centuries. In: J. Dow (ed.), Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 23-60 Enninger, W. 1991b. Offensive und defensive (Sprach-)Minoritäten. In: J. Dow / Th. Stolz (eds.). 135-152

Bibliography � 301

Enninger, W. (ed.) 1986. Studies on the languages and the verbal behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans I. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 51. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner. Enninger, W./ Raith, J. 1982. An ethnography-of-communication approach to ceremonial situations: A study on communication in institutionalized social contexts. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 42. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner. Enninger, W./ Wandt, K.-H. 1982. Pennsylvania German in the context of an Old Order Amish settlement. The structural instability of a functionally stable variety. In: Yearbook of German-American Studies 17. Lawrence, Kansas. 123-143 Enninger, W./ Raith, J. / Wandt, K.-H. (eds.) 1989. Studies on the languages and the verbal behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans II. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 64. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner Eythórsson, Th. 2000. Dative vs. nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. In: D. Nelson / P. Foulkes (eds.), Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 27-44 Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1988. Valenz in Kontrast – aus rezeptiver Sicht. In: P. Mrazovic et al. (eds.). 110-124 Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1991. Verbklassifikation. In: A. von Stechow et al. (eds.). 692-709 Felix, S./ Fanselow, G. (eds.) 1991. Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. Tübingen: Narr Ferguson, Ch.A. 1959. Diglossia. In: Word 15. 325-340 Ferhoodled English: A collection of quaintly amusing expressions heard among the Pennsylvania Dutch folks. 1987. Gettysburg, Pa.: Conestoga Crafts Fillmore, C.J. 1968. The case for case. In: E. Bach / R.t. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1-88 Fillmore, C.J. 1971. Types of lexical information. In: D. Steinberg / L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 370-92 Fishman, J.A. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when? In: La Linguistique 2. 6788 Fishman, J.A. (ed.) 1966. Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton Fishman, J.A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. In: Journal of Social Issues 23. 29-38 Fishman, J.A. 1971. The relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics in the study of who speaks what language to whom and when. In: J.A. Fishman et al. (eds.), Bilingualism in the Barrio. The Hague: Mouton. 583-602 Fishman, J.A./ Cooper, R.L. / Ma, R. (eds.) 1971. Bilingualism in the barrio. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press and The Hague: Mouton Fleischer, J. 2000. Preposition stranding in German dialects. In: S. Barbiers et al. (eds.). 116151 Fleischer, J. 2002. Die Syntax von Pronominaladverbien in den Dialekten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 123. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner. Fogel, E. M. 1915. Beliefs and Superstitions of the Pennsylvania Germans. Americana Germanica 18. Philadelphia Franceschini, R. 1999. Variation beim Aktivieren von spontan erworbenen Sprachen: freie Variation und Fluktuationen. Presentation at the Colloquium Sprachvarianz of the DFG Research Group on "Sprachvariation als kommunikative Praxis: Funktionale und formale Parameter". University of Mannheim

302 � Bibliography Frey, J.W. 1941. The German dialect of Eastern York County, Pa. An Abstract of a Thesis. Urbana, Illinois Frey, J.W. 1942/³1985. A simple grammar of Pennsylvania Dutch. Millersville/Lancaster, Pa.: Brookshire Frey, J.W. 1945. Amish 'triple-talk'. In: American Speech 20. 85-98 Friedemann, M.-A./ Rizzi, L. (eds.) 1999. The acquisition of syntax. London: Addison-Wesley Longman Fritzenschaft, A./ Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. / Tracy, R. / Winkler, S. 1990. Wege zur komplexen Syntax. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9/1-2. 52-134 Fuller, J.M. 1997. "Pennsylvania Dutch with a southern touch": A theoretical model of language contact and change. Ph.D. dissertation. University of South Carolina Fuller, J.M. 1999. The role of English in Pennsylvania German development: Best supporting actress? In: American Speech 74/1. 38-55 Fuller, J.M. 2000. Morpheme types in a matrix language turnover: The introduction of system morphemes from English into Pennsylvania German. In: International Journal of Bilingualism 4/1. 45-58 Fuller, J.M. 2001. The principle of pragmatic detachability in borrowing: English-origin discourse markers in Pennsylvania German. In: Linguistics 39/2. 351-369 Fuller, J.M. 2006. Borrowing trouble: Convergence in Pennsylvania German. In: Thornburg, L.L./ Fuller, J.M. (eds.). 189-206 Garrett, M.F. 1988. Process in sentence production. In: F. Newmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge Linguistics Survey, iii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69-96 Gates, G. 1987. How to speak Dutchified English. Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I./ Tracy, R. / Fritzenschaft, A. 1992. Language acquisition and competing linguistic representations: The child as arbiter. In: J. Meisel (ed.). 139-179 Gentry, F.G. (ed.) 1988. Semper Idem et Novus. Festschrift for Frank Banta. Göppingen: Kümmerle Givón, T. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Green, D.W. 1986. Control, activation, and resource: a framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. In: Brain and Language, Vol.27. 210-223 Green, D.W. 1998. Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1. 67-81 Grenoble, L.A./ Whaley, L.J. (eds.), Endangered languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 18. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press Gross, S. 2000. The role of abstract lexical structure in first language attrition: Germans in America. Ph.D. dissertation. University of South Carolina Gross, S. 2005. Attrition and typological change. Presentation, 2nd International Conference on First Languge Attrition. Vrije Universitet Amsterdam Grossmann, R./ San, L. / Vance, T. (eds.) 1975. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 18-20, 1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Grubb, F. 1990. German immigration to Pennsylvania, 1709 to 1820. In: Journal of Interdisciplinary History 20/3. 417-436

