Linguistic Change in Mennonite Sociolect

Masterarbeit

vorgelegt von Jehna Danbrook am Institut für Anglistik Begutachterin: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Phil. Hermine Penz

Graz, 25.6.2018

2

Abstract

Lingusitic change in Mennonite Sociolect:

As the rate of lingusitic change and death accelerates, isolated languages become research gems as they allow linguists to determine factors that contribute to language maintenance. This study investigates lexical and phonological aspects of the Chortitza sociolect spoken by in Aylmer, Ontario, Canada and , Mexico. The geographically seperate communities are compared. Word elicitation was used in order to determine any lexical variances between the two communities, and onset time and formant frequencies were measured and compared in order to determine phonological variances. Additionally, a matched-guise technique is employed as a means of determining perceived language prestige. The results show that there are very few variances between the two communities, and thus a high degree of language maintenance and resistance to change is indicated. Additionally, the results indicate that the global languages, Spanish and English, have a higher degree of overt prestige, whereas the sociolect has a higher covert prestige. The study shows that lingusitic change can indeed be resisted in isolated communities. Abstrakt: Während sich die Rate der lingusitischen Veränderung und des Sprachverfalles beschleunigt, werden isolierte Sprachen zu Forschungspunkten, da sie es Linguisten ermöglichen, Faktoren zu bestimmen, die zur Aufrechterhaltung der Sprache beitragen. Diese Studie untersucht lexikalische und phonologische Aspekte des Chortitza-Soziolekts, der von Mennoniten in Aylmer, Ontario, Kanada, und Chihuahua, Mexiko, gesprochen wird. Die geographisch getrennten Sprachgemeinschaften werden verglichen. Die Word-Elicitation-Strategie wurde verwendet, um lexikalische Varianzen zwischen den beiden Gemeinschaften zu bestimmen; die Zeit des Auftretens der Stimme sowie Formantfrequenzen wurden gemessen und verglichen, um phonologische Varianzen zu bestimmen. Zusätzlich wird eine Technik angepasster Form verwendet, um das wahrgenommene Sprachprestige zu bestimmen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass zwischen den beiden untersuchten Sprachgemeinschaften nur sehr wenige Unterschiede bestehen und somit ein hoher Grad an Spracherhaltung und Veränderungsresistenz vorzufinden ist. Außerdem wird anhand der Untersuchung der globalen Sprachen, Deutsch und Englisch, gezeigt, dass diese einen höheren Grad an Overt Prestige aufweisen, wohingegen der Soziolekt einen höheren Grad an Covert Prestige hat, und damit auch, dass linguistische Veränderungen in isolierten Gemeinschaften vermieden werden können.

3

Declaration

Ich erkläre ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen nicht benutzt und die den Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Die Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen inländischen oder ausländischen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht. Die vorliegende Fassung entspricht der eingereichten elektronischen Version.

Graz, am ______

______(Unterschrift der Studierenden)

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………...8 1.2 Research Questions ……………………………………………………….………...….…..8 1.3 Significance of Knowledge………………………………………………………………………….8 2. Theoretical Background Language Change………………………………………………….………9 2.1 Language Maintenance……………………………………………………………………11 2.1.1 Studying the Process of Language Change …………………………………….11 2.1.2 Geographical Linguistic Diffusion…………………………………………..…12 2.2 History of Mennonite Movement …………………………………………………………17 2.2.1 Origins in the 16th Century North Central Europe ……………………………17 2.2.2 Early ………………………………………………………………18 2.2.3 Formation of Mennonites ……………………………………………………...20 2.3 Migration and Movement ………………………………………………………………...23 2.3.1 Before Migration- Lingusitic Change in Anabaptist Areas in the 16th century Innovation ……………………………………………………………………………24 2.3.2 New High German……………………………………………………………..26 2.3.3 Eastward Migration…………………………………………………………….29 2.3.4 Migration to North America……………………………………………………31 2.3.5 Plautdietsch Speech Community……………………………………………….32 3. Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………………...33 3.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ……………………………………………33 3.2 Participant Sampling………………………………………………………………………34 3.3 Quantitative Research……………………………………………………………………..40 3.3.1 Data Elicitation for and Consonants…………………………………...40 3.3.1.1 Data Processing Vowels………………………………………………………42 3.3.1.2 Data Processing Consonants…………………………………………………42 3.3.2 Data Elicitation for Lexical Variation………………………………………….42 3.3.2.1 Data Processing for Lexical Variation………………………………………..44 3.4 Qualitative Research………………………………………………………………………44 3.4.1 Matched-guise Technique ………………………………………………...……45 5

3.4.2 Matched-guise Elicitation of Data ……………………………………………..46 3.4.3 Processing of Matched-guise Data……………………………………………..47 4. Results ……………………………………………………………………………………..………47 4.1 Acoustic Analysis of Dipthongs………………………………………………………….48 4.1.2 Acoustic Analysis of VOT…………………………………………………….48 4.2 Lexical Variances…………………………………………………………………………50 4.3 Matched-guise and Language Prestige ……………………………………………..…….61 5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………...63 5.1 Principles of Isolation………………………………………………………………..……63 5.2 Social and Geographical Diffusion…………………………………………………..……65 5.3 Phonetic Variations…………………………………………………………………..……65 5.4 Lexical Variations……………………………………………………………..…………..66 5.5 Attitude and Language Prestige…………………………………………………………...66 6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………..…67 6.1 Final Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….67 6.2 Limitations of Research………………………………………………………………...…68 6.3 Further Areas of Research…………………………………………………………….…..68 7. Sources………………………………………………………………………………………..……..69 List of Maps Map 1 Anabaptist groupings in 1550:…………………………………………………………….……19 Map 2: 16th Century ……………………………….…………………………….…..25 List of Images

Image 1: Séguy Curve………………………………………………………………………………….13 Image 2: Sweets…………………...…………………………………………………………...………50 Image 3:Sleeves…………………...…………………………………………………………………...51 Image 4:Wedding…………………...…………………………………………………………….…...52 Image 5: Watermelon…………………...……………………………………………………………...53 Image 6: Cheese…………………...…………………………………………………………………..54 Image 7: Bicycle…………………...……………………………………………………………….….55 Image 8: Cup…………………...……………………………………………………………………....57 Image 9: Coffee…………………...…………………………………………………………………...58 Image 10: Pocket…………………...………………………………………………………………….59 Image 11: Mud/muddy………………………...……………………………………………………….60 List of Tables: 6

Table 1: Aw and ouw reflexes in Middle ………………………………………30 Table 2: Participant Information……………………………………………………………...35 Table 3: Diphthongization before g, k, ch [IPA x] and r, with possible loss of r…………….40 Table 4 Effects of the High German consonant shift…………………………………………41 Table 5: Frequencies of /oa/…………………………………………………………………..41 Table 6: Frequencies of /ua/…………………………………………………………………..48 Table 7: Acoustic Analysis of VOT…………………………………………………………..49 Table 8: Word elicitation results for the word ‘sweet”……………………………………….49 Table 9: Word elicitation results for the word “sleeve”………………………………………50 Table 10:Word elicitation results for the word “wedding”…………………………………...51 Table 11: Word elicitation results for the word “watermelon”………………………………52 Table 12: Word elicitation results for the term “cheese”……………………………………..53 Table 13: Word elicitation results for the word “bicycle”……………………………………54 Table 14: Word elicitation results for the term “cup”………………………………………...56 Table 15: Word elicitation results for the word “coffee”………………………………….….57 Table 16: Word elicitation results for the term “pocket” ………………………………….…58 Table 17: Word elicitation results for the word “mud” or “muddy”………………………….59 Table 18: Matched-guise mean scores in Aylmer…………………………………………….60 Table 19: Matched-guise mean scores in Chihuahua…………………………………………62

7

1. Introduction

As languages are changing at an accelerated pace globally, and some are even dying out, the importance of studying language change and language maintenance becomes increasingly important. Thus, the focus of this work is to determine if and to what extent language change has taken place in the Chortitza sociolects spoken by Mennonites in southern Ontario, Canada and in Chihuahua Mexico. Using these two locations as case studies, this paper also argues that language maintenance is indeed possible and that preservation of endangered languages is a relevant concern. With an assumed awareness that language change and more specifically, language death, are threatening lesser spoken languages throughout the world, it seems natural to correlate the rate of language change and language death to the rapid advancement of global languages. A substantial amount of investigation on language changes has been done in the areas of inevitability of change, how and why languages change, and social attitudes towards change and this paper will both give an overview of some relevant language change theories as well as analyse empirical research related to the lexical and phonetic aspects of the sociolect including similarities, differences, and comparisons to change rates and language death in other languages.

The Mennonite group was chosen because their language has undergone very little structural or functional change in the last few centuries relative to other languages, thus making it an intriguing case study for language preservation. Additionally, this thesis will compare dialects from two separate regions in order to determine the extent that geographical location and social factors play in terms of language change. While studies such as Burns’ (2016), have tended to focus more on specific features of sociolects within a smaller area, and changes in the system as a way to gain insight into a community's migration history, this paper offers a of two separate areas; Aylmer Ontario, and Chihuahua Mexico in hopes of determining any correlations or differences in order to determine the degree to which language change can be resisted in the face of globalization.

I begin by providing information about the sociocultural and linguistic background of the Mennonite religion, specifically focusing on the groups considered in the case study. I examine structural and functional linguistic change in the Mennonite community in relation to religious and cultural attitudes and apply Wolfram’s seven principles of linguistic isolation to beg the questions: to what degree do connectivity and isolation effect a speech community? Additionally, I will consider whether or not the Mennonite sociolect in southern Ontario and 8

Chihuahua is more influenced by regional or social factors. The first section of this paper examines specific aspects of language, culture and identity within the Mennonite community. Language change theories are then applied to the Mennonite Platdietsch dialect, and more specifically the Chorititzia sociolect, and specific phonetic and lexical changes over time. I provide research results intended to deliver deeper insights into the patterns of language change within the given communities. This research was partially gathered in person in Aylmer Ontario, Canada and all other material was gathered via recordings of conversations with participants in Chihuahua, Mexico. The data examines both lexical and phonetic characteristics of the sociolect and the analyses describer the relevant patterns, similarities, and trends. The question of language prestige and social attitudes is also addressed in order to determine the role that these attitudes play in language maintenance or change. The main question arising from this research is whether or not it is possible to resist the pull of a global language and thus resist language change?

1.2 Research Questions:

Main Question:

Is it possible to resist the pull of a global language and in doing so resist language change?

Sub-questions:

1. Are there any phonetic variances in sociolects from separate regions and to what extent do geographical and social factors influence language change?

2. Are there any lexical variances in sociolects from separate regions and to what extent do geographical and social factors influence language change?

3. To what degree does linguistic isolation play a role in linguistic change?

1.3 Significance to Knowledge:

This research is significant because it considers the importance of, and the difficulties surrounding language maintenance in the face of a globalized world. The research will hopefully present a better understanding of language change, language death, and closed communities that seek to maintain their identity through language. The research also aims to answer the theoretical question of whether language change is always inevitable, and if it is possible for geographical location to play little to no role in language change. Additionally, 9 this research makes a case for the importance of language maintenance and how this can be maintained despite the current focus on learning and using global languages.

2 Theoretical Background Language Change

“A public that is usually concerned and vociferous about language and ecology – is still unaware that the world is facing a linguistic crisis of unprecedented scale”

(Crystal 2014, p9). Estimates on the number of languages range up to 6,000, but no one can be certain of how many languages have come and gone and how many new languages to allow for, to set off against the apparent loss of some of the 6,000. Nor do we know whether the rate of language change has been constant over these long periods of time, or punctuated by periods of rapid shift and decline, though the topic has been much debated (Crystal 2014, p69). Most sociolinguists would agree that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate language from culture. With language playing an integral role in the understanding of what constitutes a culture, it is not surprising that a change in language resulting in it being more similar to another language, or even a death of a language becomes an important area of study for linguists. This theoretical analysis of four relevant theories will provide an understanding of several of the questions regarding language change that linguists are concerned with, as well as present the theories that will be used for the analyses of the empirical study found in chapter 4. Language change, and perhaps more significantly to this work, language death, are taking place at an alarming rate. While some linguists peddle the argument that movement towards globalized language and culture is a step forward, many others take the opposite stance, seeing the trend towards speaking global languages such as English and Chinese as smaller languages die out as nothing less than a crisis (cf. Crystal). Those who believe that a single language, or at the very least a reduction in languages, may trace their argument back to the biblical story of Babel, where the proliferation of languages was meant to be a penalty on humanity (Crystal, p27) In order to create an understanding of language change and language death, definitions and explanations of language change, language death and language maintenance will be presented, followed by several theories that can be applied to the empirical research in this paper. The first concept that needs to be understood is language change. The term “language change” will be used synonymously with the term “language shift” in this paper and refers to any variations in a the phonological, lexical, morphological, semantic, or syntactic features of a language that develop over time (Aitchison 2011, p16). Being a descriptive linguist, Aitchison, a respected linguist from the University of Oxford is an esteemed expert in the field of language change and does not support the theory that language change is equal to language decay or erosion, although some would argue otherwise. This paper will focus only on phonological and lexical changes as the scope is limited to a 10 small case study. Language death, according to David Crystal, who is considered one of the world’s foremost authorities on languages, happens when nobody speaks the language anymore (Crystal 2000, p1). Crystal states that language is a tool for communication and thus once the last speaker of a language dies, the language dies with him/her and in the case of languages that have never been recorded or written down and merely spoken, once the last speaker dies it is as if the language never was (Crystal 2000, p2). The rate of language extinction is of course difficult to determine, and there is very little consensus on the number of endangered languages. This is because the line between dialects and languages is often blurred, or because “outsiders” (people who do not speak the language) may refer to the given language with several different names, and the same can even be said for “insiders” ( people who do speak the language) (Crystal, p6). The language of the Chortitza Mennonites is, for example, referred to by both insiders and outsiders with several different terms including German, Dietsche, Plautdietsch, Low German and even Mexican. This paper is not largely concerned with the distinction between dialect and language, but the separation of the two is crucial when defining and determining which languages are extinct. Although this basic contrast between dialect and language is possibly offensive in its simplicity, the difference between language and dialect within the scope of this paper is defined as: “two speech systems are considered dialects of the same language if they are predominantly mutually intelligible” (Crystal, p8). However, it should be kept in mind that some sociopolitical criteria may outrank the mutual intelligibility of dialects so that they are considered to be separate languages, which is the case with Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. The Chortitza sociolect that will be described in the empirical study is technically considered a dialect, or a sociolect of German, however it is not mutually intelligible with any German dialects spoken in Europe. When considering linguistic death, it is often difficult to say with certainty if a language has died out, or if a dialect of a language has died out. Crystal provides some sobering facts about the number of people speaking the languages of the world. His research states that the top 20 languages in the world, with the top 8 being Mandarin, Spanish, English, Bengali, Hindi, Portuguese, Russian and Japanese, are spoken by 3.2 billion people which is half of the world’s population. His research also shows that 4% of the world’s languages are spoken by 96% of the population (Crystal, p14). These staggering numbers are of course alarming for linguists, and should also be alarming for the general public. However, despite the fact that languages do appear to be dying out faster than they have in the past, there is no way to predict the rate at which any language will disappear. Crystal quotes two judgements from a conference held by the Foundation for Endangered Languages “ The majority of the world’s languages are vulnerable not just to decline, but to extinction” and “ Over half of the world’s languages are moribound, i.e. not effectively being passed on to the next generation” (Crystal, p17). Kincade has developed a system for classifying the degree to which a language is endangered or safe: 11

