language contact and language decay

LANGUAGE CONTACT AND LANGUAGE DECAY SOCIO-POLITICAL AND LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

edited by Emanuele Miola Paolo Ramat

The definition of semi-speakers on the basis of linguistic features SILVIA DAL NEGRO (FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN)

1. Introduction Defining the various degrees of speakers‘ reduced competence and describing the last stages in the life-cycle of a language have long occupied researchers working on endangered languages. On the basis of an increasingly growing amount of data on moribund languages in different sociolinguistic settings, several hypotheses have been put forward to understand and deal with this phenomenon. In particular, language decay and death have been investigated in relation to more general phenomena affecting language, namely language change and language contact. As regards language change, Nancy Dorian‘s well known observation can still be enlightening: In general it seems possible to suggest that sociolinguistic factors, rather than purely linguistic features, distinguish change in dying languages from change in ―healthy‖ languages. The types of changes in formal language structures, going from O[lder]F[luent]S[peaker]s to S[emi]S[peaker]s, are not notably different from those well established in the study of language change in general (Dorian 1981:154).

The main difference between language change in general and language decay lies in the fact that the amount and rate of changes are much higher in language obsolescence. As for language contact, its role in the processes of decay and loss is still matter of debate. In the literature, language decay and subsequent (though not necessarily occurring) death have been regarded as extreme, ―catastrophic‖ outcomes of contact (among others, Thomason/Kaufman 1988; Thomason 2000; Berruto 2005), albeit somehow part of the same

S. Dal Negro

development scheme.1 An interesting example of this is Tariana, a highly endangered Arawak language spoken in Amazonia. Tariana is characterized by a large number of areally-induced changes (also implying complexification of the system) aiming at a ―quick and ready‖ full intertranslatability with Tucano languages, which are sociolinguistically dominant in the Vaupés region under investigation. However, in her account of this language, Aikhenvald (2002) remarks that the sheer number of such changes and the speed with which they spread both within the community and in the language system are to some extent ―unnatural‖. In contrast, the reductive and pathological character of decaying varieties has led Sasse (1992:16) to almost dismiss contactinduced change as an explanatory paradigm for semi-speakers‘ speech: my claim is that we can and must distinguish language decay from normal language contact phenomena (including some instances of ―simplification‖) by identifying the reductional character of decaying varieties of obsolescent languages.

Furthermore, in updated and comprehensive accounts on language contact such as Matras (2009), the topic of language decay and semispeakers are almost ignored. While reviewing ―classical‖ studies on language decay and death 2 one realises that quite different phenomena have been dealt with within the same research paradigm. Therefore, it becomes paramount to verify whether what has been compared actually refers to the same kind of objects. This is the case of minor endangered languages, for which the phenomenon of a reduced language competence in semi-speakers coexists with the reduction and progressive extinction of the language as a whole. Hence, this paper focuses on the interplay between individual reduction in language use and form (L1 attrition) and the more general phenomenon of language change in a context of intense cultural pressure (ultimately leading to language death). To tackle these issues, I will examine data retrieved from German-Alemannic minority settlements in north-western Italy (so called Walser dialects). 1

Cf. Berruto (2005:105): ―Durch die immer weiter wachsende Intensivierung des Kontakts können die Kontaktphänomene […] zunehmend auffällig und dominierend werden, bis zum Extremfall ―Kollaps‖, durch welchen von zwei Sprachen nur eine übrig bleibt‖. 2 See for instance collective volumes such as Dorian (1989) and Brenzinger (1992).

48

The definition of semi-speakers

2. The sociolinguistic context Walser dialects are a particularly good starting point to deal with the interplay between language death and individual linguistic reduction of the same language. This dialect group (constituting one of the officially recognized linguistic minorities in Italy) makes it possible to compare very similar linguistic communities, which share related linguistic backgrounds. However, all peculiarities due to language contact, change and shift produce different outcomes in the different linguistic communities and language varieties. As a consequence, the fact that all Walser settlements have developed differently, both in terms of language contact and shift, can become a very interesting case study within this research domain. No wonder then that Walser dialects have been the subject of research on language contact, decay and death for many decades now, or at least since Giacalone Ramat‘s extensive research on Gressoney3 (but see also Bauen 1978, followed by Zürrer 1986 and 2009 and by Dal Negro 2004 that have most explicitly dealt with these topics). Walser settlements in Northern Italy are the outcome of 13th century‘s series of migrations from (German-speaking) Swiss uplands to remote and (until then) inhabited southern alpine valleys. Here, settlers engaged in agriculture, pasturing and north-south trades in a self-sustainable economy and local social organization until the establishment of national States that took place in the second half of the 19th century. Two of these Walser communities will be considered here: a) Formazza, which can be found in the upmost north-eastern corner of Piedmont, bordering with Switzerland on all its sides except southwards; and b) Rimella, a very isolated and half abandoned village in the Piedmontese sub-region of Valsesia. These two German-speaking communities are very similar under many aspects. As regards their sociolinguistic context, the minority language in both communities can be classified as between grades 2 and 3 on the UNESCO vitality and endangerment scale (Brenzinger et al. 2003). This means that the local language is ranked between ―definitively endangered‖ (spoken by parental and older generations) and ―severely endangered‖ (spoken only by grandparental and older generations). Besides, both communities are very small and both dialects have a low

3

See at least Giacalone Ramat (1979a; 1979b and 1989).