Bibliography � 303

Grubb, F. 1992. Educational choice in the era before free public schooling: Evidence from German immigrant children in Pennsylvania, 1771-1817. In: The Journal of Economic History 52/2. 363-375 Gruber, J.S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Guiraud, P. 1966. Le système du relatif en français populaire. In: Langages 3, 40-48 Gumperz, J.J. 1968. The speech community. In: D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 9. The Macmillan Company / The Free Press. 381-386 Gumperz, J.J./ Hymes, D.H. (eds.) 1972. Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart / Winston Haag, E.C. 1956. A Comparison of the Pennsylvania German and the Mannheim Dialects. M.A. thesis. Pennsylvania State University Haag, E.C. 1982/² 1985. A Pennsylvania German reader / grammar. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Haag, E.C. (ed.) 1988. A Pennsylvania German anthology. Selinsgrove, Pa.:Susquehanna University Press Häberle, D. 1909. Auswanderung und Koloniegründungen der Pfälzer im 18. Jahrhundert. Kaiserslautern: Verlag der kgl. bayer. Hofbuchdruckerei H. Kayser Haegeman, L. 21994. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford/Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Haider, H./ Olsen, S. / Vikner, S. (eds.) 1995. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Haldeman, S.S. 1872. Pennsylvania Dutch: A dialect of South German with an infusion of English. Philadelphia: Reformed Church Publication Board Hale, K.L./ Keyser, S.J. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT Hancin-Bhatt, B. 1994. Segment transfer: a consequence of a dynamic system. In: Second Language Research 10/3. 241-269 Hans-Bianchi, B. 2013. Pennsylvania German: What different spelling systems tell about the language and its speakers. Presentation at the VI Congress AIG (Associazione Italiana di Germanstica), Rome Hansen, E. (ed.) 1993. The Fourth Nordic Child LanguageSymposium. Copenhagen, November 13th-15th 1992. Copenhagen: Institute of Early Childhood Education, Royal Danish School of Educational Studies Harter, T.H. 1904. Boonastiel. A volume of legend, story, and song in "Pennsyalvania Dutch". Bellefonte, Pa: The Keystone Gazette Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative, causative verb alternations. In: Comrie, B./ Polinsky, M. (eds.): Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 87-120 Haspelmath, M./ König, E. / Oesterreicher, W. / Raible, W. (eds.) 2001. Language typology and language universals, Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien: An international handbook. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Hasselberg, J./ Wegera, K.-P. 1976. Hessisch. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann Haugen, E. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. In: Language 26. 210-231 Haugen, E. 1972. The ecology of language. In: A.S. Dil (ed.). 325-339 Hawkins, J. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German. Unifying the contrasts. London/Sydney: Croom Helm

304 � Bibliography Heilmann, A. 1999. Die VP im Schwäbischen. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Stuttgart Henn, B. 1980. Pfälzisch. Dialekt, Hochsprache/kontrastiv. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann Herring, S./ van Reenen, P. / Schøsler, L. (eds.) 2000. Textual parameters in older language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Herslund, M. 1984. Particles, prefixes and preposition stranding. In: Nydanske Studier og Almen Kommunikationsteori 14. Copenhagen. 34-71 Hinnenkamp, V./ Meng, K. (eds.) 2005. Sprachgrenzen überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis. Tübingen: Narr Hoekstra, J. 1995. Preposition stranding and resumptivity in West Germanic. In: H. Haider et al. (eds.). 95-118 Höhle, T.N. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen (= Linguistische Arbeiten 67). Tübingen: Niemeyer Höhle, T.N. 1986. Der Begriff 'Mittelfeld'. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In: Akten des VII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses Göttingen 1985. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 329-340 �Hopp, H./ Putnam, M.T. 2015. Syntactic restructuring in heritage grammars: Word order variation in Moundridge Schweitzer German. In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5/2, 180-213 Hopper, P.J./ Traugott, E.C. 22003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Horne, A.R. 1875. Horne's Pennsylvania German manual. 'm Horn sei Pensilfawnish Deitsh Buch. Kutztown, Pa: T.K.Horne Hornstein, N./ Weinberg, A. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. In: Linguistic Inquiry 12/1, 55-91 Hostetler, J.A. 1951. Annotated bibliography on the Old Order Amish. Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House Hostetler, J.A. 1963/41993. Amish society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Hostetler, J.A./ Gaines, N.L. 1984. A bibliography of the Old Order Amish: Sources Available in English. Philadelphia: Temple University Hostetler, J.A./ Huntington, G.E. 1971. Children in Amish society: Socialization and community education. New York: Holt, Rinehart / Winston Huffines, M.L. 1980a. English in contact with Pennsylvania German. In: The German Quarterly 53. 352-366 Huffines, M.L. 1980b. Pennsylvania German: Maintenance and shift. In: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25. 43-57 Huffines, M.L. 1984a. The English of the Pennsylvania Germans: A reflection of ethnic affiliation. In: The German Quarterly 57. 173-182 Huffines, M.L. 1984b. Word gain and loss in the English of the Pennsylvania Germans. In: Pennsylvania Folklife 34/1. 30-33 Huffines, M.L. 1984c. Language contact across generations: The English of the Pennsylvania Germans. In: W.W. Moelleken (ed.), Dialectology, Linguistics, Literature. 93-104 Huffines, M.L. 1986a. Intonation in language contact: Pennsylvania German English. In: W. Enninger (ed.). 25-37 Huffines, M.L. 1986b. Strategies of language maintenance and ethnic marking among the Pennsylvania Germans. In: Language Sciences 8/1. 1-16

Bibliography � 305

Huffines, M.L. 1987. The dative case in Pennsylvania German: Diverging norms in language maintenance and loss. In: Yearbook of German-American Studies 22. 173-181 Huffines, M.L. 1988a. Case merger and case loss in Pennsylvania German. In: F.G. Gentry (ed.). 391-402 Huffines, M.L. 1988b. Lexical borrowing and linguistic convergence in Pennsylvania German. In: Yearbook of German-American Studies 23. 59-71 Huffines, M.L. 1989a. Case usage among the Pennsylvania German sectarians and nonsectarians. In: N.C. Dorian (ed.). 211-226 Huffines, M.L. 1989b. Convergence and language death: The Case of Pennsylvania German. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 17-29 Huffines, M.L. 1991a. Acquisition stragtegies in language death. In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13. 43-55 Huffines, M.L. 1991b. Pennsylvania German: "Do they love it in their hearts?" In: J. Dow (ed.), Vol. 2. 9-22 Huffines, M.L. 1991c. Translation: A vehicle for change? Evidence from Pennsylvania German. In: American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 3/2. 175-193 Huffines, M.L. 1991d. Pennsylvania German: Convergence and change as strategies of discourse. In: H. Seliger / R. Vargo (eds.). 125-137 Huffines, M.L. 1992a. The trunk in the attic was a window. In: Pennsylvania Folklife 42. 2-13 Huffines, M.L. 1992b. Language change and enabling strategies of Pennsylvania anabaptists. In: K. Burridge / W. Enninger (eds.). 166-181 Huffines, M.L. 1993. Dying by convergence? Pennsylvania German and syntactic change. In: J. Salmons (ed.). The German Language in America. Proceedings of the Max Kade Institute for German-American Studies. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press. 215-226 Huffines, M.L. 1994. Directionality of language influence : The case of Pennsylvania German and English. In: N. Berend / K.J. Mattheier (eds.). 47-58 Hutterer, C.J. 1975. Pennsilfaanisch. In: C.J. Hutterer (ed.). 342-347 Hutterer, C.J. (ed.) 1975. Die germanischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó Iatridou, S./ Kroch, A. 1992. The licensing of CP-recursion and ist relevance to the Germanic verb-second phenomenon. In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50. 1-25 Jackendoff, R.S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Jackendoff, R.S. 1990. Semantic structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Jaffe, A./ Androutsopoulos, J./ Sebba, M./ Johnson, S. (eds.) 2012. Orthography as social action. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton Jake, J./ Myers-Scotton, C. 1997. Codeswitching and compromise strategies: Implications for lexical structure. In: International Journal of Bilingualism, 1. 25-39 Jake, J./ Myers-Scotton, C. / Gross, S. 2005. A response to MacSwan (2005): Keeping the Matrix Language. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8 (3). 271-276 Jespersen, O. 1894. Progress in Language. London: Allen / Unwin Johnson-Weiner, K.M. 1989. Keeping Dutch: Linguistic heterogeneity and the maintenance of Pennsylvania German in two Old Order Amish communities. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 95-103 Johnson-Weiner, K.M. 1992. Group identity and language maintenance: The survival of Pennsylvania German in two Old Order Amish communities. In: K. Burridge / W. Enninger (eds.). 26-42