1. Viable languages : have population bases that are sufficiently large and thriving meaning that no threat to long-term survival is likely; 2. Viable but small languages: have more than c. 1000 speakers and are spoken in communities that are isolated or with a strong internal organization, and are aware of the way that their language is a marker of identity; 3. Endangered languages: are spoken by enough people to make survival a possibility, but only in favourable circumstances and with a growth in community support; 4. Nearly extinct languages: are thought to be beyond the possibility of surivival, usually because they are spoken by just a few elderly people; 5. Extinct languages

Kincade (1991, p160)

2.1 Language Maintenance

Using Kincade’s system, it is possible to determine which type of languages have the best chance for maintenance. In this case, languages falling into the categories 1,2, and 3 are considered to be languages that are being maintained and which have the best chances of being maintained in the future. The Chorizio sociolect, which will be discussed in more detail in the section on the Mennonites would be categorized with a 2, according to the Kincade system. This is due to the fact that there are still many speakers of the language and also because of the high importance that language plays as an identity marker within the community. Language maintenance as described by Mesthrie and Leap is the act of continuing to speak a language despite competition from a language that has more prestige regionally and socially (Mesthrie and Leap 2009, p242). As will be detailed in the following chapter on the Mennonites, the Chortitza sociolect has been maintained despite language contact and geographical distance. As this thesis aims to study language differences and similarities in two different regions, it is important to be aware of the two processes of language change and how they affect the entire language system.

2.1.2 Studying the Language Change Process

We know that languages are in a constant state of change, or as linguist/philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt more eloquently expressed in 1836: “There can never be a moment of true standstill in language, just as little as in the ceaseless flaming thought of men. By nature, it is a continuous process of development (quoted from Lehman, 1976, p63). This work does not argue that there is no language change within the communities reviewed in the case study, but rather that this change is less significant than would be expected from most language change models. The process of language change is influenced by two separate factors, the first one being innovation and the second diffusion. 12

Language innovation can be studied by examining any patterns in language caused by structural change or cognitive processes. Diffusion, however, can only be studied by examining sociolinguistic attitudes, and documenting the way in which individuals imitate their peers either consciously or subconsciously based on their perceptions of social closeness, allowing the researcher to study attitudes and sociological histories (cf. Milroy & Milroy 1985; Labov 1994). This paper is more concerned with the diffusion process than the innovation process, as it maps changes caused by migration and describes sociolinguistic theories about group behaviour. The next section presents several geographical linguistic diffusion models that are useful for this research.

2.1.2 Geographical Linguistic Diffusion

Geographical location is one of the most obvious factors effecting linguistic change, and this thesis focuses specifically on two separate regions with the hypothesis that while geographical location often plays a role in elements of language change, social factors and community organization may indeed outweigh the effect of location. Several theories have attempted to explain geographical diffusion, mostly from the field of dialectology. Theorists such as Trudgill (1974), Labov (1966), Nerbonne & Heeringa, Seguey (1971) and Milroy and Milroy (1985), to name only a few who have attempted to make headway in understanding the effect to which spatial characteristics contribute to linguistic variation. Unfortunately, detailed and accurate studies reviewing the diffusion of sound and syntactic change are lacking, and thus one must keep in mind that individuals and groups have complex motives for using one language over another and that the diversity of social factors is far too wide to be conclusively incorporated into any studies on diffusion. There are, however, some influential models that will be incorporated in the empirical study and consequently explained below.

Séguy, the founder of dialectometry, coincidentally also studied the Mennonites specifically. He set the stage for further spatial linguistic studies through his study on lexical distance, in which he took the categorical measurements in the relation between spatial and lexical differences and used the resulting curve to compare lexical distance variances depending on the square root of the logarithm of geographical distance (Nebornne 2010, online). This comparison resulted in a curve which illustrated an initial rise followed by a flat line. Figure 3 shows Séguy's curve simulated by Nebornne :

13

Image 1: Séguy Curve

(Nerbonne 2010, online) The sublineal representation initially used by Séguy (1971), used French lexical variations to plot the relationship between linguistic difference and geographical difference. The above image however, also accounts for the gravity model by Trudgill (1971), adding the population density of the area as a variant. Trudgill, following the example of Labov’s Social Stratification in New York City study, studied the relationship between human geography and lingusitic change. Trudgill used what would become an influential theory in terms of impacting how geographical linguistics is studied. The model put forth by Trudgill is referred to as the gravity model. This model is centered on the idea of predicting the chance of communication with individuals that speak another dialect or language using the predictors distance and population sizes (cf. Trudgill 1974). Trudgill states in his theory that social contact is the main factor for linguistic change and that said social contact is controlled in a natural way, very similar to gravity, and is related solely to proximity and population size. In this theory, Trudgill explains that changes in language do not have a middle point from which language change spreads out, but rather that language change affects denser areas before spreading to less dense areas (cf. Trudgill 1974). Trudgill’s study has been reworked and reconsidered many times since 1974, and one factor that Trudgill mentioned as an idea for further research is the fact that an attitude study would have to accompany his study in order to determine the prestige of the given languages being considered in a language diffusion study (Trudgill 1974, p241). Aitchison also acknowledges prestige as being a very influential factor in language change: “The spread of language change, then, is essentially a social phenomenon, which reflects the changing social situation. Changes do not occur unless they have some type of prestige. They are markers of group membership, and people outside the community want, consciously or unconsciously, to belong”(2011, p.83).

The models put forth by Trudgill, Séguy and other sociolinguists who study diffusion demonstrate the motion of language change from large urban areas to small, less populated centers. A more modern quantitative model, glottometry, uses clustering for subgroup classification and 14 illustrates the motion of lingusitic innovations through speech communities, thus combining both innovation and diffusion in one model (Kalyan and Françios in Burns, 2016). According to Burns, the glottometry theory assumes that linkages in certain populations permit the sharing of linguistic innovations over time, resulting in subgroup formation (p32). Most research in this area using the aforementioned models is concentrated on in communities from regions that are linguistically unified. This paper presents a comparison of two related speech islands, found in different locations. Effectively, the models presented above are useful points of reference but cannot be used in isolation. Johnstone (2004, p66) provides a solution to the problem of studying related speech islands in separate geographical locations. She claims that the “location” and “social structure” connection is more dynamic than first assumed. She proposes that global speech communities, such as the Plautdietsch speaking areas in Mexico and Canada can use the value of location in two different ways, namely that location can be used to reference either a geographical location, or a construct of social identity (Johnstone 2004, p66). Burns describes the idea of global speech communities as related to the Mennonites. She states that Plautdietsch speech communities can, indeed, be considered global speech communities at the macro level (2016, p32). However, she points out that major global speech communities, such as English and Spanish are different than long-distance speech communities. She states that: “unlike the English- and Spanish-speaking communities, members of the Plautdietsch speech community are culturally and biologically related to other members of the speech community. They are islands at the micro level of social interaction. They exist as linguistic minority enclaves in an environment surrounded by speakers of a more socially dominant language. Plautdietsch speech communities are islands at the micro level of social interaction. They exist as linguistic minority enclaves in an environment surrounded by speakers of a more socially dominant language” (Burns 2016, p32). Weinreich et. al (1968) and Wolfram (2004) offer further theories on language change, which can be used to study the island theory as applied to the Mennonites.

Whereas Trudgill (cf 1977 and cf. Trudgill et. al 2000) assumes that linguistic change is caused by a language internal pressures, for example the linguistic system on a structural level or responses to the linguistic system, scholars such as Weinreich et al. (1968) take a different approach, claiming that language change is a result of social and language internal factors. Weinrich et.al ask two thought provoking questions: (1) Why do linguistic changes happen when they do? (2) How do changes spread through a community? The first question can be more broadly explained as: “Why do changes in a structural feature 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? This actuation problem can be regarded as the very heart of the matter” (p102). Weinreich et. al take an interesting approach to answer the second question:

The changing linguistic structure itself is embedded in the larger context of the speech community, in such a way that social and geographic variations are intrinsic elements of the structure. In the 15 explanation of linguistic change, it may be argued that social factors bear upon the system as a whole; but social significance is not evenly distributed over all elements of the system, nor are all aspects of the system equally marked by regional variation. Weinreich et al. 1968 p185 This quote from Weinreich et.al (1968) highlights the fact that language change cannot be attributed to a single factor, which can be applied to this research as it looks at the social and regional factors that influence language to change or to stay the same. This is in contrast to the research by Trugill that focuses only on spatial factors. However, Weinreich et al. do not take into consideration that perhaps some factors may not play a role in language change at all, and that language change is perhaps not inevitable. Weinreich et. al engaged in research that resulted in the claim that not all social factors bear upon the system in the same way, which is relevant for this research because of the specific social structure of the Mennonite community, for example the tendency to place religious significance on particular aspects of language. One of the contributors to language maintenance in the Mennonite community can be explained by Wolfram’s model of the 7 Principles of Isolation. This theory is used as a reference point in this paper to determine the extent to which the voluntary isolation of the Mennonite communities presented in the case study contributes to language change or language maintenance in two separate regions despite geographical separation, which would usually suggest major linguistic differences. His model begs the question: to what degree do connectivity and isolation affect a speech community? The 7 principles according to Wolfram (2004) are outlined below:

Principle 1. Dialect Exclusion: Lack of regular communication with speakers outside of the community impedes diffusion of regular change

Principle 2. Selective Change: Changes which spread quickly are ones that are socially evaluated as indexing the community.

Principle 3. Regionalization: Changes which spread in a physical space are independent from changes in the main community. They may result in either convergence or divergence, but they remain independent.

Principle 4. Social Marginalization: Communities begin to be viewed as “non-mainstream” and anything socially evaluated as specific to that community is marginalized.

Principle 5. Vernacular Congruity: Linguistic irregularities associated with the “mainstream” group are leveled in other marginalized communities.

Principle 6. Peripheral Community Heterogeneity: Small peripheral communities can tolerate high amounts of variation that do not correlate to social variables

Principle 7. Localized Identity: Dialect distinctiveness is frequently embraced as a sign of their unique local identity. 16

Wolfram 2004 These principles are relevant in the research conducted on language change in the Mennonite communities because of the isolated nature of the social structures and the intentional separation from wider regional society. Furthermore, island communities tend to exhibit all of Wolfram’s principles. In a comparative study such as the one conducted for this paper, the seven principles of isolation assist in determining whether or not differences in language maintenance or change in the two regions are based on isolation or on other factors, and to what extent geographical factors can determine language change.

When questioning attitudes on language change, it is important to consider the idea of language death, which is a topic of growing concern. As a world authority on the , Crystal’s research is influential in the field of language change and more specifically, language death. David Crystal has done considerable research in the field and states that when studying whether or not a specific language is at risk of extinction, that “There are likely to be differences in extent, range, rate, and quality: in a declining language, far more features should be affected simultaneously; they should belong to more areas of the language (e.g. different aspects of grammar, different lexical fields); they should change more rapidly; and they should change in the same direction (displaying the influence of the languages which are replacing them)” (Crystal 2014, p.23). He also argues in his book, Language Death (2014), that the disappearance of language can be compared to the extinction of species, and that this disappearance should be of no less concern to the public: “It is language that unifies everything, linking environmental practice with cultural knowledge, and transmitting everything synchronically among the members of a community, as well as diachronically between generations” (Crystal 2014, p.47). As Mennonite communities continue to be encroached upon by “outsiders” and the growth of technology liberalizes a younger generation, the idea that language death amongst Choirizio speakers as a real possibility is explored. Jean Aitchison’s (2013) work overlaps with some of the theories put forth by Crystal. In her book, Language Change: Progress or Decay? she discusses why language change happens and how languages are born and then die. The main question she seeks to answer is: is language change a symptom of progress or decay? She concludes that language is neither progressing nor decaying. While most of her evidence for the causes of language change and death coincide with Crystal’s, her conclusion that language is neither progressing or decaying contradicts Crystal’s research, which claims that languages are definitely decaying while global languages flourish. In relation to the empirical study in this thesis, Aitchison’s research presents another perspective completely because it makes us question whether or not we really need to be concerned about language change or language death at all.

