DOCSLIB.ORG

Cross-Linguistic Influence in Bilingual Motion Event Encoding

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Fribourg Department of Languages and Literatures Section of Multilingualism and Foreign Language Teaching Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual motion event encoding: The role of language dominance and language mode Ladina Brugger from Jenins, GR Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde¨ an der Philosophischen Fakultat¨ der Universitat¨ Freiburg in der Schweiz submitted on September 11, 2017 Accepted by the Faculty of Humanities on November 9, 2017 at the proposal of Prof. Dr. Raphael Berthele, University of Fribourg (first advisor) Prof. Dr. Bernhard Walchli,¨ University of Stockholm (second advisor) published in 2019 Abstract Patterns of cross-linguistic influence can be traced in bilingual speakers’ speech. If a speaker is bilingual in two typologically different languages, his or her lexicalization patterns can show convergence of two distinct systems for different linguistic aspects. Drawing on previous studies, the extent of cross-linguistic influence can depend on factors such as dominance configurations between the languages and the state of language activation (i.e. the language mode). Cross-linguistic differences between French and (Swiss-)German have been documented extensively in the domain of motion. These differences go beyond the lexical and grammatical levels and concern semantic-structural aspects of language. A striking semantic-structural difference between the languages can be found in Manner and Path of motion, i.e. the way a figure moves and the path he or she covers. In French, a Verb-framed language, the Path of a motion event tends to be expressed in the verb, the Manner of motion is typically expressed in adverbial elements. In (Swiss-)German, a Satellite-framed language, the description of motion events usually show the mapping of the Manner component on the verb and the mapping of the Path component on verb-external elements. Patterns of semantic convergence manifest in, for instance, an increasing number of manner verbs in French constructions or an increasing use of path verbs in German. This thesis sets out to combine a set of interrelated questions on the role of dominance constellation between a person’s languages, the role of language mode and how these factors can have an effect on cross-linguistic influence in motion event descriptions. In this way, the study aims to connect fundamental questions of bilingual production with questions on semantic convergence and variation within motion event description. To this end, oral descriptions of motion events from 154 bilingual speakers have been elicited by means of video clips showing self-propelled motion events. The speakers show varying degrees of language dominance, which is assessed via an online questionnaire. They were asked to describe 60 animated video clips, 30 critical items (translational motion events) and 30 filler items (caused motion events) in four conditions: a monolingual mode in German, a monolingual mode in French, i a bilingual mode once with critical items in French and filler items in German and a bilingual mode with critical items in German and filler items in French. The results indicate that — in line with previous studies — dominance configurations show an effect on certain variables, but do not influence both languages to the same degree. The manipulation of language mode, however, does not lead to the patterns expected in the present study. The outcomes further demonstrate that besides cross-linguistic influence, certain patterns may be attributed to general patterns of bilingual encoding. Finally, it will be argued that a mix of factors contribute to variations in bilingual motion event encoding — factors, which are problematic to unravel and should be modeled simultaneously. ii Acknowledgements This thesis is the product of several contributions from people whose comments, suggestions, and critiques supported and enriched my work over the past three years. The project primarily received financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (project number 156121; title: Motion at the linguistic border. On the influence of language dominance and language mode on the expression of motion in bilinguals [French-German]). A grant awarded by the University of Fribourg covered salaries of the collaborators in data collection, and the Institute of Multilingualism in Fribourg generously compensated the speakers for their participation. First, my thanks go to my supervisor Raphael Berthele, who allowed me to work on this project and investigate his original ideas and who incessantly provided support, encouragement and constructive suggestions. Special thanks are in order for Jan Vanhove, who inspired this thesis not only through