49

S. Dal Negro

number of speakers.4 Taking into account different demographic parameters such as the relative and absolute number of speakers, the relationship between emigration, immigration and remigration, the relationship between ethnic and linguistic groups, and the birth-death ratio (see Dressler/De Cillia 2006 for a review of these parameters), Walser can be defined as a highly endangered linguistic group. In ecolinguistic terms (Dressler 2003), both communities are well below the absolute and relative critical mass that may guarantee their survival. However, Formazza and Rimella differ strongly on the kind of linguistic repertoires they have developed, as can be seen in Tables 1, 2 and 3, which report on the results of a research carried out in 2000 (Dal Negro/Dell‘Aquila/Iannàccaro 2001). The research was based on a questionnaire distributed to a representative sample of the population in all Walser communities and aimed to elicit information about language use, habits and linguistic self-assessment of minority, majority and other contact languages or dialects. As for Formazza and Rimella, the research findings confirmed the general impression one gets visiting both communities: In short, they differ markedly from each other with regard to the role played by other local dialects (Piedmontese and Lombard dialects) within their linguistic repertoires. Besides, and somewhat less expectedly, Walser is more spoken in Rimella than in Formazza (despite the smaller community size and the stronger influence of a local Romance dialect).5

4

According to official regional census data (www.regione.piemonte.it/stat/bdde), in 2007 Formazza counted 430 official residents and Rimella 134. Although these figures do not correspond to the actual size of the speaking community (several minority speakers do not live within the community, whereas several inhabitants are not speakers of the minority language), they can give an idea of the quantitative factors at play here. 5 See also Berruto (2008) for a sociolinguistic analysis of the same and other comparable data, which aims to assess language endangerment in the Alpine region.

50

The definition of semi-speakers Tab. 1

(Declared) local mono- or multilingualism [data elaborated from Dal Negro/Dell‘Aquila/Iannàccaro (2001)]

Italian monolingualism Italian dialect monolingualism German dialect/Italian bilingualism Italian dialect/Italian bilingualism Italian/Italian dialect/German dialect multil.

Tab. 2

FORMAZZA 32,5% (27/83) 1,2% (1/83) 34,9% (29/83) 9,6% (8/83) 21,6% (18/83)

RIMELLA 7,5% (4/53) 1,8% (1/53) 22,6% (12/53) 9,4% (5/53) 58,4% (31/53)

Local languages and sociolinguistic domains [data elaborated from Dal Negro/Dell‘Aquila/Iannàccaro (2001)]

Languages spoken with mother German dialect mentioned Italian dialect mentioned Both dialects mentioned Languages spoken with siblings German dialect mentioned Italian dialect mentioned Both dialects mentioned Languages spoken with neighbours German dialect mentioned Italian dialect mentioned Both dialects mentioned Languages spoken with friends German dialect mentioned Italian dialect mentioned Both dialects mentioned Languages spoken in local public offices German dialect mentioned Italian dialect mentioned Both dialects mentioned

51

FORMAZZA

RIMELLA

36,9% (31/84) 15,4% (13/84) 2,3% (2/84)

71,1% (37/52) 71,1% (37/52) 50% (26/52)

31,5% (24/76) 13,1% (10/76) --

54,9% (28/51) 70,5% (36/51) 41,1% (21/51)

36,9% (31/84) 3,5% (3/84) 2,3% (2/84)

50% (26/52) 67,3% (35/52) 49,3% (21/52)

36,9% (31/84) 11,9% (10/84) 3,5% (3/84)

60,7% (31/51) 66,6% (34/51) 43,1% (22/51)

15,6% (13/83) 1,2% (1/83) --

22% (11/50) 58% (29/50) 14% (7/50)

S. Dal Negro Tab. 3

Walser, sociolinguistic domains and age groups 6 [data elaborated from Dal Negro/Dell‘Aquila/Iannàccaro (2001)]

(also) Walser spoken with mother (also) Walser spoken with siblings (also) Walser spoken with neighbours (also) Walser spoken with friends (also) Walser spoken in public offices