Specific language change research in Mennonite communities has also been done. Kulick, for example, has examined the role that language plays in identity preservation. He states that “patterns of language maintenance and shift reveal how these groups have utilized language to encode and mediate 17 group identity, the relationship between groups, and the relationship to the surrounding, dominant society (1992, p9). Gal supports this research and argues that a community may use language to mark the boundary between us and them and to symbolize a particular relationship between the two (Gal 1992,1993). The following section provides information about the Mennonite religion, cultural background, and perhaps most importantly, migration history and language change.

2.2 History of the Mennonite Movement

In order to be able to illuminate any significant linguistic properties found in the sociolect spoken by the Chortitza Mennonites in Canada and Mexico, it is essential to define and differentiate between the numerous groups of Mennonites. What is a Mennonite? This question proves more difficult to answer than one might initially presuppose. It would be false to assume that one could discuss all Asians, or all Africans as units of the same ethnicity or identity without paying any attention to migration history, language differences, cultural traditions etc. and the same is true for Mennonites. As with any culture, there is a plethora of factors that need to be considered when attempting to find a suitable definition as to what constitutes a Mennonite. Additionally, the global Mennonite community has sought various identities throughout their history, making it even more difficult to differentiate between different groups in different geographical locations. At the risk of over-simplification, this chapter provides a historical account of the Mennonite movements from their Anabaptist roots to the re-defined and modernized religion and identity that can be found throughout many parts of the world today. This paper focuses solely on the Mennonites located in North America, although there are sects scattered across Europe in France, Germany and Switzerland (Seguy 1977). It is also important to note that this paper does not concern itself with the Amish Mennonites who are also found in North America.

2.2.1 Origins in 16th Century North-Central Europe

The Mennonites have their roots in North-central Europe, namely in the Netherlands in the first half the 16th century. Their movement emerged as one of the sects of Anabaptists formed in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation. In order to provide an account of the linguistic development of the Mennonite group in question, it is necessary to consider both the roots and the migration of the Anabaptist (later Mennonite) people.

18

2.2.2 Early Anabaptism

The origins of early Anabaptism are of considerable debate, but historians tend to trace the beginnings of Anabaptism to the year 1526 when the initial three leaders of the movement, Reublin, Sattler, and Freisleben commenced the spread of the Anabtism doctrine (Clasen 1993, online). The Reformation saw intense conflict between the Catholics and Protestants, and out of these conflicts, diverse new movements and ideas were born. It is for this very reason, that historians struggle to pinpoint the first stirrings of Anabaptism. The Radical Reformation, a period in which the Anabaptist movement began, was a response to perceived corruption not only the Roman Catholic Church but also the Luther’s Protestant movement (Geoffrey 2009, online). The first congregation of this revival movement, and certainly it can be referred to as such, is described by Friedman as taking place in January 1525 in Zollikon, a town near Zurich.

At a public fountain two men stopped, and the one said to the other, "Well, Hans, you have taught me the Truth. For that I thank you, and request now the sign." The other man did not hesitate, and by sprinkling him with water from the fountain he performed the rite of Baptism on his companion. On the same evening a number of men assembled in the house of the one who had baptized his fellow-believer, and here they broke the bread together in a most simple and yet impressive communion service. This Lord's Supper was an event which included both the obligation to a Christian way of life, of love to God and to all fellow men, and a celebration of those who know that they are saved. Friedman 1955, p.142

These early Anabaptists, similar to the Mennonites today, were religious non- conformists that based much of their beliefs in the rejection of infant baptism (Urry 2010 p.242 online). Instead, consenting adults were baptized after converting or declaring their faith in Christ (Urry p242). A more detailed history of Mennonite migration will be provided in the following subchapters, those who migrated or were located in Switzerland and the areas then considered to be parts of southern and northern Germany formed social groupings intended to be separate from the rest of the world and dependent only upon one another (Urry, p242). As Burkholder stated, in these groups “National cultures and political structures are set aside in the central purpose of forming a worldwide people of God unfettered by the relativizing wiles of "worldly" principalities and powers” (Burkholder, 1957:137). The map below illustrates areas of Anabaptist groupings in 1550:

19

Map 1: Anabaptist groupings in 1550

Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 256 The Anabaptist belief has often been distinguished through its two kingdoms doctrine. This concept separates the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world (Sawatsky 1979, p235). The Schleitheim Confession of 1527, which was a statement of Anabaptist principles, maintained that: "All creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who have come out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other" (Hillerbrand 1968, p.172) The Anabaptist and their Mennonite offspring believed that classification of institutions, namely the church and the state, could therefore also be separated into the Kingdom of God ( church) and the Kingdom of the World (state) (Sawatsky 1979, p325). Through separation from the so-called “world”, the Anabaptists were in fact, declaring themselves a-political. In further contemplation of this perspective, two implications become clear. Firstly, by distinguishing themselves as separate from any earthly institutions or alliances, the Christian (Anabaptist) would not morally be able to participate in military duty and thus could not play any governmental role. The second implication is that the Anabaptists did not view nations or any other political entity as paths to salvation, but rather as necessary authorities used to maintain order and punish evil (Sawatsky 1979, p35). It is important to remember that in Europe at this time, Church and State were sources of authority, and the rejection of the main societal institutions was bound to result in persecution. Anabaptist followers insisted that the church - and it alone -would lead them to deliverance and that the church knew no political or state boundaries and that it was a supranational organization, knowing no borders (Sawatsky 1979, p.35). It is important to keep in mind that the Anabaptists were by no means a homogenous group, and many of the groups had no contact 20 whatsoever with one another. For the purpose of this paper, only the history of the Mennonites, founded my Menno Simmons, will be further investigated, and therefore the groups in France, North Germany, Tirol and Switzerland will not be thoroughly discussed. The next section describes the history of the formation of the earliest Mennonite sect and the subsequent sections will outline the history of Mennonite migration, with a focus on linguistic developments.

2.2.3 Formation of Mennonites

In contrast to the way in which Mennonite sects are viewed today, namely as extremely conservative, this Anabaptist group was considered to be “left-wing” at the time that it began to form. Considering the fact that the Anabaptists rejected some of the main pillars of Protestant and Catholic belief, they would have been viewed as societal outcasts in European society. The Mennonites, or as they were referred to at the time of their formation, the Mennists, did not appear on the Reformation scene as first generation anabaptists, but rather gained significance a few decades later after a foundation for similar reforms had already been laid. The founder of the movement, a catholic priest, Menno Simons, converted to Anabaptism after witnessing the execution of a man in 1531 who was facing the punishment at that timed deemed worthy of his crime – a second baptism (Hillerbrand 1962, p388). This experience subsequently led to a doctrinal dilemma for Simons. He had, at this time, not yet encountered the practice of second baptisms but what intrigued him was the idea of infant baptism and the reasoning behind it. His uncertainty lead him to a search for answers. He turned to the Scriptures and the writings of other reformers (Hillerbrand, p388). Menno’s conversion to the Anabaptism brotherhood took place in 1535 (Hillerbrand, p388) at a crucial time of the Anabaptist movement.

The Münster Rebellion, or German Peasant’s war of 1525 was a major event in Anabaptist history, the outbreak of which Menno Simon’s, if not somewhat arrogantly, credited to himself (Hilldebrand, p388). The rebellion was a sequence of peasant lead religious and economic revolts in central and eastern areas of Germany and Austria against the state and the Roman Catholics often supported by Anabaptist clergy (Oman 1980, p65). Martin Luther condemned the revolts and supported the nobles, whereas the Anabaptist clergy supported the peasants (Oman 1980, p65). The Anabaptists criticized the Roman Catholic institutions claiming that:

“the oppressive religious system under which Luther was living was an organized hypocrisy, a mockery and perversion of true Christianity. The luxury and pride of the higher clergy, the 21 ignorance and greed of the lower, were asserted to be God's judgments on the church for going astray from the spirit of the true faith. 'The pope,' cried the preachers of the new doctrines, ' is antichrist, and the clergy the servants of antichrist.'” Oman 1980, p66 The events and details of the German Peasant’s War are too vast for the scope of this paper; however, the class struggle, religious revolution and Simon’s reaction thereto mark a pivotal turn in Anabaptist developments, and more specifically, in the history of the Mennonite religion.

The German Peasant’s war resulted in a loss for the peasants, but more importantly to the religious and linguistic history presented in this paper, it brought intensified persecution upon the Anabaptist movement. Menno ridiculed the “blasphemy” of the rebellion and his proclamation managed to unite the Anabaptists of the North who had previously been without leadership (Hillerbrand 1962, p390). It was this consolidation of smaller religious movements that marked Menno’s significance as a theologian, and which paved the way for the Mennonite religion as we know it today. The theology of Menno Simons sought to find “an appropriate place for four central foci-God, man, doctrine, and life. He undertook to do so by emphasizing a balance between God and man and between doctrine and life” (Hillerbrand p392). In one of his works, The True Christian Faith, Simons writes: “Bapists, Lutherans, Zwinglians . . . walk the broad road of sin; lead a carnal, vain life; and do not abide by the pure salutary, perfect doctrine, and unblamable, pure example of Christ” (Simons, 1556, p. 399). With his proclamations against the other major religions of early-mid 16th century religions, Menno managed to create a following that adhered to his doctrines and believed that infant baptism resulted in a sinful life:

"I find almost generally among men and women of whatever clan or condition, they may be who are of this ilk, noble or commoner, rich or poor, citizen or yeoman, who were all baptized in infancy, and on account are called Christian, leading such sinful lives that we can form no idea thereof. Their pride, unchastity, avarice, crookedness in buying and selling, quarreling, hatred, unrighteousness, unmercifulness toward the laborer and the poor, their cursing, swearing, lying, cheating, love of show, debauchery, drinking, their pride and pomp, their dissipation and drinking, their vanity and empty talk, their bloodthirstiness, cruelty, hardheartedness, dissimulation, tyranny, transgression, idolatry, and all manner of wickedness know no bounds."

Simons 1556, p.505 This doctrine condemns the other major religions, specifically the Roman Catholics, and makes a case for the superiority of the Anabaptist theology and thus marks the beginnings of the separatist model followed by the Mennonites today. Simons pursued a more extremist vision for his followers than most of his Anabaptist contemporaries, turning once again to 22 scripture to provide support for his beliefs. The Schleitheim Confession of 1527 specified the principles of Anabaptism, one of which stated that Christians were to live carefully disciplined and moral lives in a church made up of baptized believers ( Wogman 2011, p147). Violence and coercion were denounced and the pacifist life was deemed holy. Because one of the pillars of the faith was the idea that violence is sinful, another form of punishment had to be found in order to maintain order and internal discipline within the religious communities. Simons used Paul’s attestation that Christians should not associate with known sinners (1 Cor. 5:11). As validation for shunning as punishment. Menno declared that: Since the Scripture admonishes and commands that we shall not associate with such, nor eat with them, nor greet them, nor receive them into our houses…. And then if somebody should say, I will associate with them, I will eat with them, I will greet them in the Lord, and receive them into my house he would plainly prove that he did not fear the commandment and admonition of the Lord, but that he despised it, rejected the Holy Spirit, and that he trusted, honored and followed his own opinion rather than the Word of God.

Wogman 2011, p147 quoting Simons

This banning mentality demonstrates the exclusivity as well as the strict nature of Menno’s theological doctrines. Although Simons was an influential Anabaptist leader, the term “Mennonite” was not a synonym for “anabaptist”, but referred only to those who adhered to the specific doctrines of Menno Simons. The term was used in Holland and North Germany, where the Anabaptists were referred to as "Mennists" and also used by the Flemish and the Frisian Anabaptists. It was, however, rejected by more liberal groups such as the Waterlanders and the High German Anabaptist groupings ( Hillerbrand 1962, p391).

It was not only the more liberal Anabaptists that rejected some of the extreme teachings of Menno Simmons, but also the state authorities in the areas where larger groupings of Mennonites were located. The aforementioned Schleitheim Confession clearly condemned the use of violence, stating that "separation that shall take place from the evil and the wickedness which the devil has planted in the world” (Huxman and Biesecker-Mast 2004, p541) amongst the shunned weapons were: "all diabolical weapons of violence - such as sword, armor, and the like, and all of their use to protect friends or against enemies - by virtue of the word of Christ: 4 you shall not resist evil” (Huxman and Biesecker-Mast 2004, p541) State authorities viewed this non-violent stance as a threat that would undermine social order and the rule of law and thus attempted to repress its spread (Huxman and Biesecker-Mast, p540 ) Within the first ten years after the foundation of the movement, over five thousand 23

Mennonites had been killed by the state (Huxman and Biesecker-Mast, p540). In order to avoid this persecution, and, ultimately, to keep the movement alive, the Mennonites were forced to migrate throughout Europe and finally to North and South America in search of religious liberty. In the mid- 1600s, a small Swiss contingent of Mennonites founded the first permanent Mennonite colony in Germantown, Pennsylvania ( Huxman and Biesecker-Mast, p.541).

The migratory nature combined with the exclusivity and ingroup vs outgroup mentality that comprised and still comprises the Mennonite movement begs interesting lingusitic questions. The Mennonite religion is founded upon the principles of exclusivity and being separate from the rest of the world. In terms of linguistics this group makes for an interesting case-study because through migration, one would expect that the language (German) would change significantly based on location, however the isolation based on ingroup favouritism and out-group derogation would suggest that language change would be resisted. The following subsection will review the migrational history of the Mennonites, major separation of sects, and the influence that migration has or has not had on the language/dialect/sociolect spoken by the Mennonites.