his statistics tutorials and blog posts but also through his helpful suggestions and support. I thank him for the patience and time he has dedicated to my questions. I am also very much obliged to my fellow PhD students and colleagues with whom I worked or encountered during this time at the Department and/or the Institute of Multilingualism in Fribourg. Special thank is also due to Elsa Liste Lamas for her help in the coding procedure. Thanks to all 154 speakers who participated in the study and allowed me to analyze the linguistic variations in their motion event descriptions. I am also grateful to Flavio Manetsch, Simon Gauthier and Laure Chaignat for helping me collect the data. Finally, my warmest thanks go to Rebecca, Roman, Audrey, Laura, Lucia, Seraina and Janine, for their comments and suggestions on a draft of a chapter in this document, and to my family and my better half, Gilles, for their encouragement and moral support. Thank you. iii Contents List of Figures xi List of Tables xiii Introduction 1 1 Motion event encoding 5 1.1 The study of space, language and cognition . .5 1.2 Defining motion events and types of movement . 10 1.3 Semantic components of motion events . 11 1.3.1 Event integration . 11 1.3.2 Overlapping and divergent semantic distinctions . 13 1.4 Motion typology . 14 1.4.1 Development of a motion typology . 15 1.4.2 Satellite-framed languages . 18 1.4.3 Verb-framed languages . 20 1.5 Critique and redefined typologies . 22 1.5.1 Dichotomy, trichotomy or a continuum? . 22 1.5.2 Variation: Intratypological, diatopic and individual . 26 1.5.3 Revised notions and constructional variation . 29 1.6 The Boundary-Crossing Constraint . 31 1.7 Languages in the present study . 34 1.7.1 French . 34 1.7.2 (Swiss)-German . 37 2 Bilingual lexicalization 41 2.1 Defining bilingual . 41 2.2 Cross-linguistic influence . 42 2.2.1 Transfer . 43 2.2.2 Convergence . 43 2.2.3 Switches and slips . 44 v CONTENTS 2.2.4 Strategies of avoidance . 45 2.2.5 Directionality . 45 2.2.6 Affected domains and factors interacting with CLI . 46 2.2.7 Intentionality and normativity . 46 2.3 Bilingual dominance . 47 2.3.1 Dominance vs. proficiency . 47 2.3.2 Components of dominance . 48 2.3.3 Gradual vs. categorical understanding of dominance . 50 2.3.4 Assessing dominance . 51 2.4 Language mode . 52 2.4.1 Defining language mode . 53 2.4.2 Language mode research . 54 2.4.3 Manipulation of language mode . 55 2.4.3.1 Language activation . 56 2.4.3.2 Conflicting variables in controlling language mode . 57 2.5 The interplay of language dominance and language mode . 58 3 Cross-linguistic influence in motion event descriptions 61 3.1 Why study CLI in the motion event domain? . 61 3.2 Literature review on the acquisition and use of typologically different languages . 63 3.2.1 Language pairs . 63 3.2.2 Methods . 65 3.2.2.1 Stimuli and data elicitation . 65 3.2.2.2 Participants’ profile and influencing factors . 66 3.2.3 Occurrence and directionality of CLI . 67 3.2.3.1 Satellite-framed patterns in a V-language . 68 3.2.3.2 Verb-framed patterns in an S-language . 71 3.3 Implications, methodological concerns and research gaps . 74 3.4 Preceding studies to the project . 76 3.4.1 Preceding study I: Language dominance effects . 77 3.4.2 Preceding study II: Language mode effects . 78 4 Methodology 81 4.1 Hypotheses . 81 4.2 Materials . 84 4.2.1 The Bilingual Language Profile . 84 4.2.2 Language Tests . 86 4.2.3 Stimuli . 87 vi CONTENTS 4.2.3.1 Critical items . 88 4.2.3.2 Filler items . 88 4.2.3.3 Randomized block design . 89 4.2.4 Texts to control for language mode . 89 4.3 Procedure and data collection design . 90 4.3.1 Piloting . 91 4.3.2 Groups, sessions and scheduling . 92 4.3.3 Instructions and language mode manipulation . 93 4.4 Transcriptions and coding decisions . 94 4.4.1 Transcriptions . 94 4.4.2 Coding lines . 94 4.4.3 Inter-rater-reliability check and corrections . 96 4.5 Participants . 97 4.6 Methods of data analyses . 98 4.6.1 Qualitative and descriptive data analyses . 98 4.6.2 Statistical modeling . 99 4.6.2.1 Generalized mixed-effect models . 99 4.6.2.2 Fitting and analyzing generalized mixed effect models 100 5 French and German motion event descriptions 103 5.1 Data summary . 103 5.2 Inter-rater reliability . 104 5.3 General cross-linguistic differences . 105 5.3.1 The description of Path . 107 5.3.2 The description of Manner . 109 5.3.3 Simple and complex constructions . 111 5.3.4 Correlation of semantic components . 114 5.4 Participant-related variation . 115 5.5 Item-related variation . 118 5.5.1 Manner saliency . 120 5.5.2 Path type and boundary-crossing items . 121 5.6 Alternative constructions and cross-linguistic influence . 124 5.6.1 Missing description of boundary-crossing . 124 5.6.1.1 Omission of Path .
Recommended publications
  • UNIVERSITY of MALAYA Universitykuala LUMPUR of Malaya