306 � Bibliography Jónsson, J.G. 1997/1998. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi [Verbs selecting for oblique subjects]. In: Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 19-20. 11-43 Jordan, M. 1978. The Distelfink Country of the Pennsylvania Dutch. New York: Crown Juffs, A. 1996. Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language acquisition. In: Second Language Research 12/2, 177-221 Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Keel, W.D. 1988. Aspects of the verb morphology of the Volga-German dialect spoken in Victoria, Kansas. In: F. Gentry (ed.). 411-432 Keel, W.D. 1990. Aspects of the noun phrase morphology in the Volga-German dialect of Victoria, Kansas. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Society for German-American Studies, Indianapolis, IN, 26-29 April. Keel, W.D. 1994. Reduction and loss of case marking in the noun phrase in German-American speech islands: Internal development or external interference? In: N. Berend / K.J. Mattheier (eds.). 93-104 Keel, W.D./ Mattheier, K.J. (eds.)2003. German language varieties worldwide: Internal and external perspectives / Deutsche Sprachinseln weltweit: Interne und externe Perspektiven. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Kehr, K. 1979. Virginia German between Shenandoah and Potomac. In: H. Kloss / L. Auburger (eds.). 41-50 Kehr, K. 1982. "Deutsche Dialekte" in Virginia und West Virginia. Zur Typologie virginiadeutscher Sprachinseln. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 46/3. 289-319 Keijzer, M. 2007. Last in first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in Anglophone Canada. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Keiser, S.H. 2012. Pennsylvania German in the American Midwest. Durham: Duke University Press Keller, R. ²1994. Sprachwandel. Tübingen/Basel: Francke Keller, F./ Sorace, A. 2003. Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. In: Journal of Linguistics 39:1. 57-108 Kelz, H. 1971. Phonologische Analyse des Pennsylvaniadeutschen. Hamburg: Buske Kettemann, B./ Bierbaumer, P./ Fill, A./ Karpf, A. (eds.) 1989. Englisch als Zweitsprache. Tübingen: Narr Kempen, G./ Huijbers, P. 1983. The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. In: Cognition 14. 185-209 Kiparsky, P. 1997. The rise of positional licensing. In: A. van Kemenade / N. Vincent (eds.). Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. 460-494 Klees, F. 1950. The Pennsylvania Dutch. New York: The MacMillan Company Klein, E. 1993. A problem for UG in L2 acquisition. In: Issues in Applied Linguistics 4/1. 33-56 Klinefelter, W. 1973. The ABC books of the Pennsylvania Germans. Publication of the Pennsylvania German Society, Vol. VII. Breinigsville, Pa Kloss, H. 1966. German-American language maintenance efforts. In: J. Fishman (ed.), Language Loyalty. 206-251 Kloss, H. 1989. Sociolinguistic parallels between the Mennonite speakers of Pennsylvania German (or Pennsilfaanisch) and of Plautdietsch. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 117-124 Kloss, H. (ed.) 1985. Deutsch als Muttersprache in den Vereinigten Staaaten, Part II (= Deutsche Sprache in Europa und Übersee, Vol. 10). Stuttgart: Steiner

Bibliography � 307

Kloss, H./ Auburger, L. (eds.) 1979. Deutsche Sprachkontakte in Übersee. Forschungsberichte des IDS Mannheim, Vol. 43. Tübingen: Narr Kluge, F. 231999. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Ed. by E. Seebold. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter Knodt, T. 1986. Quantitative aspects of lexical borrowing into Pennsylvania German. In: W. Enninger (ed.). 53-61 Koch, P./ Oesterreicher, W. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In: Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. 15-43 Koch, P./ Oesterreicher, W. 1994. Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In: Günter, H./ Ludwig, O. (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 10.1. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. 587-604 König, E./ van der Auwera, J. (eds.) 1994. The Germanic languages. London: Routledge König, W. 91992. dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag Kontzi, R. (ed.) 1978. Zur Entstehung der romanischen Sprachen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Kopp, A. 1999. The Phonology of Pennsylvania German English as evidence of language maintenance and shift. Selinsgrove, Pa: Susquehanna University Press/London: Associated University Press Kopp, A. 2000. ‘... of the most ignorant stupid sort of their own Nation’: Perceptions of the Pennsylvania Germans in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. In: Yearbook of German-American Studies 35. 41-55 Kopp, A. 2003. Language attitude across society and generations in a Pennsylvania German speech island. In: Keel, W.D./ Mattheier, K.J. (eds.). 87-115. Kopp, A. 2006. Evidence of convergence in Pennsylvania German. In: Brown, J.R./ Hopkins, L.T.Jr.(eds.). 49-65 Krashen, S.D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Kreider, M.C. 1962. "Dutchified English" – Some Lebanon Valley examples. In: Pennsylvania Folklife 12. 40-43 Kroch, A.S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. In: Language variation and change 1. 199-244 Kroch, A.S. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In: Beals et al. (eds.), Vol. 2. 180 - 201 Kroch, A.S. 1996a. Syntactic change and the nature of grammar. MS. University of Pennsylvania Kroch, A.S. 1996b. The time course of language change. MS. University of Pennsylvania Kroch, A.S. 1998. Statistics and grammar: A study of Middle English phrase structure. Conference presentation, 5th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference(DiGS V). University of York (UK) Kroch, A.S./ Taylor, A. 2000a. Verb-object order in Early Middle English. In: Pintzuk et al. (eds.). 132-163 Kroch, A.S./ Taylor, A./ Ringe, D. 2000b. The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In: S. Herring et al. (eds.). 353-391 Kuhns, O. 1901. The German and Swiss settlements of colonial Pennsylvania: A study of the so-called Pennsylvania Dutch. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Kurath, H. 1945. German relics in Pennsylvania English. In: Monatshefte für Deutschen Unterricht 37/4-5. 96-102