2.3 Migration and Movement Religious persecution threatened the existence of Mennonite colonies or as they called them “Gemeinde”. The early Mennonites viewed faith and life as an interconnected religious unit. In order to enter a Gemeinde, it was essential that an individual be baptized and in so doing surrender their individuality to the community (Urry, 2010, p242). Joining a Gemeinde meant an increased chance for achieving salvation accomplished by following the narrow path of life, in the company of other Mennonites. All social and religious exchanges were restricted to fellow believers (Urry, p242). Mennonites thus withdrew from the rest of society, preferring to live securely within their Gemeinden. According to Urry: “Mennonites lived in the expectation rather than in the certainty of salvation; faith depended upon the continuation and maintenance of the correct Way. If the Truth was true, it was true in all ages and change was a manifestation of the 'world' degenerating (Urry p242). They resisted any change that took place in the greater society and adhered to outdated practices and appearances in order to remain separate and resist change (Urry, p242). As Urry writes: “By separating themselves from the 'world' Mennonites created distinctive identities and denied the 'world' any claim to their allegiance princes and to pay taxes they ultimately accepted only God's authority. This final denial of earthly authority was really a 'political' act, as were Mennonite efforts at 24 separation, exclusiveness and rejection of the 'world' in everyday life” (p242). Not only did the Mennonites actively resist inclusion in society, they saw opposition against their beliefs as further proof that the rest of the “world” was evil and thereby their ideologies and communities were strengthened, defined and maintained by outwardly opposition (Urry p242). The voluntary isolation pursued by the Mennonites is interesting from several perspectives. Firstly, it provides insight into reasons for persecution and migration and from a lingusitic point of view it provides an interesting example for the case of language maintenance and defies some models of language change. In summation, the religious premise adhered to by this community differentiates itself in three main ways from other protestant groups. Firstly, they believe that the practice of baptism should be strictly restricted to adults. The second belief is that conflict and violence should be avoided by all believers of the faith, and lastly, evil “wordly” influences should be avoided. These three core beliefs which set the group apart from other religions combined with their minority status made them targets for persecution, and thus migration became not only a reality for these people, but a necessity for group survival.

In order to understand the case study presented in this work, it is essential that the migration history of the Mennonites is presented. Additionally, it must be established that this thesis is centered on Mennonites and not the Amish, although they are theologically closely related. According to Burns, who did extensive research on Mennonites and the linguistic characteristics of several communities, Mennonites are ancestrally from the Netherlands and Flanders and the Amish generally from Switzerland (Burns 2013, p13). In order to gain a thorough understanding of the linguistic importance of the Mennonite migration, the following sections deal independently with the main areas of migration with a focus on the linguistic aspects and changes that occurred throughout the centuries of persecution and migration.

2.3.1 Before Migration – Linguistic Landscape in Anabaptist Areas in the 16th Century

Studying language shift, change, maintenance and death does not only provide insight into linguistic aspects of a community, but also how groups define themselves. Referring back to Image 1, one notices the areas of Anabaptist clustering in central Europe. Simons was born in the Netherlands (Wells 1985, online), and almost all Anabaptists shared German as a linguistic bond. This lingusitic commonality may arguably have contributed to a sense of in- group belonging amongst the early Menno followers. As language plays an important role in 25 identity, the linguistic similarity between geographically separated groups cannot be overlooked. In order to gain a deeper insight into lingusitic change resulting from geographical location, the initial language situation of the Mennonites and their Anabaptist forefathers must be understood. The following map illustrates the general boundaries of German dialects in the 16th century:

Map 2: 16th Century German Dialects

Stoeckle, & Svenstrup 2011, online

Using the map as a reference for the dialectal borders and comparing it to Image 1, the Anabaptist areas can subsequently be grouped into three distinct groups. The Swiss in Zürich and in other cantons as well as the Alsatians (Strasbourg) and the Germans of Baden, Württemberg and the Palatinate as well as all of Austria belonged to the ( from which High German originates) dialectal group and those along the Rhine downstream to the Flemish and Dutch Low Countries and throughout the northern German territories as well as in the upper (south) German areas of Bavaria, were linguistically Low German (Wells 1985, online). It is important to keep in mind that the Anabaptist movement has its roots in the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther’s Bible translations which transformed the into something that had never been seen before by German speaking people and 26 marked the beginning of modern German as it unified the language in written form. As Stoeckle, & Svenstrup remark: “During the period of the Protestant Reformation the linguistic boundaries between Dutch, Low German, and the new High German coming from the Alps and neighbouring regions were in a state of dynamic flux” (2011, online). Luther’s translations resulted in several major changes and shifts for the German language as it had previously been known. With Luther’s bible translations, came the period known as “” which more specifically refers to the ascendancy of High German and a separate literary , while the language of commerce, Low German, began its decline (Stoeckle &Svenstrup). This “new” language found its base in Eastern Upper and Eastern dialects, maintaining many aspects of the grammatical system of (Stoeckle &Svenstrup, online). The spoken dialects in the area had already begun to lose the and the preterite (Stoeckle &Svenstrup, online), and initial copies of the Bible included dictionaries for each region, which translated words unknown in the region into the regional dialect (Steockle &Svenstrup, online). It is important to keep in mind that by the time Luther was translating Bibles, Guthenberg’s printing press had allowed for mass production of printed works and thus printed Bibles would have been readily available. The German in which Menno Simons wrote would have time been a mixture between Dutch and some Low German dialects ( Stoeckle & Svenstrup) and consequently the language spoken by the Mennonites before migration would have been the German language in its various regional and historical forms. The next section reviews some of the qualities of Early New High German so that a comparison between the sociolect spoken by the Mennonites in the case study today and the “original” language of the Mennonites is possible.

2.3.2 New High German (NHG) Arguably one of the most important inventions of all times, Guthenberg’s printing press was one of the main affecting factors of the language change that took place in the early- mid 1500s. Before the introduction of the printing press and the translations of the Bible, regional dialects determined the languages taught in schools and spoken within communities. However, between 1522 and 1546 it is estimated that an edition of Luther’s Bible could be found in one in five German households (Ernst 2005, p166). The introduction of a unified written language resulted in a ‘a spoken standard which affected many parts of morphology and syntax and some parts of phonology, while other features, particularly in phonology and in the lexicon, remained dialectal’ (Auer 2005, p28). Despite the fact that a more standardized language was emerging, it would be naïve to assume that all parts of Germany, Austria, 27

Switzerland and even the Netherlands were conversing and writing in a shared language. In fact, many scholars (cf. Mihm 2000, Stoeckle and Svenstrup 2011) claim that the new- emerging varieties of the language were still so regionalised that it would be impossible to consider claiming that a spoken German national standard existed. Keeping in mind that New High German was perhaps not as standardized as was once believed, this subchapter examines some of the principle features of NHG.

Luther spoke a dialect from Saxony, which was rooted in the language of the Chancery of Prague and part of the dialect area referred to as East Middle German (Wilkins 2005, online ). Middle High German ( MHG) the period preceding New High German (NHG) was affected by the second sound shift and has a prestige (Dichtersprache) not found in NHG. Because the second sound shift is such a significant reference point in the history of the German language, and because it developed in NHG a comparison of the phonological differences between the two establishes a starting point to help us imagine what the language probably sounded like. MHG contained more vowels than NHG. This reduction was obtained largely by means of vowel merging (Wilkins 2005, online). Phonetically, two main changes took place as MHG emerged into NHG, or as the initial changes are referred to, Early New High German, namely the occurrences referred to as dipthongization and monothongization. The vowel system of MHG contained 9 short vowels, 9 long vowels and 6 :

Short Long Diphthongs

i ü u î iu û ie üö uo e ö o ê œ ô ei öü ou

ë æ â ä a

Compare this to Modern (MSG), which has 7 short vowels, 7 long vowels and three diphthongs:

Short Long Diphthongs ɪ ʏ ʊ i y u ɛ œ ɔ e ø o ɔɪ ɑɪ a ɑ ɑʊ

In southeastern Austria in the 12th century the MHG long high vowels î, iu (ü) and û diphthongised to ɑɪ, ɔɪ and ɑʊ (Wilkins 2005, online). The New High German Diphthongisation had spread to most of the High German area by the 16th century. When the 28

MHG vowels î, iu, û diphthongised they merged with the MHG diphthongs ei, öü, ou, which consequently resulted in the loss of three vowels from the system (Wilkins 2005, online).

MHG mîn niu hûs ---> NHG mein /maɪn/ neu /nɔɪ/ Haus /haʊs/ MHG heiʒ böüme boum ---> NHG heiß /haɪs/ Bäume /bɔɪmə/ Baum /baʊm/

Or as more schematically represented below: MHG : î ei iu öü û ou

NHG: aɪ ɔɪ aʊ

In addition to the diphtongization process that took place in NHG, the MHG high diphthongs ie, üö, uo monophthongised to the NHG i, y, u. The long high front unrounded vowel which resulted from the monophthongisation of "ie" in MHG, becomes the monophthong /i/.

MHG liep fuoʒ füöʒə ---> NHG lieb /lip/ Fuß /fus/ Füße /fysə/ Wilkins 2005, online These vowel changes are perhaps the most significant changes that took place between MHG and NHG, but several other phonetic changes are also of note. One of the other changes includes the pronunciation of short vowels in open syllable and long vowels in closed syllables.In MHG, short vowels in open syllable were lengthened but when MHG short vowels i, ü, u merged when lengthened with the monophthongs that resulted from the the NHG monophthongisation of ie, üö, uo, the distribution of short and long vowels was changed (Wilkins 2005, online). An example from Wilkens demonstrates the change in some MHG words: “lëben and lëder with short vowels became NHG Leben and Leder with long vowels” (p128). Significant for this paper and the results presented in chapter 4 change in short vowels in open syllables began in Low German, and slowly spread to High German (Wilkins, p128). The next change almost mirrored the previous one in that the long vowels in closed syllables were shortened. Wilkens provides another example: “MHG hâst, hât "hast, hat" became NHG /hast, hat/.” (Wilkens p128). A third change, this time affecting consonants can be seen shortly after the vowel changes took place. Double consonants were simplified to single consonants. Wilkens provides a thorough description of this change:

Thus all of the consonants which had been written -ll-, -rr-, -tt etc. and had been pronounced long continued to be written that way but were now pronounced short. Since double consonants between vowels had resulted in preceding closed syllables, short vowels which preceded double consonants had not been lengthened. Thus, the double spelling came to be a convention to indicate a preceding short vowel. Vowels before a single intervocalic consonant were invariably long. Therefore, the spelling with a single consonant came to be a convention to indicate a preceding long vowel.

Wilkens 2005, online It would be false to claim that the above changes were the only ones that took place as NHG emerged from MHG, but they are major ones and ones that are most significant to the most to the case study that will follow. The Mennonites spoke NHG before any migration 29 took place, and therefore it is of interest to determine exactly what their language sounded like before leaving the area so that a comparison of changes that took place or did not take place based on geographical location can be carried out.

2.3.3 Eastward Migration

An Eastward movement of Mennonite communities took place in the 1530s, when many started migrating to Danzig in order to gain increased religious freedom, which was something they lacked in the Netherlands and Flanders (Dyck 1993, p121 and Epp 1993, p57 in Burns 2016). The settlers in this area stemmed from either Frisian or Flemish backgrounds (Epp 1993, p73-4) and during their time in Prussia, High German became the main language of communication for the Mennonites (Epp 1993, p72). The language spoken by the Mennonites today is referred to as Plautdietsch, which is a Prussian variety of Eastern Low German (Epp 1994, Lehn 1952 in Burns 2016, p2). According to Burns (2016, p7), before the end of WW2, people as far east as Baltiysk were still speaking Prussian Low German and as far west as Człuchów, Złotów and Wałcz.

Another Mennonite migration took place in the 1700’s, after Queen Catherine the Great of Russia sent out the invitation to German settlers in 1763 to come live on newly acquired Russian territory in exchange for religious freedom (Burns 2016, p14). This open invitation sparked interest amongst the Mennonite communities in 1776 after the First Partition of Poland, which refers to the event when Poland was appropriated by Russia and Germany (Prussia), as well as Austria (Burns 2016, p14). The same threat that the Mennonites had faced for years once again bore its head in Prussia. Political pressure and the ever-growing threat of involuntary military service pushed the Mennonites to search for land outside of Prussian territory (Dyck 1993, p169 in Burns 2016, p14). The promises outlined in the Privilegium, a document granted by the Russian government in 1788 guaranteeing religious and political freedom, as well as exemption from military duties ( Burns 2016, p14). The initial settlers, comprised mainly of Mennonites facing issues of poverty and with nothing left to lose, migrated to Chortitza. They were later referred to as the Choritzia Colony, or the Old Colony. (Dyck 1993 in Burns 2016, p14) ). The second group, made up of land owners from Danzig left twenty years later and founded their settlement at the nearby Molotschnaya River, thus christening themselves the Colony (Burns 2016, p14). Map 3 shows the Mennonite Migration path from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. The Chortitza dialect is the main focus of this paper, and this is the dialect spoken by both groups used in the case study. This brief history of the exact roots of the dialect examined in this paper does not end 30 with the establishment of the colonies, as the Mennonites continued living in the area, speaking both Plattdeutsch, Russian and German. Plattdeutsch became a way to mark in- group identity in the Soviet Union, and contact with out-group members was carried out in Russian. Standard German was used as a foreign language in school as well as the language of the Scripture (Daller 2005, p585). This categorization of language for specific uses supports the idea that group identity was important for the Mennonites, and that this was maintained largely through, but of course not limited to, language.

From a linguistic perspective, there are several interesting aspects concerning the language spoken in Russia. In the early 1900’s Mitzka, a linguisitic scholar, recognized that the Russian Mennonites were speaking in a Low German variety that was exactly the same as contemporary Prussian Low German (Mitzka 1924, p14 in Burns 2016, p15). This would elude to the fact that the language underwent very little change within a period of roughly 150 years. Additionally, research by Burns (p9) represented in the table below shows differences between the aw and ouw reflexes in the two colonies based on research from Mitzka (1922) and Quiring (1928).

Table 1: aw and ouw reflexes in

MLG Mitzka Quiring

Âw East: aiw, aiʄ Chortitza: eiw bleiw 'blue' Central: öu ɣreiw 'grey' West: au blaiʄ 'blue' graiʄ 'grey', Molotschna: au

Ouw East ai Chortitza: eiw kleiwən 'to Central: öu scratch' West au taiʄ 'dew' hai 'hay' ai ʄst 'harvest' Molotschna: au

Burns 2016, p9

Burns states that : “This suggests that the Chortiza vs Molotschna difference described by Quiring, which became conventionalized to represent the traditional dialect division, did not develop in Russia due to shared innovations. Rather, this variation was carried into Russia and 31 some reflexes were retained in some villages, but not others” (p9). This would support the theory of this paper, that language change in Mennonite communities remains change resilient.