FORMAZZA ...1965 (8/17) 47% (5/17) 29.4% (6/17) 35.2% (7/17) 41.1% (2/17) 11.7%

1966>... (4/39) 10.2% (2/33) 6% (5/40) 12.5% (5/40) 12.5% 0 0

RIMELLA ...... (16/31) 51.6% (12/30) 40% (10/31) 32.2% (13/31) 41.9% (5/31) 16.1%

As Tables 1-3 show, multilingualism and especially bi-dialectism (see Table 1) seem to reinforce the minority German dialect in Rimella in all five domains investigated here (communication with mother, siblings, neighbours, friends and in local public offices), whereas in Formazza either the coexistence of Walser with Italian or simply an Italian monolingualism prevails. The shift in the use of the German dialects shows a clear age pattern (Table 3). Interestingly, maintenance seems to be higher in Rimella but its community size and its population (old) age make it impossible to find a significant group of younger speakers (i.e. born after 1966). These data show that language endangerment is substantially different in the two communities. Whereas ―proper‖ language shift is advancing in Formazza (meaning shifting away from diglossia towards monolingualism), Rimella‘s multilingualism is sociolinguistically more stable, albeit threatened by a severe demographic contraction. All this, still, is bound to language use (or vice versa to language shift). Yet, in order to deal with the issue of linguistic maintenance (or vice versa linguistic decay) other research questions need to be addressed, i.e.: What 6

Age grouping is based on socio-historically relevant facts: people born in the 1950s belong to the first generation who has attended compulsory comprehensive school in Italy (3 years after primary school, i.e. between 11 and 14 years). Those born in the late Sixties, instead, have been the first to take part in a consume-based society which has been strongly influenced by the mass-media.

52


kind of language is preserved, or, vice versa, what kind of language is being lost in these two communities? In other words, and following Berruto (2009), how is sociolinguistic vitality or sociolinguistic endangerment related to linguistic vitality or linguistic endangerment? 3. Distribution of forms: maintenance and disintegration of grammatical subsystems 3.1. Adjectives in attributive function Because of its systemic nature, which makes it less vulnerable to direct borrowing and yet complex to acquire and maintain, inflectional morphology is very often the topic of studies on language decay and attrition. In particular, adjective inflection is a very interesting domain to look at, especially in the case of richly inflected languages such as the conservative German dialects under scrutiny.7 They have a complex and potentially confusing system of forms that is characterized by arbitrary overlapping, redundancy (inflection marks agreement with nouns in combination with articles or other determiners) and reduced motivation (e.g. the opposition of strong and weak forms that does not codify any vital information).8 Examples (1-4) display all dimensions of variation for attributive adjectives in traditional Walser dialects: weak/strong declension types according to the nature of determiners (see Eisenberg 2004:177-180 for standard German), gender, number and, to a marginal extent, case. Moreover, adjectives are inflected in predicative function (i.e. proceeding differently from standard modern German) and display separate marking when used as nouns. However, due to the complexity of the whole system, only attributive adjectives will be considered here. (1) declension distinctions (weak / strong forms): [Formazza] z niw hüs ‗the new house‘ (weak) [Formazza] äs niws hüsjé ‗a new little house‘ (strong) 7

Very interesting results can also be found in the case of Dutch dialects (see Smits 1996), which however do not display such a rich variety of inflected forms. 8 The degree of complexity and potential confusion increases if one considers the interaction of adjectives with determiner endings, a fact that has also been underlined in German L1 acquisition. Cf. for instance Mills (1985: 155; 173).

53

S. Dal Negro

(2) gender distinctions (neuter / masculine / feminine): [Formazza] äs héps dorf ‗a nice village‘ (neuter) [Formazza] wir hei ä hépschä ricordo ‗we have a nice memory‘ (masculine) [Formazza] un gét göti bréjé ‗and (it) gives (makes) good broth‘ (feminine) (3) number distinctions (singular / plural): [Formazza] äs héps ort ‗a nice place‘ (singular) [Formazza] obschi sin hipschi erter ‗up there there are nice places‘ (plural) (4) case distinctions (non dative / dative) [Formazza] fer di chlinu jungi ‗for the small children‘ (nomin./accus.) [Formazza] mêt chlinä glasienu ‗with small glasses‘ (dative)

Examples (1-4) are all taken from the data produced in the dialect spoken in Formazza since only for this dialect it is possible to establish a workable point of reference on the basis of previous descriptions and because of the coherent character of this grammatical subsystem in traditional speech forms. In contrast, the situation of the dialect of Rimella is extremely complex and all the available documentation related to previous (and intuitively more conservative) stages of the language (for instance the Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz, SDS, vol. III:257-258) attests an apparently random variation of forms. In view of the above explanation, it becomes very difficult to set a reference point for Rimella other than a rather abstract one, which may be based for instance on other Walser dialects (such as Formazza), on Alemannic dialects from Switzerland or even on Old High German. Examples (5-7) show a few cases of possible deviations from a traditional distribution of adjective endings in these two Walser dialects. In (5) the strong / weak opposition is levelled out. The same holds for (6), where a typically strong marking (-s) occurs in a definite NP whereas one would expect a weak marking; besides, the adjective occupies the postnominal position (like in Italian), which makes any prediction on the required morphological marking highly problematic. Finally, although the strong marking (-s) in (7) is coherent with the indefinite context, both the article and the adjective lack the dative marking required by the preposition mit ‗with‘. In a systematic data analysis, like the one proposed 54