308 � Bibliography Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Labov, W. 1996. When intuitions fail. In: L. McNair (ed.). 77-105 Lakoff, G./ Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Lambert, M.B. 1924. Dictionary of non-English words of the Pennsylvania German Dialect. Lancaster, Pa: Pennsylvania German Society Lanza, E. 1993. Language specialization in early bilingualism. In:E. Hansen (ed.). 9-27 Larson, R.K. 1988. On the double object construction. In: Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 19 no. 3. 335391 Lattey, E. 1979. Utterance potential, code-switching and speech errors. In: Langage et l’Homme: Recherches Pluridisciplinaires sur le Langage 41. 51-58 Lattey, E. 1986. Pragmatic classification of idioms as an aid for the language learner. In: International Review of Applied Linguistics 4/3. 217-233 Lattey, E. 1994. Contexts for second language acquisition. In: C. Blackshire-Belay (ed.). 77-94 Lattey, E./ Tracy, R. 2005. "Well, I tell you, das war'n Zeiten!" – A German-American profile. In: V. Hinnenkamp / K. Meng (eds.). 345-380 Learned, M.D. 1889. The Pennsylvania German Dialect. Part I. Baltimore, MD Lehmann, Ch. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. In: Lingua e Stile XX/3. 303-318 Levelt, W.J.M. 1989. Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Levelt, W.J.M./ Roelofs, A. / Meyer, A. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1-75 Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Levin, B./ Rappaport Hovav, M. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. In: Lingua 92. 35-77 Levin, B./ Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Levin, B./ Rappaport Hovav, M. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Lewis, B.A. 1975. Swiss German in Wisconsin: The impact of English. In: American Speech 48. 211-228 Lewis, B.A. 1992. Swiss German in Wisconsin: The assessment of changes in case marking. In: Yearbook of German-American Studies 27. 1-14 Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press Ligthfoot, D. 1998. Cues, contingency and change. Conference presentation, 5th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference (DiGS V). University of York (UK) Lightfoot, D. 1999. The development of language. Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Lightfoot, D. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lins, J.C. 1887. Common sense Pennsylvania German dictionary (Pennsylvania German to English). Kempton, Pa.: Lins Lockwood, W. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press Louden, M.L. 1987. Bilingualism and diglossia. The case of Pennsylvania German. In: Leuvense Bijdragen 76/1. 17-36 Louden, M. L. 1988. Bilingualism and syntactic change in Pennsylvania German. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan

Bibliography � 309

Louden, M.L. 1989. Syntactic variation and change in Pennsylvania German. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 29-40 Louden, M.L. 1990. Verb raising and the position of the finite verb in Pennsylvania German. In: Linguistic Inquiry 21/3. 470-477 Louden, M.L. 1992a. German as an object-verb language: A unification of typological and generative approaches. In: I. Rauch et al. (eds.). 217-231 Louden, M.L. 1992b. Old Order Amish verbal behavior as a reflection of cultural convergence. In: K. Burridge / W. Enninger (eds.). 264 - 278 Louden, M.L. 1993. Variation in Pennsylvania German syntax: A diachronic perspective. In: W. Viereck (ed.), Vol. 2. 169-179 Louden, M.L. 1994. Syntactic change in multilingual speech islands. In: N. Berend / K. J. Mattheier (eds.). 73-91 Louden, M.L. 2001. The development of Pennsylvania German linguistics within the context of general dialectology and linguistic theory. In: Louden, M.L./ Martin, H./ Salmons, J. (eds.). 7-52 Louden, M.L. 2003a. Grundzüge der pennsylvaniadeutschen Satzstruktur. Conference presentation, Congress of the Internationale Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD).University of Marburg (Germany) Louden, M.L. 2003b. An eighteenth-century view of Pennsylvania German and its speakers. In: Keel, W.D./ Mattheier, K.J. (eds.). 69-85 Louden, M.L. 2003c. Minority language 'maintenance by inertia': Pennsylvania German among nonsectarian speakers. In: Androutsopoulos, J.K./ Ziegler, E. (eds.). 121-137 Louden, M.L. 2006a. Pennsylvania German in the 21st century. In: Berend, N./ Knipf-Komlósi, E. (eds.). 89-107 Louden, M.L. 2006b. Patterns of language maintenance in German American speech islands. In: Thornburg, L.L./ Fuller, J.M. (eds.). 127-145 Louden, M.L. 2006c. Edward H. Rauch’s Pennsylvania Dutch Hand-Book. In: Brown, J.R./ Hopkins, L.T.Jr. (eds.). 111-122 Louden, M.L. 2011. Synchrony and diachrony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch. In: Putnam, M. (ed.). 165-185 Louden, M.L. To appear. Pennsylvania Dutch. The story of an American language. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Louden, M.L./ Martin, H./ Salmons, J. (eds.) 2001. A word atlas of Pennsylvania German by Lester W.J. Seifert. Madison: Max Kade Institute Luthy, D. 1992. Amish settlements across America: 1991. In: Family Life, April 1992. 19-24 MacSwan, J. 2005a. Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on "modified minimalism". In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8 (1). 1-22 MacSwan, J. 2005b. Remarks on Jake, Myers-Scotton and Gross's response: There is no "Matrix Language". In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8 (3). 277-284 Maling, J./ Zaenen, A. 1984. Preposition-stranding and oblique case. In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 16. 1-8 Massam, D. 1987. Middles, tough and recipe context constructions in English. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society. 315-332 McMahon, A.M.S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