2.3.4 Migration to North America The Mennonite migration to Russia from western Europe can be viewed as the historical time when the religious group was able to establish themselves through closed and self-governing communities by gaining specific privileges. Urry documents how, despite their ability to remain mostly separate from society as well as the imperial government and bureaucracy, over a period of time, the Mennonites became involved in the Russian social, political, and legal system (Urry, online). Despite the fairly harmonious lives that the Mennonites lived in Russia, tensions began to rise near the end of the 1800s. This unrest was caused by the tensions that Russia and Germany were facing. The Russians assumed that the Germans who had relocated to Russia as settlers 100 years prior should prove their loyalty to the state by joining the army (Burns p16). Concerned about their future in this tense religious and economic climate, many Mennonites sought the freedom that was so important to them in North America. The groups that settled in Canada came dominantly from the and settled in the Canadian prairies, while people from the Molotschna colonies settled in the USA. (Burns p16 and Janzen 1977). This paper focuses on colonies in Canada and Mexico and thus attention will not be given to the settlers in America. The Choritza groups, nervous that they would once again face discrimination, requested a Priviligium, similar to the one that they had received in Russia, from the Canadian government before leaving Russia (Burns, p18). The Priviligium offered to them in Canada promised land ownership, exemption from military service, independence in their colonies including the right to their own school system (cf. Janzen 1977). Although the Mennonites enjoyed the leniency offered to them by the Canadian government for about 40 years, the breakout of WW1 caused tension between them and the government. Although the conscription enforced by the Canadian government requiring that men take part in the country’s military efforts (Sawatzky 1971, p14-27) went against Mennonite belief, their stronger resistance was to the School Attendance Act of 1916. This act allowed the government to “Canadianize” all schools in the country. The imposition of educational standards, as well as compulsory attendance and the use of English rather than German in schools infuriated many of the more conservative groups (cf. Janzen 1977 and cf. Burns 2016). A number of the Mennonites resisted the School Attendance Act and once again chose migration as an alternative to following the new laws in Canada. This time, they chose to move south. Several representatives from the Old Colony Church traveled to Mexico to 32 survey land and to ask the Mexican president, Álvaro Obregón, for a priviligim more fitting to their needs (Burns, p17). After receiving the freedom from military service, and freedom of religion and freedom to establish schools, five main colonies were consequently established in Mexico, four in Chihuahua and one in Durango (Martens 1975). They remained, as usual, mostly separate from the greater society only having contact with Mexican natives for the purpose of selling produce (Martens 1975). Unfortunately for many of the new settlers, the Old Colony leaders were too conservative for many of the Mennonites. They exercised authority over almost all aspects of community life, including land sales, seperation of villages from mainstream Mexico, a reduced level of education for children and minimum use of technology issue. The land that owned had doubled in size since 1923, but the population was six times that of the early years, meaning that many people were landless and a gap between rich and poor was growing (cf Martens 1975). A combined desire for land and technology as well as a fear that the privilegium would be revoked encouraged some of the Mexican Mennonites to once again uproot their lives and resettle in another location (Martens 1975). The prospects of economic prosperity in southern Ontario appealed to them, as they were skilled farmers and a boom in vegetable and tobacco farming creating more opportunities in the area. It was at this point that some Mennonites from Chihuahua moved to Aylmer, Ontario (Martens 1975). This is referred to as Rückwanderung 'backwards migration' (cf. Castro 2004). This pattern of movement usually sees people moving from south to north, as the Mennonites did when they remigrated to the same country from which they had originally left.

2.3.5 Plautdietsch Speech Community Migratory flows based on religious integrity have marked the Low German ( used synonymously with Plautdietsch) Mennonites, here specifically the Choritzo group as a transnational and transcultural atypical migrant group. Based on the language change and diffusion theories presented in this chapter, one would expect that a migratory group with a history of settling for time periods between 40 and 200 years in one location would absorb characteristics from the geographical location where they reside. The concept of transnationalism “a process by which social actors maintain connections with their homelands and engender complex identities and relations that span more than one national state” (Basch et al. 1994). In summation, the Plautdietsch speech community is categorized as a 2: viable but small languages: have more than c. 1000 speakers and are spoken in communities that are isolated or with a strong internal organization, and are aware of the way that their language is 33 a marker of identity; according to Kincade’s model. Furthermore, they have aspects of isolation according to Wolfram, and the geographical separated communities need to be viewed as speech islands, using the idea that “location” can describe two values: it can describe a physical location, or a social identity construct (Johnstone 2004 p66-70). The next chapter presents the research methodology used in this study.

3. Research Methodology This chapter provides a detailed outline of the methodological approach used in the study, including the qualitative and quantitative research designs, and the theories and models used for analysis. In addition to the diffusion theories introduced in the last chapter, the matched- guise technique for determining language prestige is described. The process of data elicitation is presented, for example traditional dialect features are illustrated and compared to current features, followed by the participant sampling methodology including basic biographical information. Finally, the data processing and analysis techniques are defined.

3.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

This mixed-method approach study quantitively analyses results of voice recordings in order to compare phonetic features of related speech communities in separate geographic locations, Chiuahaha Mexico, and Aylmer Ontario, Canada. In so doing, it seeks to prove that social factors may play a more significant role in language change or language maintenance than geographical distance. Additionally, this research qualitatively examines attitudes on language as a potential reason for the preservation of language norms in socially close but geographically distant communities. The purpose for combining these two approaches and for conducting this study is to show that linguistic change may not be swiftly moving in isolated speech communities and to prove that social distance is more of a predicting factor for linguistic variances and change than geographical distance.

As I began to investigate the topic of language change, language death, and language maintenance, I came to the realization that little research had been contributed to the area of social location in terms of diffusion models. For this reason, I wanted to take a different approach and combine quantitative data on phonetic similarities and differences and represent this information in a diffusion model. Secondly, I wanted to add the attitude aspect to the study that Trudgill recommends by determining attitudes on language prestige and comparing the results of the PRATT phonetic analysis to the vowel and consonant as well as lexical systems in Canada and Mexico to see if there are any similarities, which will indicate 34

whether or not exposure to a global language and language prestige influence language change. My personal connection to this topic is that I grew up in a community with Mennonites and was always aware of the voluntary isolation that they practiced. Furthermore, I was perplexed by the language as it was most often referred to as “German” or “Dietsche” ( used in a derogatory fashion) but was very different than standard German and most speakers were unable to read or understand any standard German. Additionally, many migrant workers from Mexico would arrive annually, speaking the same language and communicating with ease with the Canadian Mennonites, despite the approximately 3000 km distance and two border crossings. I found it interesting that people living in Mexico, where Spanish is the national language and people living in English speaking Canada were not influenced by these larger global languages. Additionally, coming from a town where many Mennonites have settled, it was not difficult for me to obtain recordings or to elicit the data I needed as I still have many contacts there who not only participated, but also put me into contact with participants from Mexico. From the literature and my own goals and interests and all other aspects that were considered for this research, the following questions were defined:

1. Is it possible to resist the pull of a global language and in doing so resist language change? Sub -questions: 1. Are there any phonetic variances in sociolects from separate regions and to what extent do

geographical and social factors influence language change?

2. Are there any lexical variances in sociolects from separate regions and to what extent do geographical and social factors influence language change?

3. To what degree does linguistic isolation play a role in linguistic change?

3.2 Participant Sampling

The4. 26 participants of this study were all native speakers of Plautdietsch, although it was not a requirement that they be native speakers, but instead that they be competent speakers.

Participants were originally chosen based on personal relationships to the researcher, and

then using the technique of snowball sampling, other participants were recommended. The original participants were in Aylmer, Ontario Canada, and many of them provided connections to participants in Chihuahua, Mexico. To rule out the possibility that similarities were a result of familial relationships, none of the participants were allowed to recommend 35 participants that were close relatives. Although gender is an important factor in sociolinguistic studies such as this one, this research does not intend to gain information about gender differences and therefore an equal number of men and women from each location were chosen in order to create balanced findings without the effect of gender. Age was recorded but the significance of age is not analyzed. The researcher attempted to use participants that were born in the same area so that place of origin for all participants was similar, however, this was not always possible. The place of origin is listed, but all participants regardless of birthplace had been living in Aylmer for at least 20 years. Due to the separatist nature of the community, some of the participants were hesitant to take part in the research, especially older participants. However, after explaining the purpose of the study, most were also intrigued to learn more about their own language. The table below is a summary of the participant information, including codes, dialect spoken, age, place of birth and any additional notes. Participants from Canada are coded with the letter “C” and a number, and participants from Mexico are coded with an “M” and a number. All sections of the research used data from the same 26 participants.

Table 2: Participant Information

SPEAKER GENDER AGE PLACE OF DIALECT NOTES CODE BIRTH C1 F 18 Aylmer, Chortitza Bilingual Ontario since birth ( English) C2 F 23 Aylmer, Chortitza Bilingual Ontario since birth (English) C3 F 67 Chihuahua, Chortitza Moved to Mexico Aylmer at the age of 14 C4 F 25 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario 36

C5 F 58 Winnipeg, Chortitza Moved to Aylmer at the age of 7 C6 F 32 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C7 F 17 Springfield, Chortitza Ontario ( close to Aylmer) C8 F 45 Springfield, Chortitza Ontario C9 F 44 Belmont Chortitza Ontario ( close to Aylmer) C10 F 27 Aylmer, Chortitza Bilingual Ontario since birth (English) C11 F 27 Winnipeg, Chortitza Moved to Manitoba Aylmer at the age of 3 C12 F 28 Winnipeg, Chortitza Moved to Manitoba Aylmer at the age of 5 C13 F 47 Chiuahahua, Chortitza Moved to Mexico Aylmer at the age of 8 C14 M 52 Springfield, Chortitza Ontario C15 M 31 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario 37

C16 M 53 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C17 M 45 Springfield, Chortitza Ontario C18 M 60 Winnipeg, Chortitza Moved to Manitoba Aylmer at the age of 40 C19 M 38 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C20 M 33 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C21 M 33 Springfield, Chortitza Ontario C22 M 32 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C23 M 27 Winnipeg, Chortitza Moved to Manitoba Aylmer at the age of 6 C24 M 45 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C25 M 43 Aylmer, Chortitza Ontario C26 M 43 Chihuahua, Chortitza Moved to Mexico Aylmer at the age of 16 M1 F 58 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M2 F 18 Chihuahua, Chortitza Bilingual Mexico since birth (Spanish) 38

M3 F 25 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M4 F 45 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M5 F 34 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M6 F 33 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M7 F 32 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M8 F 33 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M9 F 19 Chihuahua, Chortitza Bilingual Mexico since birth (Spanish) M10 F 21 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M11 F 45 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M12 F 21 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M13 F 44 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M14 M 42 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M15 M 60 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M16 M 57 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M17 M 55 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico 39

M18 M 43 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M19 M 22 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M20 M 31 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M21 M 18 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M22 M 19 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M23 M 25 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M24 M 34 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M25 M 48 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico M26 M 58 Chihuahua, Chortitza Mexico

3.3 Quantitative Research

The quantitative research section of this paper aims to draw conclusions about specific dialect features in two Plautdietsch speaking Mennonite communities. This section of the research uses PRATT software (PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics was developed by Paul Boersma & David Weenink at the Phonetic Sciences department at the University of Amsterdam.) to measure phonological variances in long vowels and closing Diphthongs as well as opening diphthongs and short stressed monophthongs. The voice onset time of phonemes /k/, /d/ and /t/ will also be measured. A word elicitation process is used to determine lexical variations between the two communities will also be described. The results of these analyses in combination with geographical data will be illustrated in graph form in the results chapter of this work. The aim of the quantitative research is to 40 determine the phonetic and lexical variations and diversifications in two communities and compare them to geographical factors. The social factors will be described in the qualitative research section.

3.3.1 Data Elicitation for Vowels and Consonants

Data elicitation for each section of this research was recorded separately. The first portion of research was the analysis of phonetic features. The data was collected in July, 2017 and September, 2017. After agreeing to the study and giving consent, participants were coded e.g. M12. The consent for this research was designed based on consent forms from several universities that published research consent forms online. The consent was given for the entire study, not just for the phonetic analyses. The consent form provided the participants with:

1.) Information regarding the project as well as the researcher’s contact information 2.) The research question(s) 3.) Data elicitation and analyses procedure 4.) Participant’s rights 6.) Explanation of consent to participation (consent to recording, volunteerism) 7.) Signature

In order to elicit the specific sounds required, participants were given a word list and asked to read them silently for 30 seconds. The first word list contained 15 target words in Plautdietsch which encouraged the production of dipthong sounds before /g/, /k/ and /x/. The words with dipthongs were chosen because dipthongization before the above-mentioned plosives is a distinguishing feature of Plautdietsch. Table 3: Diphthongization before g, k, ch [IPA x] and r, with possible loss of r High Low Plautdietsch Dutch English German German Herz Hart Hoat hart Heart machen maken moake(n) maken Make ask (compare fragen fragen froage(n) vragen fraegn) hoch hooch huach hoog High Hoorn, Huarn, hoorn, Horn, Hörner horn, horns Höörn Hieena hoorns

“.” Wikipedia 2018 41

The participants then read the words and were recorded using the Praat sound recorder at a sampling rate of 22 kHz/second, which is the recommended rate from Pascal van Lieshout from the University of Toronto, graduate department of Speech Language Pathology and Oral Dynamics lab (2003, online). A frequency of 44 kHz would have been more preferable and accurate, however a lack of equipment prohibited the researcher from using this sample rate. After reading the first wordlist, the participants were given a second wordlist containing 15 target words in Plautdietsch aimed at word initial production of the velar plosive /k/ and aveolar plosive /t/ and /d/ phonemes. These specific phonemes were chosen because they are distinguishing features of the Plautdietsch language that were not affected by the High German consonant shift.

