Resistant irregular morphology in German language islands in Russia and Brazil

1. Resistant irregular morphology in German language islands in Russia and Brazil Morphologies in Contact, Bremen, October 2nd, 2009 Peter Rosenberg (Frankfurt/Oder) available: http://www.kuwi.euv-frankfurt-o.de/de/lehrstuhl/sw/sw1 (or by mail)

2. Resistant irregular morphology in German language islands in Russia and Brazil Research project (funded by German Research Foundation): Subject: Development of regular and irregular morphology in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: frequence, distribution, functionality depending on language varieties, age-group and situational context. Objectives: Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and explanation in terms of convergence, language change and language shift.

3. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reductionor resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

4. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reductionor resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

5. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

6. 1 Development of regular morphology: Noun inflection: decay of case marking a 2-term-system: nominative ≠ oblique case or b Common case 2 Development of irregular morphology: Pronoun inflection: „selective“ resistance to reduction of case marking a 3-term-system: nominative ≠ dative ≠ accusative or b maintenance of dative forms (if 2-term-system: nominative ≠ oblique case)

7. 1 Development of regular morphology: Noun inflection: decay of case marking a 2-term-system: nominative ≠ oblique case or b Common case 2 Development of irregular morphology: Pronoun inflection: „selective“ resistence to reduction of case marking a 3-term-system: nominative ≠ dative ≠ accusative or b maintenance of dativeforms (if 2-term-system: nominative ≠ oblique case)

8. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

9. 3 Why German language islands? • German language islands: •  intensive language contact •  reduction of morphological structure •  linguistic convergence: •  intralingual: dialect leveling/mixed dialects •  interlingual: interference/borrowing/code-mixing •  language change. • German language islands: •  „accessible“ linguistic communities with limited areal extension •  clearly distinguishable from contact languages/language varieties •  awareness of ‚distinctivity‘ (Mattheier 1996) •  dense communicative network. • German language islandsin Russia and Brazil: • comparative research in language islands surrounded by different contact languages facilitates the assessment of internally or externally induced language change.

10. 3 Why German language islands? • Germanlanguage islands: •  intensive language contact •  reduction of morphological structure •  linguistic convergence: •  intralingual: dialect leveling/mixed dialects •  interlingual: interference/borrowing/code-mixing •  language change. • German language islands: •  „accessible“ linguistic communities with limited areal extension •  clearly distinguishable from contact languages/language varieties •  awareness of ‚distinctivity‘ (Mattheier 1996) •  dense communicative network. • German language islandsin Russia and Brazil: • comparative research in language islands surrounded by different contact languages facilitates the assessment of internally or externally induced language change.

11. 3 Why German language islands? • German language islands: •  intensive language contact •  reduction of morphological structure •  linguistic convergence: •  intralingual: dialect leveling/mixed dialects •  interlingual: interference/borrowing/code-mixing •  language change. • German language islands: •  „accessible“ linguistic communities with limitedareal extension •  clearly distinguishable from contact languages/language varieties •  awareness of ‚distinctivity‘ (Mattheier 1996) •  dense communicative network. • German language islandsin Russia and Brazil: • comparative research in language islands surrounded by different contact languages facilitates the assessment of internallyor externallyinduced language change.

12. 3 Why German language islands? • German language islands: •  intensive language contact •  reduction of morphological structure •  linguistic convergence: •  intralingual: dialect levelling/mixed dialects •  interlingual: interference/borrowing/code-mixing •  language change. • German language islands: •  „accessible“ linguistic communities with limited areal extension •  clearly distinguishable from contact languages/language varieties •  awareness of ‚distinctivity‘ (Mattheier 1996) •  dense communicative network. • German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • comparative research in language islands surrounded by different contact languages facilitates the assessment of internally or externally induced language change.

13. German settlements in the former USSR National District „Halbstadt“ Altajskij Kraj

14. Deutsche Siedlungen in Russland Language island in Siberia: Place of inquiry Shumanovka village:„Catholic“ and „Mennonite“ variety

15. German varieties in Rio Grande do Sul, South Brazil (Altenhofen 1996)

16. Deutsche Siedlungen in Brasilien Rio Grande do Sul – Santa Catarina Language island South Brazil: Place of inquiry Pelotas Municip: Pomerano (and Hunsrueck) variety

17. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

18. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

19. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

20. 4 Frequence: different intensity and direction of reduction  Noun inflection:Dat = Acc Pronoun inflection: Dat ≠ Acc oder Dat = Acc 5 Distribution:  different reduction rates with speaker generation:  older speakers: less reduction  younger speakers: more (and accelerated) reduction  different reduction ratesin different situational context:  formal:less reduction  informal:more reduction 6 Functionality: different functional „loading“: example: peculiarities of 3rd person  3rd singular: dative of high frequency: ihm (masc./neuter)/ ihr (fem.)  3rd plural: widely missing (High German: „ihnen“)