310 � Bibliography McNair, L. (ed.) 1996. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Meisel, J. (ed.) 1992. The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Meyer, P. 2003. Gebrauch und Struktur. Zu den pragmatischen Grundlagen grammatischer Beschreibung. Berlin: Logos Miller, D. (ed.) 1904/1911. Pennsylvania German. A collection of Pennsylvania German productions in poetry and prose (2 Vols.). Reading, Pa. Milroy, J. 1992. Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell Milroy, J./ Milroy, L. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. In: Journal of Linguistics 21, 339-384. Milroy, L. 1980. Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell Milroy, L. (ed.) 2002. Investigation change and variation through dialect contact. Special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6/1 Milroy, L. 2003. The accents of the valiant: Group cohesion, mobility and different types of sound change. Keynote speech at The consequences of mobility: Linguistic and sociocultural contact zones. Conference. Roskilde University, Denmark Milroy, L./ Gordon, M. 2003. Sociolinguistics. Method and interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Milroy, J./Milroy, L. 42012. Authority in language. Investigating standard English. London: Routledge Moelleken, W.W. 1983. Language maintenance and language shift in Pennsylvania German: A comparative investigation. In: Monatshefte 75/2. 172-186 Moelleken, W.W. (ed.) 1984. Dialectology, linguistics, literature. Festschrift for Carroll E. Reed. Göppingen: Kümmerle Moelleken, W.W./ Wandt, K.-H. 1984. Das Problem der Informantenauswahl bei der Konzeption einer (sozio-)geographischen Untersuchung zum Pennsylvaniadeutschen. In: W.W. Moelleken (ed.), Dialectology, linguistics, literature. 168-181 Mrazovic, P./ Teubert, W. (eds.) 1988. Valenzen im Kontrast: Ulrich Engel zum 60. Geburtstag. Heidelberg: Groos Münch, A./ Stolberg, D. 2003. "Ich geh nimmer hoam. I don’t care wie dreckig es ist" – the use of bilingual resources in the construction of a bicultural social identity. Presentation at the Colloquium Linguistic variation as a process of the DFG Research Group "Sprachvariation als kommunikative Praxis: Funktionale und formale Parameter". University of Mannheim Münch, A./ Stolberg, D. 2005. "Zwei languages zusammenputten": Bilingual ways of expressing bicultural identities. In: Preisler, B./ Fabricius, A./ Haberland, H./ Kjaerbeck, S./ Risager, K. (eds.), The Consequences of Mobility: Linguistic and sociocultural contact zones. Department of Language and Culture, Roskilde University, Denmark. Müller, G. 1991. Abstrakte Inkorporation. In:S. Olsen / G. Fanselow (eds.). 155-202 Müller, N. 1998. Transfer in bilingual first language acquisition. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1 (3). 151-171m Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Duelling languages. Grammatical structures in code-switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Clarendon Press)

Bibliography � 311

Myers-Scotton, C. 1998. A way to dusty death: The matrix language turnover hypothesis. In: L.A. Grenoble / L.J. Whaley (eds.). 289-316 Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press Myers-Scotton, C. 2005. Uniform structure: Looking beyond the surface in explaining codeswitching. In: Rivista di Linguistica 17: 15-34 Myers-Scotton, C./ Jake, J.L. 1995. Matching lemmas in a bilingual language competence and production model: evidence from intrasentenial code switching. In: Linguistics 33. 9811024 Myers-Scotton, C./ Jake, J.L. 2000. Four types of morphemes: Evidence from aphasia, codeswitching, and second language acquisition. In: Linguistics 38:6. 1053-100 Nelde, P.H. (ed.) 1985. Methoden der Kontaktlinguistik. Bonn: Dümmler Newmeyer, F. 1998. Preposition stranding: Parametric variation and pragmatics. In: Langues et Linguistique 1/1.1-24 Oksaar, E. (ed.) 1984. Spracherwerb, Sprachkontakt, Sprachkonflikt. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Olsen, S./ Fanselow, G. (eds.) 1991. DET, COMP, INFL. Zur Syntax funktionaler Kategorien und grammatischer Funktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer Oppenrieder, W. 1991. Preposition Stranding im Deutschen? -- Da will ich nichts von hören! In: S. Felix / G. Fanselow (eds.). 159-173 Page, E.R. 1937. English in the Pennsylvania German area. In: American Speech 12. 203-206 Parsons, W. 1976. The Pennsylvania Dutch. A persistent minority. Boston: Twayne Paul, H. 1919/1968. Deutsche Grammatik. Band III. Teil IV: Syntax (Erste Hälfte). Halle/Saale. Reprint Tübingen: Niemeyer Paul, H./ Moser, H. / Schröbler, I. 201969. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer Penzl, H. 1938. Lehnwörter mit Mittelenglisch ă vor r im Pennsylvanischdeutschen Dialekt. In: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 37. 396-402 Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Pfaff, C. 1979. Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English. In: Language 55. 291-318 Pfälzisches Wörterbuch. 1965-1998. Christmann, E. (found.), Krämer, J. (cont.), Post, R. (ed.). Vol. I-VI, 1 supplement. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, Pienemann, M. 1998. Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pintzuk, S./ Tsoulas, G./ Warner, A. (eds.) 2000. Diachronicsyntax: models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press Plank, F. 1983. Transparent versus functional encoding of grammatical relations: A parameter for syntactic change and typology. In: Linguistische Berichte, 86. 1-13 Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: toward a typology of codeswitching. In: Linguistics 18, 581-618 Post, R. 1989. The lexicography of Palatinate German: Its relevance for Pennsylvania German research. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II.71-81 Post, R. 1992. Pfälzisch. Einführung in eine Sprachlandschaft. Landau: Pfälzische Verlagsanstalt

312 � Bibliography Prévost, P./ White, L. 1999. Accounting for morphological variability in second languge acquisition: Truncation or missing inflection? In: M.-A. Friedemann / L. Rizzi (eds.). 202235 Prévost, P./ White, L. 2000. Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language? Evidence from tense and agreement. In: Second Language Research, 16/2. 103-133 Primus, B./ Lindner, K. 1994. Variation in grammar and language acquisition. In: Tracy, R./ Lattey, E. (eds.), How tolerant is universal grammar? Essays on language learnability and language variation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 185-204 Prince, E. 2001. Yiddish as a contact language. In: N. Smith / T. Veenstra (eds.). 263-90 Prince, E. / Pintzuk, S. [1984] 2000. Bilingual code-switching and the open/closed class distinction. In: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 6 no. 3. 237257 Pullum, G./ Scholz, B. 2001. On the distinction between model-theoretic and generativeenumerative syntactic frameworks. In: Ph. de Groote / G. Morill / Ch. Retoré (eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 2099). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. 17-43 Putnam, M. (ed.) 2011. Studies on German-language islands. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Radford, A. 1997. Syntax. A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Raith, J. 1981. Phonologische Interferenzen im amerikanischen Englisch der ana-baptistischen Gruppen deutscher Herkunft in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. In: Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 48. 35-52 Raith, J. 1982. Sprachgemeinschaftstyp, Sprachkontakt, Sprachgebrauch. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 36. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner Raith, J. 1986. Variation, linguistic continua and related issues: Data from Anabaptist groups in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. In: W. Enninger (ed.). 37-46 Raith, J. 1992. Dialect mixing and/or code convergence: Pennsylvania German? In: K. Burridge / W. Enninger (eds.). 152-165 Raith, J./ Schulze, R. / Wandt, K.-H. (eds.) 1986. Grundlagen der Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung. Forschungsrahmen, Konzepte, Beschreibungsprobleme, Fallstudien. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 52. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner. Raith, J./ Lehmann, U. 1989. The pronunciation of Amish High German. In: W. Enninger et al. (eds.), Studies II. 81-95 Randall, J./ van Hout, A./ Weissenborn, J. 1993. Learning unaccusativity. Auxiliary selection in Dutch and German. Presentation. 6th International Congress for the Study of Child Language. Trieste Randall, J./ van Hout, A./ Weissenborn, J./ Baayen, H. 2004. Acquiring unaccusativity: A cross-linguistic look. In: A. Alexiadou et al. 332-353 Rauch, E.H. 1879. Rauch's Pennsylvania Deitsh Hond-Booch. Mauch Chunk, Pa.: Rauch Rauch, I./ Carr, G.F. / Kyes, R.L. (eds.) 1992. On Germanic linguistics: issues and methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Reed, C.E. 1949. The Pennsylvania German dialect spoken in the counties of Lehigh and Berks: Phonology and Morphology. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Reed, C.E. 1953. English archaisms in Pennsylvania German. In: Publication of the American Dialect Society 19. Gainesville, Fla. 3-8