here, cases such as (7) result particularly problematic because of the different levels that are involved and mutually intertwined (i.e. definiteness, case, gender and number). (5) [Rimella]

der ganze manut / e ruche wirtag ‗the whole month / a big celebration‘

(6) [Rimella]

z chlaid blaws ‗the blue dress‘

(7) [Formazza]

mit äs héps chleid ‗with a nice dress‘

In order to verify the degree of maintenance and the typology of change and/or decay in morphological subsystems, I carried out an analysis of two large corpora of spoken Walser that were collected in 2000 within the two communities. The relevant tokens have been manually extracted from data in free occurring speech.9 In the case of Formazza I also added my own corpus which includes more formal tasks that I asked younger speakers to complete, e.g. translations from Italian into Walser (see Dal Negro 2004). Table 4 displays the distribution of ―deviant‖ and ―expected‖ tokens for each phenomenon within the two communities and the three age groups under investigation (see age groups in Table 3 above).

9

This greatly diverges from mainstream research in language decay and language attrition, which is usually based on formally elicited data that are directly comparable, measurable and more adequate to test specific competences. Naturalistic methods to elicit data are per se biased in quantitative research because they only provide positive evidence (i.e. nothing can be said of non occurring forms). However, they are more reliable as regards actually occurring speech forms and for a global approach to speech (see Köpke/Schmid 2004 for a critical discussion).

55

S. Dal Negro

Tab. 4 Deviant and expected adjective forms according to community and age Formazza # % 120 92 10 8

Rimella # % 91 69 40 31

Total # 211 50

% 81 19

old old

Expected Deviant

middle middle

Expected Deviant

50 7

88 12

30 22

58 42

80 29

73 27

young young

Expected Deviant

55 32

63 37

---

---

55 32

63 37

Total Total Total

Expected Deviant #

225 49 274

82 18

121 62 183

66 34

346 111 457

76 24

Table 4 contains the results of the analysis of 457 tokens. It shows that Rimella speakers produce on the whole more deviant forms than the speakers of Formazza. Moreover, Rimella speakers are more similar to the young speakers from Formazza than those who belong to the same age group. My findings also demonstrate that the number of deviant forms in both datasets increases as age decreases. Yet, Table 4 does not shed a considerable light on the issue investigated here. As I said above, speaking of a traditional norm that can represent a point of reference and deciding what has to be regarded as ―deviant‖ is a critical and problematic issue for Rimella. A much more realistic picture results from Tables 5 to 8 below, in which all forms occurring in the corpus are displayed as per each context. Variants are given in brackets or double brackets according to their relative frequency within each dataset.

56


Tab. 5

Adjective endings: Formazza older speakers

nt. m. f.

Tab. 6

plural strong -i -ø, (-i) -ø, (-i)

weak -u, ((-i)) -u, (-ø) -u

Adjective endings: Formazza younger speakers

nt. m. f.

Tab. 7

singular strong weak -s, (-ø) -ø -ä, (-i), ((-s)), ((-a)) -ø (-u) -i, (-e) -ø, -i, (-e)

plural strong weak -i, (-s), (-e), ((u)) -u ((-i)) -ø, -e -ø -e (-i) ??

Adjective endings: Rimella older speakers

nt. m. f.

Tab. 8

singular strong weak -s -ø -ä -ø -i -ø

singular strong weak -s, (-ø), ((-u)) -ø,-s (-u) -e, ((-s)) -e, (-u) -e, ((-u)) -e, (-u)

plural strong weak -e, ((-s)) -u, ((-e)) -u, (-e), (-s), ((-ø)) -ø, -u, (-s) -ø, (-s), ((-e)), ((-u)) -u, (-ø)

Adjective endings: Rimella middle-aged speakers

nt. m. f.

strong -s, ((-e)) -e -e

singular weak -ø,-s -e -e, (-ø), (-u)

plural strong weak -e, (-ø), (-u) -u, (-ø) -ø, (-s) -ø,(-u) -e ??