21. NOUN INFLECTION — PRONOUN INFLECTION Brazil – Pomerano (East Low German variety) SL/Santa Maria 1998 (HIAT-Transcription)

22. NOUN INFLECTION — PRONOUN INFLECTION Brazil – Pomerano (East Low German variety) SL/Santa Maria 1998 (HIAT-Transcription)

23. NOUN INFLECTION — PRONOUN INFLECTION Brazil – Pomerano (East Low German variety) SL/Santa Maria 1998 (HIAT-Transcription) NOUN INFLECTION Acc (or Nom)

24. NOUN INFLECTION — PRONOUN INFLECTION Brazil – Pomerano (East Low German variety) SL/Santa Maria 1998 (HIAT-Transcription)

25. NOUN INFLECTION — PRONOUN INFLECTION Brazil – Pomerano (East Low German variety) SL/Santa Maria 1998 (HIAT-Transcription) PRONOUN INFLECTION Dat !

26. NOUN INFLECTION — PRONOUN INFLECTION Brazil – Pomerano (East Low German variety) SL/Santa Maria 1998 (HIAT-Transcription) NOUN INFLECTION Acc (or Nom) PRONOUN INFLECTION Dat !

27. Noun inflection in South Brazil (Dat  Nom/Acc) [Pomerano variety, East Low German]

28. Pronoun inflection in South Brazil (Dat.) [Pomerano variety; East Low German]

29. Pronoun inflection in South Brazil (Dat + Nom/Acc) [Hunsrueck variety; West Central German]

30. 4 Frequence: different intensity and direction of reduction  Noun inflection:Dat = Acc Pronoun inflection: Dat ≠ Acc oder Dat = Acc 5 Distribution:  different reduction rates with speaker generation:  older speakers: less reduction  younger speakers: more (and accelerated) reduction  different reduction ratesin different situational context:  formal:less reduction  informal:more reduction 6 Functionality: different functional „loading“: example: peculiarities of 3rd person  3rd singular: dative of high frequency: ihm (masc./neuter)/ ihr (fem.)  3rd plural: widely missing (High German: „ihnen“)

31. Sample • Invariable (controlled) features: local people (born and educated in X) socio-economic status • variable features: variety age • development in „relative time“ • (comparison of generations) •  Informants of 3 age-groups: • A: < 40 years • B: 40-59 years • C:  60 years • development in real time • (longitudinal study: repetitive recording „ten years after“)

32. Situational context • Situations of gradually differing formality: • standardizedtestsentences •  recording of maximal case marking competence (dialect) • interviews • (free narration in dialect variety) • Self recording of everyday language usage • („family setting“) formal semi-formal informal • Hypotheses: 1 Informality diminishes distinction of case morphology. • 2 Younger speakers have less distinctions of case morphology.

33. 4 Frequence: different intensity and direction of reduction  Noun inflection:Dat = Acc Pronoun inflection: Dat ≠ Acc oder Dat = Acc 5 Distribution:  different reduction rates with speaker generation:  older speakers: less reduction  younger speakers: more (and accelerated) reduction  different reduction ratesin different situational context:  formal:less reduction  informal:more reduction 6 Functionality: different functional „loading“: example: peculiarities of 3rd person  3rd singular: dativeof high frequency: ihm (masc/neuter)/ ihr (fem)  3rd plural: widely missing(High German: „ihnen“)

34. Recordings - Brazil (1) male, Pomerano, Santa Maria, Oct. 12th, 1998 Test sentence 1 2 3 I‘ve seen you today in the morning. Help them! There‘s a drop hanging off my red nose. (Transcription with EXMARaLDA)

35. Recordings - Brazil (1) male, Pomerano, Santa Maria, Oct. 12th, 1998 acc instead of dat Test sentence 1 2 3 I‘ve seen you today in the morning. Help them! There‘s a drop hanging off my red nose. (Transcription with EXMARaLDA)

36. Recordings - Brazil (1) male, Pomerano, Santa Maria, Oct. 12th, 1998 help you (sg) acc instead of dat Test sentence 1 2 3 I‘ve seen you today in the morning. Help them! There‘s a drop hanging off my red nose. (Transcription with EXMARaLDA)

37. Recordings - Brazil (2) female, Hunsrueck, Morro Redondo, Oct. 17th,1998 help me I help her help them help me help her help them I help you (pl) I help you (pl)I help you (pl) you (pl) you (pl) you (pl) (Transkription mit EXMARaLDA)

38. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reduction or resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

39. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singular which correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequentlydative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative forms as defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

40. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singular which correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequentlydative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative forms as defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

41. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singular which correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequentlydative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative forms as defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

42. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singularwhich correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequentlydative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative forms as defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

43. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singular which correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequently dative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative forms as defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

44. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singular which correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequentlydative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative formsas defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