Bibliography � 313

Reed, C.E. 1967. Loan-word stratification in Pennsylvania German. In: German Quarterly 40. 83-86 Reed, C.E. 1979. The syntax of Pennsylvania German. In: Orbis 28. 242-256 Reed, C.E. / Seifert, L.W. 1954. A linguistic atlas of Pennsylvania German. Marburg/Lahn: Elwert Roeper, T. 1999. Universal bilingualism. Online Paper. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Mass. Rosenberg, P. 2005. Vergleichende Sprachinselforschung: Konvergenz und Sprachwandel in deutschen Sprachinseln in Russland und Brasilien. Ms. Ross, M. 2007. Calquing and metatypy. In: Journal of language contact, THEMA 1. 116-143 Russ, C.V.J. 1981. Da + preposition in historical German syntax. In: German Life / Letters 35. 315-318 Sachs, J. 1967. Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. In: Perception and Psychophysics 2. 437-442 Salmons, J. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: code switching, borrowing, and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics 28/3. 453-480 Santorini, B. 1993. Das Jiddische als OV/VO-Sprache. In: Linguistische Berichte 123. 230-245 Schach, P. 1951. Semantic Borrowing in Pennsylvania German. In: American Speech 26. 257267 Schach, P. 1954. Die Lehnprägungen der pennsylvaniadeutschen Mundart. In: Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 22. 215-222 Schach, P. 1955. Pfälzische Entlehnungen in der amerikanischen Umgangssprache. In: Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter 20. 223-236 Schach, P. 1988. Sutton German: A twice transplanted Palatine dialect. In: F. Gentry (ed.). 445-454 Schäfer, F. 2003. The morphological patterns of anticausatives and their interpretations. Hand-Out / Talk at the annual meeting of the graduate school 'Linguistic representations and their interpretation' (University of Stuttgart), Söllerhaus/Kleinwalsertal. Schlegel, J. 2012. Orthography in practice: A Pennsylvania German case study. In: Jaffe, A. et al. 177-202 Schmitt, E. 2000. Overt and covert codeswitching in immigrant children from Russia. In: International Journal of Bilingualism 4/1. 9-28 Schwitalla, J. 2003.Gesprochenes Deutsch. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Seel, H. 1988. Lexikologische Studien zum Pennsylvaniadeutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Suppl. 61. Wiesbaden/Stuttgart: Steiner Seliger, H./ Vargo, R. (eds.) 1991. First language attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Shields, K. 1985. Germanisms in Pennsylvania English: An update. In: American Speech 60/3. 228-237 Shlonsky, U. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. In: Linguistic Inquiry 23, 443 - 468 Shoemaker, A.L. 1940. Studies on the Pennsylvania German dialect of the Amish community in Arthur, Illinois. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois Smith, N./ Veenstra, T. (eds.) 2001. Creolization and contact. CLL 23. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins Snader, H.B. 1941. The English-Pennsylvania Dutch dictionary. Reading, Pa.

314 � Bibliography Snader, H.B. 1948. Glossary of 6167 English words and expressions and their Pennsylvania Dutch equivalents. Reading, Pa: Reading Eagle Press Sorace, A. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In: A. Alexiadou et al. (eds.). 243-268 Springer, O. 1943. The Study of the Pennsylvania German dialect. In: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 42. 1-39 Stark, J. 2014. Review of Keiser, Steven Hartman, PennsylvaniaGerman in the American Midwest. H-TGS, H-Net Reviews. Steinbach, M. 1998. Middles in German. Ph.D. dissertation. Humboldt Universität Berlin. URL:http.// Stolberg, D. 1998. Preposition Stranding im Pennsylvaniadeutschen. MS. University of Tübingen Stolberg, D. 2003. Wohin mit dem Verb? Wortstellung in subordinierten dass-Sätzen des Pennsylvaniadeutschen. Conference presentation, Congress of the Internationale Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD). University of Marburg Stolberg, D. 2014. Changing argument structure in (heritage) Pennsylvania German. In: Schmitz, K./ Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (eds.), Maintaining Language and Developing Multilingualism. Special Issue of Applied Linguistics Review. 329-352 Struble, G.G. 1935. The English of the Pennsylvania Germans. In: American Speech 10. 163-172 Thierwechter, L.R. 2002. Des is wie mer's saagt in Deitsch. Lee R. Thierwechter's Responses to Dr. Ellsworth Kyger's Word Lists. Millersville University of Pennsylvania, Millersville: Center for Pennsylvania German Studies Thomason, S.G. 1986. Contact-induced language change: Possibilities and probabilities. In: N. Boretzky et al. (eds.). 261-310 Thomason, S.G. 2000. On the unpredictability of contact effects. In: Estudios de Sociolinguistica 1/1.173-182 Thomason, S.G. 2001. Contact-induced typological change. In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.). 1640-1648 Thomason, S.G./ Kaufman, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press Thornburg, L.L./ Fuller, J.M. (eds.) 2006. Studies on Contact Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Glenn G. Gilbert. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Thráinsson, H. 1997. The chapters by Kiparsky, Roberts and Weerman: An epilogue. In: A. van Kemenade / N. Vincent (eds.): Parameters of morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 495–508 Tracy, R. 2000. Language mixing as a challenge for linguistics. In: S. Döpke (ed.), Crosslinguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11-36 Tracy, R. 2001. International perspectives on bilingual education. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam etc.: Pergamon Tracy, R. (ed.) 1992. Who climbs the grammar tree. Tübingen: Niemeyer Tracy, R./ Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. 2000. Bilingualismus in der frühen Kindheit. In: H. Grimm (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie. Vol. 3: Sprachentwicklung. Göttingen: Hogrefe. 495535 Tracy, R./ Lattey, E. 2001. Language contact in the individual: a case study based on letters from a German immigrant in New Jersey. In: P. Sture Ureland (ed.). 413-433 Traugott, E.C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. In: Language 65. 31-55