    UNIVERSITY of MALAYA Universitykuala LUMPUR of Malaya

    MIMETIC WORDS AND LEXICALIZATION PATTERNS IN A JAPANESE NOVEL AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION NG KAR PEK FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA UniversityKUALA LUMPUR of Malaya 2017 i MIMETIC WORDS AND LEXICALIZATION PATTERNS IN A JAPANESE NOVEL AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION NG KAR PEK DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LINGUISTICS FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR University of Malaya 2017 i UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate: NG KAR PEK Registration/Matric No.: TGC 120007 Name of Degree: MASTER OF LINGUISTICS Title of Dissertation (“this Work”): MIMETIC WORDS AND LEXICALIZATION PATTERNS IN A JAPANESE NOVEL AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION Field of Study: COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS I do solemnly and sincerely declare that: (1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor ought I reasonably to know that the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every right in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth shall be the owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained; (6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work, I have infringed any copyright whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may be determined by UM.
  • William Snyder the Compounding Parameter (TCP)

    William Snyder the Compounding Parameter (TCP)

    To appear in Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally (eds.) Telicity, Change, and State . Oxford: OUP. 1 PARAMETER THEORY AND MOTION PREDICATES William Snyder The Compounding Parameter (TCP) of (Snyder 1995, 2001) has been linked to a number of the same points of cross-linguistic variation that Leonard Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000) addresses in his well-known verb-framed / satellite-framed typology. Talmy differentiates between languages in which path-of-motion is normally encoded in the main verb of a clause ("verb-framed" languages), and those in which path-of-motion is more commonly expressed outside the verb ("satellite-framed" languages). Both the English type of verb-particle construction (where the particle can be separated from the verb by a phrasal constituent, as in Mary pulled the lid off ) and the English adjectival resultative construction ( John wiped the table clean ) have been argued to depend on the positive setting of TCP (e.g. Snyder 2001, Sugisaki & Isobe 2000); and both are typical of Talmy's satellite-framed languages (e.g. Talmy 1985:68,104). Likewise, researchers have argued that a spatial PP (such as under the bridge ) can convert a pure manner-of-motion activity predicate (Sue swam for/*in 15 minutes ) into an accomplishment ( Sue swam under the bridge in 15 minutes ) only in [+ TCP] languages (Beck & Snyder 2001, Gehrke 2008), and only in satellite-framed languages (cf. Aske 1989:6-7). This chapter examines the precise role of TCP in the linguistic expression of motion events. One of my central claims will be that TCP should be understood as the availability, or unavailability, of a specific rule of semantic composition, which I term To appear in Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally (eds.) Telicity, Change, and State .
  • The Politics and Ideologies of Pluricentric German in L2 Teaching

    The Politics and Ideologies of Pluricentric German in L2 Teaching

    Julia Ruck Webster Vienna Private University THE POLITICS AND IDEOLOGIES OF PLURICENTRIC GERMAN IN L2 TEACHING Abstract: Despite a history of rigorous linguistic research on the regional variation of German as well as professional initiatives to promote German, Austrian, and Swiss Standard German as equal varieties, there is still a lack of awareness and systematic incorporation of regional varieties in L2 German teaching. This essay follows two goals: First, it reviews the development of the pluricentric approach in the discourse on L2 German teaching as well as the political and ideological preconditions that form the backdrop of this discussion. Particular emphasis will be given to institutional tri-national collaborations and the standard language ideology. Second, by drawing on sociolinguistic insights on the use and speaker attitudes of (non-)standard varieties, this contribution argues that the pluricentric focus on national standard varieties in L2 German teaching falls short in capturing the complex socioculturally situated practices of language use in both (often dialectally-oriented) everyday and (often standard-oriented) formal and official domains of language use. I argue that the pluricentric approach forms an important step in overcoming the monocentric bias of one correct Standard German; however, for an approach to L2 German teaching that aims at representing linguistic and cultural diversity, it is necessary to incorporate both standard and non-standard varieties into L2 German teaching. Keywords: L2 German w language variation w language ideologies w language politics Ruck, Julia. “The Politics and Ideologies of Pluricentric German in L2 Teaching.” Critical Multilingualism Studies 8:1 (2020): pp. 17–50. ISSN 2325–2871.
  • Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computational Typology and Multilingual NLP, Pages 1–9 June 10, 2021

    Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computational Typology and Multilingual NLP, Pages 1–9 June 10, 2021