Not surprisingly, the clearest picture is the one emerging from the data produced by elderly speakers living in Formazza (Table 5). In this case, very few variants deviate from the traditional pattern, thus also replicating exactly the same pattern elicited in the early 1960s for the Sprachatlas der Deutschen Schweiz. Incipient evolutionary phenomena represented by 57

S. Dal Negro

coexisting variants are not unexpected in terms of regular language change. As expected, plural forms present a tendency towards analogical levelling aiming at general simplification: The least motivated strong / weak opposition yields giving way to a preference for strong forms, which are followed by a levelling of gender differences that converge towards the neuter ending. In contrast, number differences seem to be generally stable. In the speech of some young speakers the traditional system still holds, especially as far as very clear, non-ambiguous endings are concerned, e.g. neuter –s or feminine -i in the singular. However, the young generation also displays an overuse of morphemes (again, especially –s and –i) as well as non standard forms such as –a or –e (the latter works as a sort of empty ending, good for all syntactic contexts). The case of Rimella is far more complex; here again, the tendency to overgeneralise –e in all contexts10 is attested especially in the speech of the younger group. Nonetheless, such a high degree of variation seems to stem from a total collapse of the adjective agreement system. Finally, two further factors appear to be connected to the pattern that characterises the Walser dialect of Rimella. One factor is the significant number of borrowed nouns (making gender assignment and tense agreement problematic) and adjectives (making even marking problematic). The second factor is the occurrence of N + Adj sequences, which constitute an unusual context within the system of adjective agreement11. On the whole, then, it is not surprising that the German inflectional system is gradually losing ground in this dialect. 3.2. Weak and strong past participles Past participles in strong verb classes are another morphological subsystem that provides interesting data to look at, especially in the case of grammaticalised or half grammaticalised monosyllabic verbs (so called Kurzverben), which are characterised by high frequency, formal idiosyncrasy and increasing irregularity in most Germanic languages (Nübling 2000). Due to its very high frequency in speech and its irregular 10

Also attested in young children acquiring German as L1 (Mills 1985:173). See these two examples from the data of Rimella: di mattu gresse ‗the big meadow‘ (lit. ‗the meadow big‘); en dacche blewe ‗a blue blanket‘ (lit. ‗a blanket blue‘). 11

58


paradigm, the verb ässä (‗to eat‘) has been added to this group, although it does not belong to the class of Kurzverben and despite the fact that it is not grammaticalised. Generally speaking, the two Walser dialects have evolved in a different way as far as this morphological domain is concerned. In the case of past participle, however, both appear quite systematic in their respective rules (see Table 9). Tab. 9 ‗go‘

st. w. ‗be‘ st. w. ‗have‘ st. w. ‗come‘ st. w. ‗eat‘ st. w. ‗stand‘ st. w.

Weak and strong past participle forms Formazza kangä (kangät) 3 # old sp., 4 # young sp. ksé -khäbä -cho -kässä (kässät) 2 old sp., 5 # young sp., 2 # middle-aged sp. kschtannä --

(8) Formazza Rimella

Rimella (((kangu))) 1 # old sp. kangut -gŝchit -hebet (chomu) 20 # chomut -Kast (schtannu) 2 # old sp. 3 # middle-aged sp. schtannut

cho – kschtannä – ksé – khäbä – kangä – kässä (kangät – kässät) (chomu – schtannu – kangu) chomut – schtannut – kangut – kast – gŝchit – hebet

Whereas Formazza has preserved the inherited forms of these verbs, which resemble those that can be found in other Alemannic dialects, in Rimella all verbs have developed a weak paradigm with regular past participle in –t or in –ut, according to the verb class. The only verb showing significant variation is chomu ‗to come‘, and to a lesser degree schta ‗to stand, to be‘, whereas Formazza presents very few weak forms for ga ‗to go‘ and ässä ‗to eat‘. These forms can be found especially, but not exclusively, in the speech of younger speakers. In the case of elderly 59

S. Dal Negro

speakers there seem to be sporadic performance deviations, which are devoid of any consistency. Again, the question remains: How much of this complete morphological restructuring in the dialect of Rimella has to do with general trends of language change and decay (such as paradigmatic and analogical levelling) or with individual (imperfect) language competence? And further: Why does this complete restructuring of the system occurs in Rimella, where the dialect is sociolinguistically stronger, rather than in Formazza, where language shift is occurring faster? 3.3. The collapse of dative forms The topic discussed in this section is case syncretism, which is another often researched topic in language decay12, as well as in historical linguistics. Here I deal in particular with the progressive loss of dative forms and their function and distribution13. As in German, dative marking in the Formazza and Rimella dialects is required in the following syntactic contexts: indirect objects (9), after prepositions such as mit ‗with‘, fon ‗of‘, zu ‗to‘ (10), and after local prepositions (11) when marking state (vs. direction). (9) [Formazza]

dö häni telefonêrt mim bröder, dem Aldo ‗then I phoned to my brother, the A.‘

(10) [Formazza]

un ér, wen sider kangä mit dä chénu de? ‗when did you go with the cows then?‘

(11) [Formazza]

z siwjé éscht in der gabbiu ‗the piglet is in the cage‘

In traditional Walser dialects, the targets dative is marked on are nouns 12

See, among others, Dorian (1981: 129-136), Marra (2009) and especially Huffines (1989) for a similar analysis on Pennsylvania German. 13 Case inflection has been the topic of several studies on German L1 acquisition (see Bittner 2006 for an overview). Some have focused on the detection of an acquisition order (most authors agree on the sequence nominative > accusative > dative > genitive). Others have attempted to disentangle and compare different grammatical categories in the acquisition process: case and gender (again Bittner 2006) or case and number (Korecky-Kröll / Dressler 2009).