Bibliography � 315

Traugott, E.C. 1996. Semantic change: An overview. In: Glot International 2/9-10. 3-7 Traugott, E.C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In: B.D. Joseph / R.D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 624-647 Traugott, E.C./ Dasher, R.B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Traugott, E.C./ König, E. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: E.C. Traugott / B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Trissler, S. 1993. P-Stranding im Deutschen. In: Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 No. 34. University of Tübingen. 247-291 Trudgill, P. 1983. On dialect: social and geographic perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Tucker, R.W. 1934. Linguistic substrata in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In: Language 10. 1-5 Uhmann, S. 1998. Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische Differenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 17 (1). 92-139 Ureland, P.S. (ed.) 2001. Global eurolinguistics. European languages in North America - migration, maintenance and death. Tübingen: Niemeyer Van Coetsem, F. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in lanugage contact. Dordrecht: Foris Van Coetsem, F. 1995. Outlining a model of the transmission phenomenon in language contact. In: Leuvense Bijdragen 84/1. 63-85 Van Coetsem, F. 2002. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Winter van Gelderen, E. 2001. Towards personal subjects in English: Variation in feature interpretability. In: J.T. Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137-157 van Kemenade, A. 1993. Syntactic change in Late Middle English. In: H. Aertsen / R.S. Jeffers (eds.). 235-248 Van Ness, S. 1990. Changes in an obsolescing language: Pennsylvania German in West Virginia. Tübingen: Narr Van Ness, S. 1992. The pressure of English on the Pennsylvania German spoken in two West Virginia communities. In: American Speech 67/1. 71-82 Van Ness, S. 1993. Advances toward a new pronominal grammar in an Ohio Amish community. In: Language in Society 23. 77-105 Van Ness, S. 1994a. Die Dimensionen lexikalischer Entlehnungen im Pennsylvaniendeutschen von Ohio (USA). In: Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 61. 279-297 Van Ness, S. 1994b. Pennsylvania German. In: E. König / J. van der Auwera (eds.). 420-438 Van Ness, S. 1996. Case syncretism in Pennsylvania German: Internal or external forces at play? In: American Journal of Germanic Linguistics / Literatures 8.1/1996. 1-17 van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris Veith, W. 1970. Review of H. Kelz (1969), Phonologische Analyse des Pennsylvaniadeutschen. In: Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 37. 226-230 Viereck, W. (ed.) 1993. International Congress of Dialectologists, Bamberg / Verhandlungen des Internationalen Dialektologenkongresses. Stuttgart: Steiner Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press

316 � Bibliography Vogel, K. 1990. Lernersprache. Linguistische und psycholinguistische Grundfragen zu ihrer Erforschung. Tübingen: Narr von Seefranz-Montag, A. 1984. 'Subjectless' constructions and syntactic change. In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton. 521-553 von Stechow, A./ Sternefeld, W. 1988. Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag von Stechow, A./ Wunderlich, D. (eds.) 1991. Handbuch der Semantik. Berlin: de Gruyter Wahrig, G. 1997.Deutsches Wörterbuch. Neu herausgegeben von Dr. R. Wahrig-Burfeind. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag Wandt, K.-H. 1985. Pennsylvaniadeutsch und die Auslegung von "Cultural Themes" durch religiöse Gruppen in Kent und Sussex County, Delaware. In: H. Kloss (ed.). 20-26 Wanner, A. 1999. Verbklassifizierung und aspektuelle Alternationen im Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1989. Merriam-Webster Inc. Weinreich, U. 1953/³1968. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton Weinreich, U./ Labov, W./ Herzog, M.I. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In: W.P. Lehmann / Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95-195 Wenders, J.T. 2003. Should Pennsylvania consolidate its school districts? In: The Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives 3/17. Werner, M. 1996. Lexikalische Sprachkontaktphänomene in schriftlichen Texten des Pennsylvaniadeutschen. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Mannheim Westphal Fitch, G. 2011. Changes in frequency as a measure of language change: Extraposition in Pennsylvania German. In: Putnam, M. (ed.). 371-384 Wild, K. 1994. Syntax der eingeleiteten Nebensätze in den "Fuldaer" deutschen Mundarten Südungarns. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó Winford, D. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Wood, R.C. 1939. "Der Bauernfreund" von Sumneytown und Pennsburg und der Sprachenkampf in Pennsylvanien. In: Volksforschung 3/3. 222-242 Wood, R.C. (ed.) 1942. The Pennsylvania Germans. Princeton: Princeton University Press Wood, R.C./ Braun, F. (eds.) 1966. Pennsilfaanischdeitsch: Erzählungen und Gedichte der Pennsylvaniadeutschen. Kaiserslautern: Heimatstelle Pfalz Woolford, E. 1983. Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. In: Linguistic Inquiry 14/3. 520-536 Wunderlich, D. 1984. Zur Syntax der Präpositionalphrasen im Deutschen. In: Zeitung für Sprachwissenschaft 3/1, 65-99 Wurzel, W.U. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer Wurzel, W.U. 1994.Sprachdynamik, Band 1: Grammatisch initiierter Wandel. Bochum: Brockmeyer Yoder, D. 1980. Pennsylvania German immigrants, 1709-1786. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Zwarts, J. 1997. Complex prepositions and P-stranding in Dutch. In: Linguistics 35. 1091-1112

Index 4-M model 26 Abstract Level model 26, 28, 30, 33 actor 119, 133, 174f. actuation 4, 8, 15 agent 119ff., 126ff., 133f., 141f., 151, 153, 156 agentivity – recipient language (RL) 21f., 64, 276, 280, 286 – source language (SL) 21ff., 276, 281, 286 Alemannic 34, 40, 44, 47, 59, 78, 190, 194f., 198, 244 animacy 151 antecedent 254, 256ff., 260, 262, 264f. argument 212 – implied 212, 219 – obligatory 212f. – optional 208, 212, 222, 225 – required 208, 210, 212f., 219, 274 argument realization 122, 131, 159ff., 168, 171 auxiliary selection 146ff. Basque 125 bilingual speaker 16f., 21, 24, 32, 206, 243 binding domain 259, 264 case – assignment 153ff., 157, 163, 246f., 257 – merger 61f., 113f., 232f. – morphology 113f., 117 – syncretism 112ff., 116, 153 case marking 57, 111f., 114, 116, 153f., 177 – exceptional (ECM) 143 – morphological 114 – overt 153 – structural 155 causer 119 church people 37f. clitic 231, 235, 255, 257 competing grammars 10, 199f., 260, 269 complex verb 245, 247, 263 content morpheme 25ff., 29ff., 280f. CP recursion 198, 200f., 205f. Danish 5, 186 dative alternation 122 diglossia / diglossic 7, 41f., 44, 67f., 74, 87ff., 91f.