    SIGTYP 2021 The 3rd Workshop on Research in Computational Typology and Multilingual NLP Proceedings of the Workshop June 10, 2021 ©2021 The Association for Computational Linguistics Order copies of this and other ACL proceedings from: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 209 N. Eighth Street Stroudsburg, PA 18360 USA Tel: +1-570-476-8006 Fax: +1-570-476-0860 [email protected] ISBN 978-1-954085-34-3 ii SIGTYP 2021 is the third edition of the workshop for typology-related research and its integration into multilingual Natural Language Processing (NLP). The workshop is co-located with the 2021 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2021), which takes place virtually this year. Our workshop includes a shared task on robust language identification from speech. The final program of SIGTYP contains 4 keynote talks, 3 shared task papers, 10 archival papers, and 14 extended abstracts. This workshop would not have been possible without the contribution of its program committee, to whom we would like to express our gratitude. We should also thank Claire Bowern, Miryam de Lhoneux, Johannes Bjerva, and David Yarowsky for kindly accepting our invitation as invited speakers. The workshop is generously sponsored by Google. Please find more details on the SIGTYP 2021 website: https://sigtyp.github.io/ws2021. html iii Organizing Committee: Ekaterina Vylomova, University of Melbourne Elizabeth Salesky, Johns Hopkins University Sabrina Mielke, Johns Hopkins University Gabriella Lapesa, University of Stuttgart Ritesh Kumar, Bhim Rao Ambedkar University Harald Hammarström, Uppsala University Ivan Vulic,´ University of Cambridge Anna Korhonen, University of Cambridge Roi Reichart, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Edoardo M.
  • Revising Talmy's Typological Classification of Complex Events

    Revising Talmy's Typological Classification of Complex Events

    Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions William Croft, University of New Mexico, USA, [email protected] Jóhanna Barðdal, University of Bergen, Norway, [email protected] Willem Hollmann, University of Lancaster, UK, [email protected] Violeta Sotirova, University of Nottingham, UK, [email protected] Chiaki Taoka, Kobe College, Japan, [email protected] 1. Introduction In this chapter, we critically examine Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. Talmy first proposed a typological classification of motion event constructions over thirty years ago (Talmy 1972, 1974, 1985); he later extended his typological classification to event constructions in general, particularly, constructions expressing events with resulting states (Talmy 1991, 2000). Talmy’s extension of his typological classification reflects a parallel generalization of the analysis of resultative constructions to include constructions of motion events with a path to a destination (e.g. Goldberg 1995, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2001). Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions has been extremely influential in linguistics and psycholinguistics. More recently, however, it has started to be modified, in order to account for languages that do not quite fit into the classification. New types have been proposed, by Talmy himself and by others. We developed a similar but more detailed typology independently of the analyses offered by other researchers. We propose two revisions to Talmy’s typological classification (a brief outline is found in Croft 2003:220-24). The first is given in (1): (1) Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions must be elaborated to include additional types.
  • A Look Into the Acquisition of English Motion Event Conflation by Native Speakers of Chinese and Japanese

    A Look Into the Acquisition of English Motion Event Conflation by Native Speakers of Chinese and Japanese

    PACLIC 24 Proceedings 563 A Look into the Acquisition of English Motion Event Conflation by Native Speakers of Chinese and Japanese Ryan Spring Graduate School of International Cultural Studies, Tohoku University Aoba-ku Kawauchi 41, Sendai City, 980-8576, Japan [email protected] Abstract. Since Talmy (2000 a&b) introduced his linguistic typology based on event conflation, it has been the source of much debate and ongoing research. One area that can particularly benefit from such research is the field of Second Language Acquisition. Cadierno (2008), Inagaki (2002) and many others have attempted to unveil the differences and difficulties that occur when learning a second language that is of a different type than one's native language. However, the current research in this area has thus far only dealt with satellite-framed and verb-framed languages. According to Slobin (2004), Chen and Guo (2008) and others, languages such as Chinese can be considered to be of a third type, known as equipollently-framed languages. This paper presents research that has attempted to observe the differences and similarities in the acquisition of a satellite-framed language (English) by native speakers of a verb-framed language (Japanese) and an equipollently- framed language (Chinese). Keywords: Second Language Acquisition, Motion Events, Event Conflation, Cognitive Linguistics, Equipollently-framed Language 1 Introduction Talmy (2000 a&b) introduced the idea of complex events that he termed 'macro-events'. He said that such events can be conceptualized as being comprised of two simpler events and the relation between them. For example, (1a), shown below, can be conceptualized as one event, and thus expressed in one sentence or phrase, but is actually made up of the two events, shown in (1b) and (1c).
  • Discourse Markers of Clarification and Causality in Maghrebi and Egyptian Dialects: a Socio-Pragmatic Perspective