Table 4: Effects of the High German consonant shift Low German Plautdietsch Dutch English German High German pf, f = Pfeife Piep Piep pijp Pipe Low German p Apfel Appel Aupel appel Apple Zunge Tung Tung tong Tongue High German z, s, ss, ß was wat waut wat What = Low German t essen eten äte(n) eten to eat Fuß Foot Foot voet Foot High German ch = machen maken moake(n) maken to make Low German k tun doon doone(n) doen to do High German t = Low part (compare German d Teil Deel Deel deel "dole", "deal") High German b = Low Leben Leven Läwe(n) leven Life German v, f Korb Korf Korf korf Basket English th = other danken danken danke(n) danken to thank d High German Consonant Shift, Wikipedia 2018

Once again, they were asked to silently read the words for 30 seconds. The same recording process was used for the consonants as the vowels. The words selected for both word lists were lexical items that are not prone to variances across Plautdietsch varieties.

42

3.3.1.1 Data Processing Vowels

Dipthong analysis was completed using PRAAT to determine formant frequency of the Plautdietsch dipthongs /oa/ and /ua/ . In dipthongs, the formants exhibit a smooth frequency change during production (Mennen 2016) The frequency of the formants 1 and 2 and 3 (F1, F2, and F3) /oa/ and /ua/ dipthongs were measured using PRAAT and the data was recorded for each speaker. The frequencies were compared within groups, and then the Mexican and Canadian groups were compared to one another.

3.3.1.2 Data Processing Consonants

The data collected in terms of the velar plosive /k/, and the alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/ aimed at comparing the qualities of these sounds in each community, as well as in Spanish and English to determine whether or not the Plautdietsch of the Mennonites in Mexico has similar sounds to Spanish and whether the Palutdietsch spoken by the Mennonites in Canada has similarities to English. The quality of plosives are conveyed by the quality of their effect on the adjacent value (Mennen 2016). Voiced plosives such as /d/ are distinguished by the onsets and offsets of the second and third formants (Mennen 2016) All three of these sounds can be measured by determining the voice onset time (VOT), which allows the researcher to determine any variances between speakers or languages. VOT is the measurement of the interval between the release of a closure and the start of voicing and is measured in ms (Mennen 2016) VOT was measured using PRAAT and is measured in milliseconds by determining the interval between the release of a closure and the start of the voicing (Mennen 2016). The VOT for each of these sounds was measured in each word for each participant. The mean VOT for all /d/ initial words was calculated for each participant, as well as for /k/ and /t/ initial words from the word list. The mean VOT was then calculated for each group of participants (Mexican and Canadian) and compared. The results were also compared to typical VOTs for the chosen plosives in English and Spanish to determine any similarities.

3.3.2 Data Elicitation for Lexical Variations

Lexical variations are included in this research as they represent a major aspect of language change. In order to determine if there are any differences in lexicon between the two communities studied, a process of word elicitation was used. The participants were shown a set of 10 images and asked to write down the word that they would use to describe the given 43 image. The images were chosen based on research into typical Plautdietsch words with either Russian, Frisian, or Dutch etymology. The logic for selecting images that elicit “older” words is that any variances between the Mexican and Canadian communities can be more easily attributed (however, without 100% certainty). The changes that have taken place since settlement in North America. Dutch loanwords have mostly disappeared from Plautdietsch, however there are several survivors including [o:lba:səm] from Dutch aalbes, black currant, [me:v] from Dutch mouw, sleeve, [ta:xəntiç] with initial [t] as in D tachtig, eighty. The word [pi:niç] is a descendent of the Dutch word pijnlijk and diligent - in Plautdiitsch it has come to mean quick (Tolksdorf 1990).

Frisian has had a lasting effect on the Plautdietsch lexicon. Several words that prove to be of Frisian origin include [kja:st] which means wedding in Plautdietsch, or kest, which means choice. The original meaning of the word [Svi:nt'ət'a:st] the slaughtering of a pig meant choosing a pig to be slaughtered

Plautdietsch a Germanic Language Related to Dutch and Frisian, 2018, online. The etymology of many more Plautdietsch words remains unclear. Some examples included in this study are [fVp] pocket, [kVfəl] cup, [prips] coffee, [lemp] leg of trousers.

As detailed in the theoretical history of the Mennonites, many people migrated to Russia, Prussia and the Ukraine. This has had an impact on the Plautdietsch lexicon as well. The terms [blot], and [blotiç] meaning mud, muddy, [prost] easy are Polish loans presumably derived during the period when the Mennonites lived in the Weichsel area. There are a vast number of Russian vocabulary in Plautdietsch including Arbus (water melon), [flitsəpəi] bicycle from velosiped (the Russian word being a loan from French), and [da:Gət] tar from d'egot'. Another Russian loan word is [sir] cheese from syr. (Plautdietsch a Germanic Language Related to Dutch and Frisian, 2018, online). Additionally, many High German words made their way into the lexicon. Religious terms are often High German as the Bible is still read in High German, but a variety of other High German words have also entered Plautdi- itsch vocabulary. For example, the word sweets, [mətspu:n], is derived from High German Marzipan (Plautdietsch a Germanic Language Related to Dutch and Frisian, 2018, online).

The 10 words chosen were sweets, sleeve, wedding, pocket, cup, coffee, mud or muddy, watermelon, bicycle, and cheese. Participants were informed that they should choose the best word, or the word they would be most likely to use. 44

3.3.2.1 Data Processing for Lexical Variations

The data processing for the lexical variations was simply a matter of comparing the results from the two communities to determine similarities or difference in terms used to describe an image. Unfortunately, the number of lexical items used in this study was far too limited to determine if there are truly any variances in vocabulary between the two communities. The data from this word elicitation task was recorded in a table for easy comparison.

3.4 Qualitative research

The qualitative research in this study is aimed at analyzing precise attitudes about language prestige. Language attitudes are defined as any cognitive, affective or conative index of evaluative reactions towards different varieties and their speakers (Ryan, Giles, & Sebastian, 1982). To determine the effect that attitude and prestige have on language maintenance or change, a matched-guise approach is used. As the Aylmer Mennonites are situated in an English-speaking majority location and Mexican Mennonites in a Spanish one, it seems obvious that these dominant global languages would play a role in language change. As already mentioned, language change is directly affected by prestige of the dominant language in the area based on the desire to belong (Aitchison 2011, p83). It is for this reason that an attitude study will be used to compliment the quantitative research.

3.4.1 Matched-guise Technique

Socio-linguistic researchers have struggled with translating “attitude” into a measurable figure. In order to do this, direct methods (questionnaires and interviews) of attitude elicitation are sometimes employed as a way to solve the problem. Although these direct methods have been profitable in gaining valuable information about attitude towards language, the purpose is often very recognizable. As Garrett (2010) noted, people tend to cast themselves in the best light possible when answering these types of questionnaires or interviews and thus any findings that are obtained are in turn influenced by social desirability biases (cf. Garrett 2010). In order to remedy this issue, Wallace Lambert and colleagues devised an indirect method for obtaining attitudes about language prestige. The matched- guise approach, was initially used to examine the attitudes that French/English bilingual speakers in Canada held towards English and French (cf. Kircher, p 198). This technique can be applied to other languages as well, as it aims to determine the attitudes of either individuals or groups towards specific languages, dialects or accents. Semantic 45 differential scales, which are commonly used in matched-guise experiments are then used to determine prestige of different accents. The goal of this technique is to confront participants with recorded texts in both languages and at the same time avoid conscious introspection. Participants hear texts read by the same person in two different languages and are then asked to rate the person’s character based on traits such as height, attractiveness, leadership, intelligence, sense of humour, religiousness, kindness self- confidence, ambition, likability or any other such traits that establish prestige (cf. Kircher 2014, p21). The “guise” aspect is the fact that participants are unaware that the speaker of the text is the same person speaking in two different languages or varieties. The speaker must be perfectly bilingual, so that accents do not influence the ratings. It is critical that the exact same text be read in both languages (matched) with the only variance being in the language/language variety so that the only influencing factor is language or language variety (cf. Kircher, p21). A comparison of the evaluations provides the researcher with insights in which traits are more strongly associated with which of the languages or varieties. Filler texts are added to distract the participant from the fact that they have heard the same passage from the same person twice.

3.4.2 Matched-guise Elicitation of data

In order to complete the matched-guise study, the first step was to choose an appropriate text for the speaker to read. The length of the text chosen was 30 seconds, based on the recommendation for matched-guise text length by Genesee & Holobow, 1989. The reason that a shorter text was chosen, compared to similar studies that have used texts up to 150 seconds long is that the participants had already been asked to read the word lists for the quantitative study, and fatigue effect needed to be avoided. Nevertheless, there are some texts that are more appropriate than others for use in matched-guise experiments. Lambert et al. (1960) suggest choosing texts that are not political or ideological. Additionally, the text should not have any relation to the topic of language nor should it use any lexical items that may identify it as stemming from one of the origins or language varieties being used for the study as to avoid influence upon the evaluations (cf. Kircher, p21). For this reason, the text chosen was weather related, as this topic would be a natural topic of discussion in all domains and languages. After the text was chosen, a bilingual Spanish/ Plautdietsch speaker was given the task of reading the Spanish and the Plautdietsch texts to be played to the Mexican 46

Mennonites. These texts were recorded after the speaker had practiced the text several times. For the second group, namely the Canadian Mennonites, a bilingual English/ Plautdietsch speaker was given the task of reading the English and Plautdietsch texts. The same method was used for recording this speaker as mentioned above. The Texts in English, Spanish and Plautdietsch were translations of one another. In order to distract participants, speakers with similar sounding voices read the same texts in both languages.

The participants were played the recordings and asked to rate each speaker based on a variety of traits. In matched-guise studies, half of the traits rated by participants are related to the dimension of status, whereas the rest of the traits are based on the dimension of solidarity (Kircher, p22). According to Kircher, international research has proved that these two dimensions are independent in terms of language attitudes, and that identities of speakers do tend to be evaluated based on these two primary dimensions (see Ryan et al., 1984; Genesee & Holobow, 1989 in Kircher, p22). Status-related traits typical used in matched-guise experiments include intelligence, education, ambition, leadership and dependability; and solidarity-related traits typically include kindness, warmth, likeabilitiy, sociability, and humour (c.f. Genesee&Holobow,1989; Kircher, 2014; Lambert et al., 1960). Therefore, these traits were included in the evaluation booklet given to participants. The participants are played one recording and asked to rate the speaker’s traits on a scale of 1 – 6, with one being “not at all” and 6 being “very”, for example, not at all likeable or very likeable. The Likert scale for evaluation:

The person is. . . 1 . Very [target attitude] 2. Quite [target attitude] 3. [target attitude] 4. Only slightly [target attitude] 5. Not very [target attitude] 6. Not [target attitude] at all.

They received the same evaluation scale for each speaker and asked to fill out the evaluation after each recording, rather than to rate all speakers after hearing all recordings. The recordings with the same voice (the matched-guise voices) were spaced out in order to distract participants from the fact that they had heard the same voice twice. Each participant heard a total of 6 recordings, with the matched guise voices as recording 1 and 6. The other 4 voices were either 2 English or 2 Spanish voices speaking a different sentence of the same length, and 2 Plautdietsch sentences, again of the same length.

47

3.4.3 Processing of Matched-Guise Data

The scale used for evaluation was numbered 1-6 so that participants were unable to choose a neutral evaluation, thus forcing either a more positive or a more negative evaluation. Evaluation booklets were collected from all of the participants and analysed based on the mean score given to each speaker by each participant. The Spanish (Mexican) and English (Canadian) groups were analysed separately. As the sample group was fairly small, it was not necessary to use ANOVA statistical analysis techniques in this study. After calculating the mean score for each speaker to determine the level of prestige awarded to that speaker from the participants, results were calculated to determine if, on average, the matched- guised recordings were given more prestige when spoken in the global languages, Spanish and English, compared to the ones spoken in Plautdietsch.

4.Results

This section details the results of the PRAAT analysis of vowels and consonants as well as the lexical change study conducted by means of word elicitation. The results of the matched-guise research are also included in this section.

4.1 Acoustic Analysis of Dipthongs

The opening dipthongs studied, /oa/ and /ua/ are characteristic of Plautdietsch and a comparison between the Mexican Mennonites and Canadian Mennonites offers insights into any vowel changes that have taken place. Below are the results of an acoustic analysis of all participants using PRAAT to measure the F1 and F2 of the opening dipthongs. The mean scores provided:

Table 5: Frequencies of /oa/ Frequencies of /oa/ Aylmer Chihuahua F1 602.5 640.3 F2 1080.2 1193.4

The mean results from all participants shows very little difference between the two communities in terms of vowel frequencies. The F1 and F2 frequencies are slightly higher than those of the Canadian group, but the differences are far too minimal to indicate any significant variances between the two groups. The next table shows the mean results for the 48 opening dipthong /ua/: Table 6: Frequencies of /ua/ Frequencies of /oa/ Aylmer Chihuahua F1 430.2 390.4 F2 1170 1190

The F1 and F2 frequencies of the /ua/ dipthong in the two communities are once again very similar. This outcome proves that there is no major phonetic difference in the realization of /ua/ or /oa/ dipthongs.