60


(both inherited and loanwords, ex. 12), modifiers such as determiners and adjectives (13), and pronouns (14). (12) [Formazza]

gabbiu ‗cage‘ (vs. gabbia), chénu ‗cows‘ (vs. ché)

(13) [Formazza]

der ‗the:F:DAT‘ (vs. t)

(14) [Formazza]

mier ‗me:DAT‘ (vs. ich)

Quite interestingly, neither dialect presents the kind of prepositional dative marking that is well-spread in Upper German dialects, for example: sag‘s in der frau (‗say it to the woman‘; Seiler 2003:15). Remarkably, this construct is not attested in Wallis, the Swiss region Walser dialects come from, whereas traces of it are attested in the Walser dialects of Macugnaga, Rima and especially Issime (Zürrer 1999:200), in which ‗a + nominative‘ constructs occur. According to Seiler (2003:92), however, these forms do not represent a broadening of the prepositional dative dialect area but are rather the outcome of intensive language contact with Romance varieties and of independent development. In my data few examples of prepositional dative can be found in the speech of a couple of young semi-speakers of Formazza who occasionally mark dative objects with prepositions, in particular with zu ‗to‘: säge zu nonna äso ‗(she) tells granny like this‘ (Dal Negro 2004:134). Case inflection in the speech of elderly speakers from Formazza also displays the most systematic and diversified picture, with dative markings on all targets and in all three main syntactic contexts (see Table 10). Tab. 10

Dative realisations according to age and community

y. speakers + DAT y. speakers – DAT m. speakers + DAT m. speakers – DAT o. speakers + DAT o. speakers – DAT tot. + DAT tot. – DAT

FORMAZZA 84 53% 75 47% 98 81% 23 19% 97 95% 5 5% 279 73% 103 27%

61

RIMELLA ----43 61% 28 39% 114 78% 33 22% 157 72% 61 28%

S. Dal Negro

Tab. 11

Dative occurrences in the Formazza corpus

local prep. expected

young # % 12 39

local prep. deviant

19

61

8

20

2

11

other prep. expected

30

38

27

66

32

91

other prep. deviant

49

62

14

34

3

9

ind. object expected

42

86

38

49

100

7

14

1

0

0

ind. object deviant

Tab. 12

middle # % 33 80

old

97 3

# 16

% 89

Dative realisations in the Rimella corpus

local prep. local prep.

expected deviant

middle # 6 19

old

other prep. other prep.

expected deviant

17 7

71 29

49 9

58 42

ind. object ind. object

expected deviant

20 2

91 9

59 1

98 2

% 24 76

# 6 23

% 69 31

On the whole, the percent values of expected and deviant forms are very similar for Formazza and Rimella (Table 10). Nonetheless, a more detailed analysis of the socioliguistic and linguistic distribution of variants shows a significantly different picture for the two communities. Formazza exhibits a good retention of the system, with young speakers presenting deviant forms in all subsystems, except for pronouns and some

62


fixed sequences of preposition and article14. In contrast, the context of local prepositions in Rimella has completely blurred case distinctions for both age groups‘ speech. Besides, the apparent higher retention rate for other prepositions is due to the development of special article forms occurring with prepositions, especially zu (zum, as in standard German) and mit (betum = mit dem) but also with prepositions traditionally occurring with nominative/accusative such as var ‗for‘, equivalent to the German für (example, var du winter ‗for the Winter‘). This makes it very problematic to speak about dative retention. Here, case is retained only for indirect objects but exclusively when pronouns are involved. 3.4. Ausklammerung Finally, one word order feature deserves some attention here. The maintenance of an OV (verb final) syntax is a ―classical‖ topic in the study of Romance-Germanic contact and it becomes even more interesting in the case of German minority dialects in Italy (among others: Benincà/Renzi 2000, Poletto/Tomaselli 2000, Grewendorf/Poletto 2005, but already Bauen 1978 on Walser German in Rimella). Only one single aspect of the OV > VO drift will be accounted for here: the position of past participles in relation to other constituents which may or may not be extraposed to the right verb bracket (Klammer). Carrying out a quantitative analysis of such contexts poses a few problems in data evaluation. Before proceeding, one has to bear in mind that the so called Ausklammerung (extraposition of constituents to the right of the Klammerstruktur) is possible in standard German in various contexts and obligatorily in the case of focussed constituents. Moreover, the Klammerstruktur that is now common in standard German is the result of a long grammaticalisation and analogical process of and between stylistic variants that was completed in the phase of Frühneuhochdeutsch (Early New High German: see Nübling et alii 2006:94-96 for an overview). Consequently, the reference point from which decay has to be 14

See the interesting observation by Bittner (2006:125) on L1 acquirers of German: ―The acquisition of dem starts with prepositional phrases extracted as unanalysed holophrases from the input, cf. auf (de)m arm ‗at the arm‘, mit dem zug ‗with the train‘, aus dem fenster ‗out of the window‘‖. According to Mills (1985:225) who underlines the difficulty in the acquisition of case-marking altogether, formulae also seem to play a relevant role in the acquisition of case selection after locative prepositions.