45. First findings related to irregular morphology: • 1 Case syncretism with irregular morphology less frequent than with regular. • 2 Dative forms in personal pronoun inflection of high frequency • (opposed to accusative or nominative forms in noun inflection and in regular morphology, in general). • 3 This holds for language islands exposed to morphological „rich“ (Russian) as well as to morphological „poor“ contact languages (Portugese). • 4 Resistance of case morphology in particular in personal pronouns of • 1st – 3rd person singular which correlate predominantly with animate reference. • 5 3rd person singularfrequentlydative forms. •  cf. English him/her (Old English dative: him/hire) • cf. Danish ham/henne (Old Scandinavian dative honum/henni) • cf. French lui (Old French li, Vulgar Latin li, Latin illi) • 6 Accusative forms as defaults (den, sein(e)n etc.), even in neuter (‚den Haus‘ for ‚das Haus‘. • Sequence of reduction?regularization > simplification (+ defaultization) > morphological reduction • (with subsequent substitution, e.g. by word order).

46. Findings from language „deconstruction“ processes: Deutsche Sprachinseln als „großangelegtes sprachgeschichtliches Experiment“ und als „sprachwissenschaftliches Laboratorium […], in dem wir an der Hand geschichtlicher Zeugnisse in einer kurzen Zeitspanne von 100 bis 150 Jahren Entwicklungen verfolgen können, die sich im Mutterlande in mehreren Jahrhunderten abgespielt haben müssen“. (Viktor M. Schirmunski 1930: 113f.) [German language islands ‚as a large-scale experiment on language history‘ and as a ‚linguistic laboratory […] which makes us observe (by means of linguistic evidence) developments in a short time-span of 100 to 150 years which must have taken place in the motherland over several centuries‘] Laboratory: Findings from language „construction“ processes  dialect leveling  koineization  standardization Laboratory: Findings from language „deconstruction“ processes  (interlingual or intralingual) convergence  morphological reduction  norm decay  language shift

47. Findings from language „deconstruction“ processes: Deutsche Sprachinseln als „großangelegtes sprachgeschichtliches Experiment“ und als „sprachwissenschaftliches Laboratorium […], in dem wir an der Hand geschichtlicher Zeugnisse in einer kurzen Zeitspanne von 100 bis 150 Jahren Entwicklungen verfolgen können, die sich im Mutterlande in mehreren Jahrhunderten abgespielt haben müssen“. (Viktor M. Schirmunski 1930: 113f.) [German language islands ‚as a large-scale experiment on language history‘ and as a ‚linguistic laboratory […] which makes us observe (by means of linguistic evidence) developments in a short time-span of 100 to 150 years which must have taken place in the motherland over several centuries‘] Laboratory: Findings from language „construction“ processes  dialect leveling  koineization  standardization Laboratory: Findings from language „deconstruction“ processes  (interlingual or intralingual) convergence  morphological reduction  norm decay  language shift

48. Findings from language „deconstruction“ processes: Deutsche Sprachinseln als „großangelegtes sprachgeschichtliches Experiment“ und als „sprachwissenschaftliches Laboratorium […], in dem wir an der Hand geschichtlicher Zeugnisse in einer kurzen Zeitspanne von 100 bis 150 Jahren Entwicklungen verfolgen können, die sich im Mutterlande in mehreren Jahrhunderten abgespielt haben müssen“. (Viktor M. Schirmunski 1930: 113f.) [German language islands ‚as a large-scale experiment on language history‘ and as a ‚linguistic laboratory […] which makes us observe (by means of linguistic evidence) developments in a short time-span of 100 to 150 years which must have taken place in the motherland over several centuries‘] Laboratory: Findings from language „construction“ processes  dialect leveling  koineization  standardization Laboratory: Findings from language „deconstruction“ processes  (interlingual or intralingual) convergence  morphological reduction norm decay language shift

49. Subject • 1 Development of regular • 2 and irregular morphology • 3 in German language islands in Russia and Brazil: • 4 frequence • 5 distribution • 6 functionality • depending on: • language varieties • age-group and • situational context • Objectives • 7 Description of reductionor resistance of case morphology and • 8 explanation in terms of convergence • 9 language change and • language shift

50. A Convergence as a result of language contact? unlikely because of structural similarities of languages in contact with:  (Brazilian) Portuguese (morphological case only in pronoun inflection)  (US-American) English (morphological case only in pronoun inflection) Russian (6 cases in noun as well as in pronoun inflection). B Convergence as a result of variety contact? unlikely because of structural similarities of communities with: major dialect leveling /unstable group norms minor dialect leveling /stable group norms. C Typological „convergence“? polycentric„convergence“ (Coseriu 1975): morphological reduction in all German language varieties for a long time (and other Germanic and Romance languages) Reduction of „fusionizing“ word formation (Wurzel 1996: 522) higher resistance in personal pronouns.