4.1.2 Acoustic Analysis of VOT

The VOT of the plosive /k/, /t/, and /d/ phonemes were calculated using PRAAT to measure the VOT in milliseconds in /k/, /t/ and /d/ initial words from the word list read aloud by the participants. The mean VOT for each phoneme was then calculated for each group and compared to typical VOTs of the same phonemes in English and Spanish. The results are represented in the table below:

Table 7: Acoustic Analysis of VOT

Phoneme Aylmer Chihuahua Canadian Mexican English Spanish K 80.3 79.1 78 45 T 61.5 60.1 60 25 D 15.2 15.3 12 -80

The typical VOT values (Fowler, Carol et.al 2008, online) and the typical Spanish VOT values which range from 0–55 ms for voiceless stops and between −45and−235 ms for voiced stops in Spanish (Flege, J., & Eefting, W 1988, online and Lisker and Abramson 1964, online ), can be used to determine any cross-linguisitic interaction, namely if the VOTs in the Mennonite groups are more similar to English or Spanish than they are to each other. In this study, the VOTs of /k/,/t/, and /d/ were within the range of typical German VOTs. Taylor (1975) reports that typical German VOTs are about 60 ms for voiceless stops and less than 20 ms for voiced stops. The results do not show any indication that there is a cross- lingusitic interaction. As English and German VOTs are relatively similar, at least within the same ranges, it is not possible to claim with any certainty that the similarities in the 49

Mennonite VOTs and the Canadian English VOTs are a result of sociolinguistic influence. It, can, however, be concluded by this study that the similarities between the Aylmer and Chihuahua Mennonites are so close (almost identical) that one must assume that there is no phonetic difference between these plosives. Neither group came close to the typical Spanish VOTs and thus this study also proves that Spanish has had no significant impact on the VOTs of these consonants.

4.2 Lexical variation

To determine any lexical changes in Canadian and Mexican Plautdietsch since settlement in North America, a word elicitation technique was used. The following shows the individual responses of each participant to each image.

Image 2: Sweets

Table 8: Word elicitation results for the word ‘sweet”

Participant Word C1 Marzipan C2 Candy C3 Marzipan C4 Marzipan C5 Marzipan C6 Marzipan C7 Candy C8 Marzipan C9 Marzipan C10 Marzipan C11 Marzipan C12 Marzipan C13 Marzipan 50

M1 Marzipan M2 Marzipan M3 Marzipan M4 Marzipan M5 Marzipan M6 Marzipan M7 Marzipan M8 Marzipan M9 Marzipan M10 Marzipan M11 Marzipan M12 Marzipan M13 Marzipan

The use of the High German word marzipan is used in both Chihuahua and Aylmer as a hypernym for all sweets. The use of the same word in other German dialects is a specific type of sweet made up of almond meal and sugar. Some of the Canadian Mennonites used the word candy which is a typical Canadian English word for all types of sweets. This indicates that although the majority of the Aylmer Mennonites use the Plautdietsch word, some English has also entered their lexicon. In Chihuahua, however, the word marzipan was used by all participants, showing that Spanish has not had a strong influence on the use of this term.

Image 3: Sleeve

Table 9: Word elicitation results for the word “sleeve”

Participant Word C1 Meiw C2 Meiw C3 Meiw C4 Meiw C5 Meiw C6 Meiw 51

C7 Meiw C8 Meiw C9 Sleeve C10 Meiw C11 Meiw C12 Sleeve C13 Sleeve M1 Meiw M2 Meiw M3 Meiw M4 Meiw M5 Meiw M6 Meiw M7 Manga M8 Meiw M9 Manga M10 Meiw M11 Manga M12 Meiw

The word sleeve was referred to by almost all participants in both areas as meiw. The Spanish translation of the word, manga, was used three times and the English word was also used three times. Thus, the use of the global languages ( English and Spanish) was 25% of the time. This study is too limited to determine with certainty that Chortitza is used 75% of the time when referring to a sleeve, but it does still offer some insight.

Image 4: Wedding

Table 10: Word elicitation results for the word “wedding”

Participant Word 52

C1 Kjast C2 Kjast C3 Kjast C4 Kjast C5 Kjast C6 Jast C7 Kjast C8 Kjast C9 Kjast C10 Kjast C11 Kjast C12 Kjast C13 Kjast M1 Kjast M2 Kjast M3 Kjast M4 Kjast M5 Kjast M6 Kjast M7 Kjast M8 Kjast M9 Boda M10 Kjast M11 Kjast M12 Kjast

The term for wedding, Kjast, was used by almost all participants. There was one spelling variation from a Canadian participant, and one use of a Spanish word from a Mexican participant. This information indicates that the Plautdietsch version is almost always used.

Image 5: Watermelon

53

Table 11: Word elicitation results for the word “watermelon”

Participant Word C1 Arbus C2 Arbus C3 Wotamelloon C4 Arbus C5 Arbus C6 Wotamelloon C7 Arbus C8 Arbus C9 Arbus C10 Arbus C11 Wotamelloon C12 Arbus C13 Arbus M1 Arbus M2 Arbus M3 Arbus M4 Wotamelloon M5 Arbus M6 Arbus M7 Wotamelloon M8 Arbus M9 Arbus M10 Arbus M11 Wotamelloon M12 Arbus

When the study elicited the word watermelon, no English or Spanish variations were recorded. A Plautdietsch variation on the word was, however, elicited 3 times from the Mexican group and 3 times from the Canadian group. This variation would suggest that a lexical change took place after settlement in North America, but before the two groups split, as both groups used the same variation of the term.

54

Image 6: Cheese

Table 12: Word elicitation results for the term “cheese”

Participant Word C1 Seer C2 Seer C3 Seer C4 Seer C5 Kaese C6 Seer C7 Seer C8 Cheese C9 Seer C10 Seer C11 Seer C12 Seer C13 Seer M1 Seer M2 Seer M3 Seer M4 Seer M5 Seer M6 Seer M7 Seer M8 Cheddar M9 Seer M10 Seer M11 Seer M12 Seer M13 Seer

55

The Plautdietsch word for cheese was selected by almost all participants, indicating that there is no significant variation between the two groups. Two of the Canadian participants chose different words, and one of the Mexican Mennonites used the specific word cheddar, the majority of participants chose the Plautdietsch word.

Image 7: Bicycle

Table 13: Word elicitation results for the word “bicycle”

Participant Word C1 Flitzepee C2 Flitzepee C3 Flitz C4 Flitzepee C5 Flitzepee C6 Flitz C7 Flitz C8 Flitz C9 Flitzepee C10 Flitz C11 Flitzepee C12 Flitzepee C13 Flitz M1 Flitzepee M2 Flitz M3 Flitz M4 Flitzepee M5 Flitzepee M6 Flitz M7 Flitz M8 Flitz 56

M9 Flitzepee M10 Flitz M11 Flitz M12 Flitzepee

There seems to be no other term used by the Choritzia Mennonites in Chihuahua and Aylmer for the word bicycle, other than Flitzepee or Flitz. The original word is often clipped, but there is no suggestion of any variation between the two groups.

Image 8: Cup

Table 14: Word elicitation results for the term “cup”

Participant Word C1 Kuffel C2 Kufel C3 Kufell C4 Kuffel C5 Cup C6 Kuffel C7 Kuffel C8 Kuffel C9 Kuffel C10 Kuffel C11 Kufel C12 Kuffel C13 Kufel M1 Kuffel M2 Taza M3 Kuffel 57

M4 Kuffel M5 Kuffel M6 Kuffel M7 Kuffel M8 Kuffel M9 Kuffel M10 Kuffel M11 Kuffel M12 Kuffel

The elicited word for mug or cup was most often kuffel. One of the Aylmer Mennonites used an English term to describe the image, but generally the Plautdietsch word was used. One Mexican Mennonite used the Spanish term for the image, but again, the Plautdietsch word was generally chosen.

Image 9: Coffee

Table 15: Word elicitation results for the word “coffee”

Participant Word C1 Prips C2 Prips C3 Koffe C4 Prips C5 Prips C6 Koffe C7 Prips C8 Prips C9 Koffe C10 Prips C11 Prips C12 Koffe 58

C13 Prips M1 Prips M2 Prips M3 Kofe M4 Pripps M5 Koffe M6 Kofe M7 Prips M8 Prips M9 Prips M10 Prips M11 Prips M12 Prips

Similar to the word for watermelon, there seems to be a Plautdietsch variation for the word for coffee. Whereas the word prips was used more heavily, the term koffe or kofe was also elicited. Again, this would suggest a lexical change after migration to North America.

Image 10: Pocket

Table 16: Word elicitation results for the term “pocket”

Participant Word C1 Fupp C2 Fup C3 Fupp C4 Fupp C5 Fupp C6 Fupp C7 Fupp C8 Jeans 59

C9 Fupp C10 Fupp C11 Fupp C12 Fupp C13 Fupp M1 Fupp M2 Fupp M3 Fupp M4 Fup M5 Fupp M6 Fupp M7 Fupp M8 Fupp M9 Fupp M10 Fup M11 Fupp M12 Fupp

The word elicited from the pocket image had some spelling variation (dropping of the second “p”), but was used by all participants other than one Canadian. The participant who used the word jeans may not have realized that the image was of a pocket rather than a pair of jeans, so this might be the reason for the variance.

Image 11: Mud/Muddy

Table 17: Word elicitation results for the word “mud” or “muddy”

Participant Word C1 Blott C2 Blott C3 Blott 60

C4 Mud C5 Blot C6 Blott C7 Blot C8 Blott C9 Blot C10 Blot C11 Blot C12 Blott C13 Blott M1 Blot M2 Blott M3 Blott M4 Fango M5 Blott M6 Blot M7 Blot M8 Blot M9 Blott M10 Blott M11 Blott M12 Blott

The last image shown was of mud. All participants other than one Canadian and one Mexican used the Plautdietsch word Blott or Blot. This suggests that the two global languages have not had a noticeable effect on this lexical item.

4.3 Matched-Guise and Language Prestige

The matched-guise experiment was aimed at determining the status that either Spanish or English and Plautdietsch hold within each community. According to Genesee&Holobow,1989; Kircher, 2014; and Lambert et al., 1960, traits associated with status are connected with overt prestige and are connected to power and economic opportunity; and those traits which score highly on the solidarity dimension, are associated with appreciation and belonging and they are generally connected with the language variety 61

that a person uses to speak to close friends and families as this “acquires vital social meaning and comes to represent the social group with which one identifies” (Ryan et al., 1982, p. 9 in Kircher 2014). By investigating the ratings given by participants to speakers of each language, it is possible for the language attitude research to determine the level of prestige, either overt or covert, that the language has in the community. This section provides the mean scores within the communities:

Table 18: Matched-guise mean scores in Aylmer

TRAIT SPEAKER 1 SPEAKER SPEAKER 3 SPEAKER SPEAKER 5 SPEAKER 6 ( 2 (Plautdietsch) 4 (Plautdietsch) (English Plautdietsch (English) (English) matched-guise) matched- guise) Intelligent 4.2 2.1 3.8 2.8 4 2.6 Educated 3 2.2 3.2 3.4 3.9 2.9 Ambitious 4.5 2.4 4.1 3.1 3 2.8 Leader 3.2 2.5 3.1 2.6 3.5 2.4 Reliable 3.5 2.8 4.9 2.4 3.4 1.2 Kind 3.5 3.2 1.9 3.2 2.5 3 Friendly 1.7 2.5 1.9 3.2 2.6 2.9 Likeable 2.1 3.2 2.2 3.6 2.3 3.2 Social 2.2 3.2 2.1 3.5 1.9 3.2 Humerous 1.9 3 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.9 Mean 3.7 2.4 3.8 2.9 3.6 2.4 score: status Mean 2.8 3 2 2.5 3 3 score: solidarity

62

Table 19: Matched-guise mean scores in Chihuahua

TRAIT SPEAKER 1 SPEAKER SPEAKER 3 SPEAKER SPEAKER 5 SPEAKER 6 ( 2 (Plautdietsch) 4 (Plautdietsch) (Spanish Plautdietsch (Spanish) (Spanish) matched-guise) matched- guise) Intelligent 3.8 2.4 3.8 2.9 4.2 2.7 Educated 3 2.3 3.3 3.6 3.7 1.9 Ambitious 4.3 2.4 4.2 3.3 3 1.7 Leader 2.9 2.6 3.3 2.7 3.6 1.2 Reliable 3.5 2.9 4.1 2.2 3 1.2 Kind 3.5 3.1 1.7 3.1 2.3 3 Friendly 1.9 2.6 1.7 3.1 2.2 3.2 Likeable 2 3.3 2.6 3.7 2.4 3.5 Social 2.4 3.1 2.5 3.5 1.7 3.7 Humerous 1.9 3.2 2.1 3.2 2 2.9 Mean 3.5 2.5 3.7 2.9 3.5 1.7 score: status Mean 2.3 3 2.1 3.3 2.1 3.2 score: solidarity

The results of the matched-guise study are not surprising, as both communities tended to score Plautdietsch lower than the respective global languages in terms of the status characteristics and higher in terms of the solidarity characteristics. This indicates that the global languages, which were scored similarly by both groups, have a higher overt prestige than the Plautdietsch variety. However, in both communities, Plautdietsch was scored higher in terms of solidarity characteristics, which indicates a higher covert prestige. As overt and covert both play a role in language change or maintenance, this study makes an 63 argument for the strength of covert prestige over overt prestige as a contributing factor. This idea will be discussed further in the discussion section of this paper.

5.Discussion

This chapter is a discussion and reflection of my findings in connection with isolation and geographical and social diffusion. It begins with an initial discussion of Wolfram’s isolation principles as applied to both Mennonite communities, followed by a discussion of geographical and social diffusion based on the results. The third section of this chapter is a discussion of the research questions, which again are:

1. Is it possible to resist the pull of a global language and in doing so resist language change?

Sub-questions: 1. Are there any phonetic variances in sociolects from separate regions and to what extent do geographical and social factors influence language change?

2. Are there any lexical variances in sociolects from separate regions and to what extent do geographical and social factors influence language change?

3. To what degree does linguistic isolation play a role in linguistic change?

5.1 Principles of Isolation

As part of the theory on why there is minimal change within Mennonite communities or Plautdietsch speech communities in general, Wolfram’s 7 principles of isolation were used as a basis. The principles, as stated in chapter 2 are:

Principle 1. Dialect Exclusion: Lack of regular communication with speakers outside of the community impedes diffusion of regular change

Principle 2. Selective Change: Changes which spread quickly are ones that are socially evaluated as indexing the community.