63

S. Dal Negro

measured cannot be standard modern German in the case of minority dialects that have not been influenced by it or by the development of other German dialects. In order to work on actual comparable data, only occurrences with the verbs ‗to be‘ and ‗to go‘ in present perfect have been considered for this research. To simplify further, all selected cases have been differentiated within the corpus as follows: cases in which the past participle occurs in final position (type 0), cases in which constituents occur both before and after the past participle (type 1), cases in which the auxiliary and the past participle are adjacent and all constituents are extraposed (type 2). a. [Formazza] [Rimella] b. [Formazza] [Rimella] c. [Formazza] [Rimella]

―type 0‖ éch bé zum Schtäg t schöl kangä ‗I went to school to Zum Schtäg‘ er isch nemme eweg kangut ‗he has never gone away again‘ ―type 1‖ z abentsch béni éch mascht kangä in Tuffald ‗at night I went again to T.‘ isch nöch gŝchit la sesta ‗there was still the sixth grade‘ ―type 2‖ der Lidio atto ésch ksé disperso em chrig ‗Lidia‘s father was lost in war‘ bider kangut a pé? ‗did you go on foot?‘

As for the dialect of Formazza, the quantitative evaluation of the data shows that young speakers do not diverge considerably from older speakers, and that there is fair amount of type 0 sentences (i.e. final past participles) used by all three groups under investigation. This is not the case for Rimella where the verbal Klammer has virtually disappeared. Moreover, the few cases of constituents included in the verbal Klammer concern only the types listed below under (15), that is, clitic pronouns and different kind of adverbs and focus particles, including negation.

64


Tab. 13

Ausklammerung types and communities

Formazza o. m. y. Rimella o. m.

―type 0‖ 58% 123 24 65 11% 20 13

―type 1‖ 19% 49 9 14 21% 25 38

―type 2‖ 21% 50 5 25 67% 109 86

(15) Einklammerung: kinds of constituents for Rimella: o

temporal adverbs: alzit ‗always‘

other adverbs, particles: eweg ‗away‘ o clitic pronouns: mu ‗him‘, s ‗it‘ o

o

negation: nid ‗not‘

o

focus particles: oich ‗also‘

o ma schind alzit kangut ‗well, they have always gone‘ o er isch nemme eweg kangut ‗he has nomore gone away‘ o du wenter schiwer-s kangut gi ‗in winter we have gone to fetch it‘ o isch nid gschit ne masch ne vasper ‗there has not been either mass or evening prayer‘ o dopu bi öich kangut ‗then I have also gone‘

4. Conclusions The data presented in the previous sections provide a good example of how differently endangered languages may develop under the threat of extinction. Table 14 gives an overview of the phenomena that have been considered here and summarises the results for both communities (but distinguishes between two age groups in the case of Formazza).

65

S. Dal Negro

Tab. 14

Results overview Adjectives

FORMAZZA, OLD SP.

minor, regular changes, drift

FORMAZZA, YOUNG SP.

high variability

RIMELLA

major changes

Ausklammerung

variable rule

variable rule

new rule settled

Past participles maintained; minor performance deviations maintained; more deviations entirely new, analogical forms; relics observed

Dative regular changes, drift

high variability in all subsystems

new rules

As can be noticed, in the case of the Walser German dialect spoken at Formazza, almost all features (with the exception of Ausklammerung) are distributed along an age pattern. In particular, the old generation speaks a variety of the German dialect that still bears a strong resemblance to older stages of German and appears to be systematic and coherent in its subparts. More importantly, this dialect does not diverge from previous descriptions of this language. The minor variation revealed by this study is in accordance with expected language change phenomena and especially with the regular drift attested in other varieties of German. Younger speakers present variation for all the examined features; yet, some younger speakers also lack coherence, thus displaying highly deviant linguistic forms. In reference to the sociolinguistic data presented in Section 2 (§ 2), it seems worth noting that the amount of German dialect spoken by the younger generation is extremely reduced and that language shift is de facto completed for them. However, several people born after 1965 have learned the local language at home as their first language and can still make use of ritual formulas to engage in conversation. In many cases they can also use more productive speech. The case of Rimella is quite different, yet not uncommon among endangered languages. The lack of reliable linguistic descriptions of previous stages of the language makes it very difficult to have a reference point which might enable us to speak of loss or decay. This becomes even 66