    Discourse Markers of Clarification and Causality in Maghrebi and Egyptian Dialects: a Socio-Pragmatic Perspective

    DISCOURSE MARKERS OF CLARIFICATION AND CAUSALITY IN MAGHREBI AND EGYPTIAN DIALECTS: A SOCIO-PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE BY ABDELAADIM BIDAOUI DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Marina Terkourafi, Chair Professor Elabbas Benmamoun Associate Professor Anna Maria Escobar Associate Professor Zsuzsanna Fagyal ABSTRACT Discourse Markers (DMs) have traditionally been viewed as elements which do not contribute to the truth-conditional meaning of an utterance or to its syntactic and semantic make-up. Contrary to those linguists who found the study of DMs marginal, other researchers have been interested in the study of these expressions. Using a Relevance Theoretic framework (Sperber and Wilson, 1986, 1995; Blakemore, 1987), this dissertation posits that DMs signal pragmatic inferences that are performed by the addressee. Specifically, I argue that the notion of procedural meaning, a set of instructions which guides the inferential phase of utterance interpretation, offered by Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1995; Blakemore, 2002) should be at the core of utterance interpretation in general and interpretation of DMs in particular. This dissertation is based on two complementary studies: the main and supplementary study. The main study consists of data collected during face-to-face interactions, while the supplementary study consists of online data taken from the news outlet Al Jazeera. The partcipants in the main study are members of an Arabic diasporic community in the U.S. and represent three dialects of Arabic: Moroccan, Algerian, and Egyptian dialect.
  • Introduction to the History of the English Language

    Introduction to the History of the English Language

    INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Written by László Kristó 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 4 NOTES ON PHONETIC SYMBOLS USED IN THIS BOOK ................................................. 5 1 Language change and historical linguistics ............................................................................. 6 1.1 Language history and its study ......................................................................................... 6 1.2 Internal and external history ............................................................................................. 6 1.3 The periodization of the history of languages .................................................................. 7 1.4 The chief types of linguistic change at various levels ...................................................... 8 1.4.1 Lexical change ........................................................................................................... 9 1.4.2 Semantic change ...................................................................................................... 11 1.4.3 Morphological change ............................................................................................. 11 1.4.4 Syntactic change ...................................................................................................... 12 1.4.5 Phonological change ..............................................................................................
  • INTELLIGIBILITY of STANDARD GERMAN and LOW GERMAN to SPEAKERS of DUTCH Charlotte Gooskens1, Sebastian Kürschner2, Renée Van Be

    INTELLIGIBILITY of STANDARD GERMAN and LOW GERMAN to SPEAKERS of DUTCH Charlotte Gooskens1, Sebastian Kürschner2, Renée Van Be

    INTELLIGIBILITY OF STANDARD GERMAN AND LOW GERMAN TO SPEAKERS OF DUTCH Charlotte Gooskens 1, Sebastian Kürschner 2, Renée van Bezooijen 1 1University of Groningen, The Netherlands 2 University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper reports on the intelligibility of spoken Low German and Standard German for speakers of Dutch. Two aspects are considered. First, the relative potential for intelligibility of the Low German variety of Bremen and the High German variety of Modern Standard German for speakers of Dutch is tested. Second, the question is raised whether Low German is understood more easily by subjects from the Dutch-German border area than subjects from other areas of the Netherlands. This is investigated empirically. The results show that in general Dutch people are better at understanding Standard German than the Low German variety, but that subjects from the border area are better at understanding Low German than subjects from other parts of the country. A larger amount of previous experience with the German standard variety than with Low German dialects could explain the first result, while proximity on the sound level could explain the second result. Key words Intelligibility, German, Low German, Dutch, Levenshtein distance, language contact 1. Introduction Dutch and German originate from the same branch of West Germanic. In the Middle Ages these neighbouring languages constituted a common dialect continuum. Only when linguistic standardisation came about in connection with nation building did the two languages evolve into separate social units. A High German variety spread out over the German language area and constitutes what is regarded as Modern Standard German today.
  • CHAPTER FIVE Dialect and Standard Language in the Other German