Principle 3. Regionalization: Changes which spread in a physical space are independent from changes in the main community. They may result in either convergence or divergence, but they remain independent.

Principle 4. Social Marginalization: Communities begin to be viewed as “non-mainstream” and anything socially evaluated as specific to that community is marginalized. 64

Principle 5. Vernacular Congruity: Linguistic irregularities associated with the “mainstream” group are leveled in other marginalized communities.

Principle 6. Peripheral Community Heterogeneity: Small peripheral communities can tolerate high amounts of variation that do not correlate to social variables

Principle 7. Localized Identity: Dialect distinctiveness is frequently embraced as a sign of their unique local identity.

Wolfram 2004

After conducting the present research and spending time speaking with participants, as well as comparing my findings to the literature, many, if not all, of the abovementioned principles ring true. The reasons that principle 1, dialect exclusion as well as principle 4, social marginalization can be connected to the communities can be traced back to their Anabaptist roots. As mentioned in chapter 2, the Mennnonites were not only seen as being “non- mainsteam” but also defined by this from the beginning of the formation onwards. Perhaps the tensions between the religious groups in the 16th century (Catholic, Protestant, Anabaptist), the Mennonites had little contact to outside groups. Not only did they avoid the religious powers in the 16th century, but throughout their migration history, separatism from the main community where they were located remained important to them. Principle 7 can also be linked to the Mennonite separatism. The idea that language defines the Mennonites’ “unique local identity” can also be traced to their migratory history. As they relocated time after time, language was a stable factor that all group members shared, regardless of location (cf. Burns 2016). Language played a role in diaspora, especially between the groups that participated in this study. Not only did it remain important to speak to in-group members in their current locations, it was also important to the participants that they could still communicate with geographically distant relatives. Principle 2, selective change, can be seen in the fact that the Plautdietsch lexicon is influenced by certain migration locations. There are influences from Frisian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and several other languages. These “selective changes” were obviously accepted by the Mennonites and remain as part of their lexicon today.

After addressing these principles and applying them to the Mennonite participants from Canada and Mexico, it becomes clear that the voluntary isolation of the group from 65 main-stream society is a major contributing factor to language maintenance. The next sub- chapter provides a discussion of the glottometry model as applied to this study.

5.2 Social and Geographical Distance

Glottometry uses clustering to illustrate the motion of linguistic innovations through speech communities. The technique used in Glottometry usually focuses on communities that are linguistically unified, however, the present study considered Mennonites that are related speech islands found in separate locations. Using Johnstone’s theory that global speech communities can apply the value of location in two different ways, the first being that location can be used to reference a geographical location, and the second being that it can be used to reference a construct of social identity (Johnstone 2004, p66-70). According to Buns (2016, p32) Plautdietsch speech communities are, indeed, global speech communities at the macro level, although unlike the global languages referenced in this paper, people who are part of the Plautdietsch speech community are culturally and biologically related to other members of the speech community. They are thus islands at the micro level of social interaction. After completing this research, it becomes even more clear that social factors play more of a role than distance. This will be further discussed in the next sections.

5.3 Phonetic Change/ Variations

In this study, several phonetic aspects of the Chortitza Plautdietsch sociolect were examined. The results showed almost no variations between the two communities. Despite their geographical distance, it seems phonetic characteristics have remained the same. Applying the theory that social distance is a stronger influencing factor on language change or language maintenance, the results prove that geographical distance has played little to no role in language change. Additionally, the social distance, which is minimal, seems to have contributed to language maintenance in that the groups are socially almost identical and the language is phonetically similar, if not identical. A comparison to NHG also shows phonetic similarities.

5.4 Lexical Variations

As not only phonetic, but also lexical changes are indicative of overall language change, the present study also examined lexical aspects of the two speech communities. Similar to the phonetic results, no significant differences were detected between the two groups. There 66 were some spelling variances, which could be attributed to the fact that most Chortitza speakers do not write the language, but rather communicate orally. The fact that there are no major differences between the two groups of participants indicates that there has been no recent lexical change in the language, at least in respect to the terms used in this study. The geographical distance is fairly irrelevant, and the influence of the global languages, Spanish and English, also seems to be insignificant. However, this does not mean that lexical change has never taken place, as the terms used were all lexical items with an etymology rooted in languages that “main-stream” communities spoke during the Mennonite migrations in Europe. In summation, the results proved that geographical location played a much lesser role in language change and language maintenance than social distance.

5.5 Attitude and Language Prestige

A matched-guise approach was used in order to determine any overt or covert prestige associated with the global languages and the Chortitzia dialect. The suggestion to apply attitude studies to typical language change diffusion models such as the gravity model was suggested by Trudgil (cf. 1974) as the ideal accompaniment. The results of the matched- guise study showed clear indications that participants view either English or Spanish as having a high level of covert prestige compared to Plautdietsch, and Plautdietsch as having a high level of overt prestige compared to English or Spanish. Returning to Wolfram’s principles, the in-group social identity described in principle 7 is relevant. The results provide evidence that language is an important social identity marker, and that group identity (social factor) is a strong indicator of language change or maintenance. The fact that the participants scored the global language speakers higher in terms of status related characteristics proves that they do see a divide between in-group and out-group. However, these characteristics were also seen as prestigious, which might eventually result in language change as it becomes more and more important to be globally connected. The research question: To what degree does linguistic isolation and group solidarity play a role in linguistic change? can be effectively answered with the results of this portion of the research. Group solidarity as a social factor indicated by language prestige attitude studies plays a major role in language maintenance. The conclusion of this paper discusses final conclusions, limitations of the research, and further research questions.

67

6. Conclusion

The last chapter of this paper draws the final conclusions from the research and discusses limitations of the research, as well as possible areas of further study.

6.1 Final Conclusions

The aim of this study was to determine whether or not it is possible to resist the pull of a global language and in doing so resist language change. Based on the results of the research discussed in chapter 5, it would seem that this is, indeed, possible. The very limited linguistic differences between the communities studied proves that there must, indeed, be factors at play that promote language maintenance. Both the phonetic and lexical variances were so minimal that the conclusion drawn is that there is no difference between the two communities. Both communities, isolated according to wolfram’s principles, also showed the tendency to assign more overt prestige to the global language in their respective locations and more covert prestige to their sociolect. This could arguably be the strongest factor affecting the ability to maintain language despite encroaching global languages. The results also suggest that geographical distance plays little to no role in linguistic development in the case of these two Mennonite communities.

6.2 Limitations of Research

The main limitation of this research was the number of participants that took part in the study. If this number were to be increased, different results may have been found. Although caution was taken when choosing participants, it was not always possible to have all criteria fulfilled. More detailed results could have been provided if all participants were within the same age range or if different age groups had been compared. Age is a major factor in language change studies, and thus this would have been beneficial. Unfortunately, as it was already difficult to find enough willing participants, an age study could not be completed. Additionally, a gender comparison could have been completed as often men and women use language differently. Due to lack of resources, this was not completed.

6.3 Further Areas of Research

There are several other avenues that could be explored using this paper as a starting point. The study could be extended to include more lexical and phonetic features of the language. In fact, almost every consonant and vowel could be analyzed and further lexical variances 68 could be studied. In the case of both the lexical and phonetic features, age and gender could be included in order to provide more specific results. Another option for further research would be to include additional geographic locations in order to determine if other areas where Chortitza is spoken share similar characteristics to the groups in Aylmer and Chihuahua.

69

Works Cited Auer, P. (2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera and D. Geeraerts (eds.) Perspectives on Variation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 7–42. Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N. and Szanton Blanc, C. (1994) Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. New York: Gordon and Breach.

Burns, R. (2016). New World Mennonite Low German An Investigating of Changes in Progress. Berkley University. Web. Accessed 06.06.2017. Burkholder,L. (1957). "The Anabaptist view of discipleship." The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision, edited by G.F. Hershberger, pp. 135-151. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press. Castro, P. (2004). The" Return" of the Mennonites from the Cuauhtémoc Region to Canada: A Perspective from Mexico. Journal of Mennonite Studies, 22(1), 25-38.

Clasen, C. (1963) “The Sociology of Swabian Anabaptism.” Church History, vol. 32, no. 2, , pp. 150–180. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3163621

Daller, M. (2005). Language Shift and Group Identity: Mennonite Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Germany. Davies, A., & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Dipple, G. “The Radical Reformation Will Not Be Televised.” The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, 2009, pp. 242–245. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40541165.

Epp, R. (1993). The Story of Low German & Plautdietsch: Tracing a Language Across the Globe. Hillsboro: Reader's Press.

Ernst, P. (2005). Deutsche Sprachgeschichte: Eine Einführung in die diachrone Sprachwissen-schaft des Deutschen. Wien: WUV. Flege, J., & Eefting, W. (1988). Imitation of a VOT continuum by native speakers of English and Spanish: Evidence from phonetic category formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 729-740. Web. Fowler, C et al. (2008). “Cross Language Phonetic Influences on the Speech of French- English Bilinguals.” Journal of phonetics 36.4: 649–663. PMC. Web. Friedmann, R. (1955). “Recent Interpretations of Anabaptism.” Church History, vol. 24, no. 2. Garrett, P. “Matched and Verbal Guise Studies: Focus on English.” (2010). Attitudes to Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 53–69. Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. 132–151. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3161651. 70

Genesee,F.,& Holobow,N.E.(1989).Change and stability in intergroup perceptions.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8(1). “High German Consonant Shift.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 May 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift. Hillerbrand, H.J., ed. (1968). The Protestant Reformation. New York: Harper and Row. Huxman, Schultz S, and Biesecker-Mast, G. (2004). “In the World But Not of It: Mennonite Traditions as Resources for Rhetorical Invention.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 539–554. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41939952.

Janzen, William. (1977). u: Report on a ten day Visit with Kanadier Colony Mennonites of Mexico. Mennonite Central Committee. Ottawa. Johnstone, Barbara (2004). Place, Globalization, and Linguistic Variation. Carmen Fought (ed.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–83.

Kinkade, M. Adelaar, W. (1991). The decline of Native Languages in Canada. In R. Robins and E. Uhlenbeck, eds., 157-176 Kircher, R. (2014). Thirty years after Bill 101: A contemporary perspective on attitudes towards English and French in Montreal.Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 20– 50. Labov, W. (I966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lambert, W.E., R.C. Hodgson, R.C. Gardner, and S. Fillenbaum. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60.1: 44-51. Lisker, L. & Abramson, A. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops. Word, 20, 284–422. Web. Lehmann, W.P. (ed.) (1967). A reader in the nineteenth-century historical linguisitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Martens, H. (1975). Mennonites from Mexico: Their Immigration and Settlement in Canada. Research Report. Ottawa: Canada Manpower and Immigration Mennen, Ineke. (2016). Class hand-out. Theoretical Lingustics VO (Phonetics and Phonology). University of Graz. Graz, Austria. 2016.

Mesthrie, R. and Leap, William (2009): Language contact 1: Maintenance, shift and death. In: Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. and Leap, W.: Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, pp. 242-270.

Mihm, A. (2000). Die Rolle der Umgangssprachen seit der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. In W. Besch et al. (eds.). 2107–2137.

“Plautdietsch, a Germanic Language Related to Dutch and Frisian, Spoken in Siberia.” Mercator Research Centre, 2018, www.mercator-research.eu/en/projekten/endangered- 71

languages-and-archives/plautdietsch-a-germanic-language-related-to-dutch-and-frisian- spoken-in-siberia/.

“Plautdietsch Language.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 February 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautdietsch_language.

Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. “Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker innovation1 | Journal of Linguistics.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 28 Nov. 2008, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics//linguistic- change-social-network-and-speaker- innovation1/EB30A7117CC09F6EDA5255BF9D788D5A.

Nerbonne, J. “Measuring the Diffusion of Linguistic Change.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365.1559 (2010): 3821–3828.

Oman, C. W. C. “The German Peasant War of 1525.” The English Historical Review, vol. 5, no. 17, pp. 65–94. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/546556. Ryan, E.B., Hewstone, M., & Giles, H. (1984). Language and intergroup attitudes. In J. Eiser (Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 135–160). New York: Springer. Sawatsky, Rodney J. “Domesticated Sectarianism: Mennonites in the U.S. and Canada in Comparative Perspective.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie, vol. 3, no. 2, 1978, pp. 233–244. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3340280.

Seguy, J. Les ensembles l’anabaptist Mennonites de France. Paris 1977.

Séguy J. 1971La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Rev. Linguist. Romane 35, 335–357, online. Simons, M. The True Christian Faith. 1556. p. 399 Taylor,D.Q. (1975).Theinadequacyofbipolarityanddistinctive features: The German ‘voiced/voiceless’ consonants. In P. A. Reich (ed.), The second lacus forum, pp. 107–119. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Tolksdorf, U. 1990. Die Mundarten Danzigs und seines Umlands. In. Danzig in acht Jahrhun- derten. Beiträge zur Geschichte eines hansischen und preussischen Mittelpunktes. Hg. von Bernhart Jähnig und Peter Letkemann. Münster: Copernicus.

Trudgill, P. (1974). “Linguistic Change and Diffusion: Description and Explanation in Sociolinguistic Dialect Geography.” Language in Society, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 215–246. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4166764.

Urry J. (2010). 'The Mennonite Commonwealth in Imperial Russia revisted', The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 84, 2, pp. 229-247.

Wells, C. J. German: A Linguistic History to 1945. Oxford, 1985. Online. 72

Wogaman, P. (2011) Christian Ethics: a Historical Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press.

Wolfram, Walter. (2004). The Sociolinguistic Construction of Remnant Dialects. Carmen Fought (ed.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 84–106.

Images

Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 256

Stoeckle, P & Svenstrup, C. (2011). Language variation and (de-) standardization processes in Germany. 83-90.