domain (socioling.) 45, 52, 56, 68f., 78, 85, 87, 89ff. dominant language 22f., 136, 138, 277, 280ff., 285ff. durative 150 Dutch 232ff., 252f. elision filter 252f. elision of R-pronouns 252, 258 embedded language (EL) 25f., 29ff., 80, 278ff., 283, 286 encoding – functional 111, 154, 159 – transparent 110, 154, 176 ergative verbs 125 experiencer 111, 119f., 130, 151ff., 161, 163ff., 173f., 176 – construction 151, 154ff., 168 – subject 120, 163, 168 – verb 163, 165, 176 extraposition preference 214, 216, 223 form-function correlation / relationship 112, 117, 130, 139ff., 176 French 126, 270 Frisian 232f., 257, 264ff. functionality principle 110, 122, 157 grammaticalization 8, 11f., 139 gray area 110, 178, 207, 223, 225 habitual 148ff. heavy NP shift 209 heritage language 42, 55 Hessian 40, 182, 190, 194f., 198, 255 Icelandic 5, 151, 156f., 186 imperfect learning 18f., 85, 276, 286 impersonal verbs 120, 151, 157, 163 imposition (transfer) 21ff., 281, 286 input 7, 9ff., 40, 80f., 85, 100, 113, 284 integration – morphological 65, 67 – phonological 21, 65 – structural 55, 67 intransitivity 140, 145 iterative 148ff. language – choice 91, 97, 273

318 � Index – island 35f., 55, 62, 68, 230 – loss 36, 282 – mixing 17, 25, 28f., 36, 72, 93, 178 language change – contact-induced 3, 16, 22, 27, 32f., 110, 116f., 177ff., 216, 236, 274, 283f. – structural 226, 228 last resort strategy 268, 270 lemma 27f., 33, 129ff., 136, 161, 171 levelling 5, 40, 45, 47, 69, 85, 196 lexeme 29, 53, 56, 64f., 78, 129, 161f., 164, 214, 223f. lexical borrowing 31, 56, 279f., 283f. lexical semantics 104, 117f., 283 light verb 122ff., 143f. linking rules 110, 118, 128 locomotion 147 Low German 59f., 113, 252f., 255 Lower Saxonian 253 markedness 13f. matrix language (ML) 25f., 29ff., 55, 80, 279ff., 286f. – composite 29f., 281, 286f. – turnover 32, 55, 281, 286 middle construction 132ff. Middle English 98, 110, 152f., 163, 200 Middle German 59 Mittelfeld (position) 10f., 181 Modern English 151f., 154f., 234, 245 Nachfeld (position) 181 natural grammatical change 8, 13 no-movement strategy 263, 266 non-causative 132ff., 141f., 144 non-plain people 39ff., 43 non-sectarian 39, 81, 282, 284f. North Saxon 252 Old English 12, 98, 110, 151f., 154, 156, 163, 232, 234, 267 orthography, Pennsylvania German 47, 105 Palatinate German (PalG) 40, 46, 57ff., 68, 97f., 112ff., 130, 134f., 138f., 145, 159f., 164, 166f., 170f., 173, 184, 190, 192ff., 196, 207f., 213ff., 218ff., 225, 228, 232, 235, 261 parameter setting 9ff., 270, 275 patient 119ff., 126, 133f., 141f., 151

Pennsylvania German English (PGE) 58, 69, 79, 82, 85ff., 138, 276f., 284ff. plain people 38ff., 43f., 48, 52, 80, 90, 92 postposition 234f., 246 prepositional phrase 60, 76, 118, 123, 166, 171, 174, 207f., 210ff., 219 – heavy 214, 216ff., 241 – light 214, 216f., 219, 224, 227f., 241 prestige 17, 43f., 56, 79, 88f., 97, 136 pro-PP 234ff., 241f., 247ff., 252, 254ff., 258, 260ff., 267, 269 purism / purist 47, 68, 71, 93, 162, 278 reanalysis 10, 153, 247, 252, 258, 263, 266f., 271 recipient language (RL) 21, 31f., 64, 276, 280f. reflexive marker 126, 133ff., 168 reflexives – inherent / lexical 132f. – true 132f. register (socioling.) 43f., 53, 59, 66, 68, 72, 74, 85f., 97, 192, 197, 208f., 216, 268, 270, 272ff. resumptive pronoun 250, 261, 263ff. – strategy 247, 267ff. resumptivity 263, 265ff., 270 role – communicative 52, 79, 89f. – semantic 27, 111, 118, 127 – social 89 R-pronoun – cliticized 263f., 266 – free 256f., 264 Satzklammer 181 school district 50, 84, 284f. second language (L2) 18, 31, 42, 81, 85f., 97, 270, 277, 280, 284, 286f. second language acquisition (SLA) 19, 21, 23f., 29, 32, 100, 286 sectarian 38, 41, 44, 56, 78, 80 semanticization 8, 13 source language (SL) 21, 31, 64, 276, 280f. speech island 55, 113ff. split intransitivity 147 stability gradient 20, 31f., 82, 276 stress pattern 254

Index � 319

structural change 55, 104, 177ff., 184, 186, 191, 199, 205, 218, 226, 228 style 197, 209 subjectivization 12, 139f., 168 subordinate clause 180, 182f., 185ff., 191, 194ff., 204ff., 208, 211f. substrate 18f., 84 superstrate 18f. Swabian 40, 60f., 182, 190, 194f., 198, 201, 204, 235, 244 Swedish 232, 234, 267 Swiss German 194, 201 syntactic change 54f., 178, 270, 274 system morpheme 25ff., 280f., 287 telicity 147 thematic hierarchy 118, 121, 151, 157 theme 111, 118ff., 126, 141f., 151, 164ff., 174f. theoretical bilingualism 10, 200, 260, 270 theta-criterion / θ-criterion 121 theta-role / θ-role 118, 121 topicalization 179, 208, 234, 239f., 257 topological field 189, 210 trace spell-out 263ff. transitivity alternation 125f., 140, 145, 176

transparency principle 110, 122 type/token ratio 104 unaccusative 127f., 147, 150 unergative 127, 147, 150 Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) 118, 121 verb phrase 118, 122, 153, 185 verb projection raising (VPR) 183f., 194, 199, 201f., 205f., 271 verb raising (VR) 54, 183, 199, 201f., 205f., 271 verbal bracket 181f., 210ff. verbal complex 10, 181ff., 187, 195, 210, 212, 241 Verbklammer 181 Volga German 113ff. vp shell 122ff., 127f., 130, 143, 173 VP shell 118, 122, 125 Westphalian 252 wh-movement 245, 268f. word formation 48, 53, 63f., 160 Yiddish 186, 199, 205 Zürich German 182, 194f., 198