    CHAPTER FIVE Dialect and Standard Language in the Other German

    CHAPTER FIVE Dialect and Standard Language in the Other German-speaking Countries West Germany (the entity which used to be the Federal Republic of Germany) had the widest range of native dialects of any of the German-speaking countries1. These dialects include Low German, Middle German and Upper German dialects. The German Democratic Republic, now a part of the Federal Republic of Germany, encompassed primarily Low German and East Middle German dialects. Austrian dialects, with the exception of a few Alemannic dialects in Vorarlberg, are exclusively Bavarian (Upper German). In Switzerland the dialects are Alemannic (Upper German), as they are in neighboring Liechtenstein. In Luxemburg the dialects are Moselle Franconian (West Middle German). In the part of Belgium which was part of Germany until the end of World War I there are about 150,000 speakers of West Middle German dialects, and in France there are speakers of Alemannic (Upper German) in Elsaß and Rhine Franconian (West Middle German) in Lothringen. Germany, using the term to include the old Federal Republic (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) is the only country to have dialects from all of the major dialect groupings, as well as from Frisian, making it all the more obvious why Germany itself needed a standard language. The situation is somewhat different in the other countries. France and Belgium will not be discussed here beyond remarking that German is very much a minority language in both countries and that the German-speaking populations look to neighboring West Germany for their norms, both written and spoken.
  • Am-Progressives in Swabian: Some Evidence for Noun Incorporation

    Am-Progressives in Swabian: Some Evidence for Noun Incorporation

    AM-PROGRESSIVES IN SWABIAN: SOME EVIDENCE FOR NOUN INCORPORATION Bettina Spreng University of Saskatchewan 1. Introduction This paper summarizes the initial findings of an investigation into the syntactic and semantic properties of progressive constructions in Swabian, an Alemannic dialect of German. It is spoken in the Southwest of Germany in the state of Baden Württemberg and in parts of Bavaria. The data is elicited from speakers of a variant of Swabian spoken in Upper Swabia, an area surrounding the city of Ravensburg, located north of Lake Constance. Data was elicited from three female speakers of different ages (48, 69, 75) with low mobility. There is very little in-depth work on the syntactic properties of Swabian and, to my knowledge, no work on this particular variant. The construction that is being investigated is found in various dialects and registers of German but tends to be relegated to footnotes or assumed to be restricted to dialects in the Rhineland area, especially Cologne (Duden 2005). It is thus often named the Rhenish Progressive ‘Rheinische Verlaufsform’ in some of the descriptive and theoretical literature (Thieroff 1992, Vater 1994). However, the construction may be found in various variants of German including written German (Gárgyán 2014) despite many descriptive grammars insisting that it is restricted to one or two dialect areas or to the vernacular (Fagan 2009, Duden 2005). It thus deserves a closer look. The construction I am particularly interested in is the AM- progressive that seems to share some properties with the BEIM-progressive. Some work addressing the construction has been done for individual dialects such as Colognian (Bhatt and Schmidt 1993), Standard, Ruhr, and Low German (Andersson 1989), and Hessian (Flick and Kuhmichel 2013).
  • Un-Swiss’ Words in German Swiss Literature

    Un-Swiss’ Words in German Swiss Literature

    ‘Un-Swiss’ Words in German Swiss Literature Felicity Rash This article takes an informal look at some standard German words that, although they occur in written texts, seem out of place in texts produced in Switzerland. Whereas Standard German vocabulary is obviously unwelcome in spoken Swiss German dialects, and its presence may cause consternation among more traditionally inclined German-speaking Swiss, such words are more difficult to assess in the written language, not least because many German-speaking Swiss consider any form of standard German, even their own Swiss Standard German, to be a ‘foreign’ language. The opinions of native speakers of Swiss German are sought in order to answer the question why some standard German words seem particularly ‘un-Swiss’, while others are accepted without complaint. Introduction In German-speaking (GS) Switzerland a diglossic situation exists in which two varieties of German are used: the Swiss German dialects (SG) are used in everyday oral communication and for a few written purposes, and Swiss Standard German (SSG) is used for certain more formal oral purposes and most written texts. SSG differs on all linguistic levels from the standard German language used in Germany (German Standard German or Binnendeutsch) and Austria. An Alemannic dialect is the first language of all GS Swiss people: it is the language variety closest to the hearts of all germanophone Swiss. Many, perhaps most, GS Swiss consider any form of standard German, even their own version of standard German, to be a ‘foreign’ language learned at school and often used unwillingly, particularly for speech. When germanophone Swiss do write standard German they are encouraged by schools and many publishers to use the morphological, lexical and syntactic resources of SSG, so-called ‘Helvetisms’.