more relevant when considering the fact that age differences seem to be levelled. This point has already been made by other linguists working on endangered languages or varieties.15 If we take a more conservative dialect such as the one of Formazza as our reference point we have to conclude that a completely different system has emerged for all the features considered here. The linguistic outcome of today‘s Rimella dialect differs from Formazza inasmuch as it converges towards Italian, via analogical levelling and almost idiosyncratic variation, which, at least in part, resembles the one elicited from Formazza younger speakers. Should this be regarded as a sort of semi-speakers‘ variety shared by the whole speaking community? The paradox is that the sociolinguistic data reported in § 2 reflect a much more encouraging situation for Rimella in terms of language maintenance than for Formazza. From those data, however, another aspect has clearly emerged: the diffusion of the local Piedmontese dialect in that community. This results in a dialectal multilingualism which is not extremely rare in the Italian sociolinguistic landscape. Sociolinguistic pressure on the Walser dialect is therefore twofold and very intense in Rimella. The few people who still live there or those who have regular contacts with the community speak both Walser and Piedmontese, usually code-switching from one to the other. In order to survive, the German dialect has changed enough to reach a one-to-one mapping with local Romance varieties, thus facilitating both translatability and code-mixing.16 Somehow reformulating Huffines‘s conclusions about sectarians‘ Pennsylvania German, we could say that sociolinguistic norms prescribe the use of Walser at Rimella but not its form.17 Thus, the picture emerging from this sketchy description of two related, highly endangered dialects is one made of diverse linguistic 15

See for instance the case of sectarian (i.g. Amish) speakers of Pennsylvania German, in contrast with non-sectarians (Huffines 1989), and Aikhenvald (2002:259-261). 16 Aikhenvald (2002:250) speaks of the development of an isomorphic syntax and an isomorphic morphology for Tariana and Tucano morpheme-by-morpheme intertranslatability. 17 ―The death of Pennsylvania German in nonsectarian communities is rapid once it begins and is complete across three generations, often across two. Among the sectarians, Pennsylvania German continues a forced existence where sociolinguistic norms prescribe its use but not its form. Convergence toward an English model is readily apparent‖ (Huffines 1989:225).

67

S. Dal Negro

outcomes, which result from very similar sociolinguistic pressure. As I said, it is similar but probably not exactly the same. It seems that semispeakers become part of a context of proper shift in which a clear generational gap in language transmission can be identified. In contrast, a complete restructuring or even replacement of the grammar might occur in a context of language maintenance under extremely intense sociolinguistic, cultural and demographic pressure.18 References AIKHENVALD, A. Y. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BAUEN, M. 1978. Sprachgemischter Mundartausdruck in Rimella (Valsesia, Piemont). Bern: Haupt. BENINCÀ, P. / RENZI, L. 2000. ―La venetizzazione della sintassi nel dialetto cimbro‖ In Marcato, C. (a c. di). Isole linguistiche?. Padova: Unipress, 137-162. BERRUTO, G. 2005. ―Hochsprache und Dialekt als kritischer Fall für die Kontaktlinguistik―. In Eggers, E. / Schmidt, J. E. / Stellmacher, D. (Hrsg.). Moderne Dialekte: Neue Dialektologie. Stuttgart: Steiner, 87-112. BERRUTO, G. 2008. ―Note di sociolinguistica alpina: varietà minoritarie a confronto‖. In G. Blaikner-Hohenwart, E. Botolotti, R. Franceschini, E. Lörincz, L. Moroder, G. Videsott, et alii (a c. di). Ladinometria. Festschrift für Hans Goebl zum 65. Geburtstag / Miscellanea per Hans Goebl per il 65° compleanno / Publicazion en onour de Hans Goebl en gaujion de si 65 agn. Salzburg: Universität Salzburg - Freie Universität Bozen - Istitut Cultural Ladin ―majon di fascegn‖ - Istitut Ladin ―Micurà de Rü, 105-121. BERRUTO, G. 2009. ―Repertori delle comunità alloglotte e ‗vitalità‘ delle varietà minoritarie‖. In Consani, C. et alii (a c. di). Alloglossie e comunità alloglotte nell‘Italia contemporanea. Roma: Bulzoni, 173198. 18

―But what if, in spite of the most intense pressure to shift to the dominant language, speakers nevertheless maintain their ethnic group‘s original language for some regular purposes, e.g., as a home language? [...] the borrowing may be so extensive as to constitute complete grammatical replacement in at least some subsystems‖ (Thomason / Kaufman 1988: 103).

68


BITTNER, D. 2006. ―Case before gender in the acquisition of German‖. Folia Linguistica, 40: 115-134. BRENZINGER, M. (ed.). 1992. Language Death. Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter. BRENZINGER, M. ET ALII. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Paris: UNESCO. DAL NEGRO, S. 2004. The Decay of a Language. The Case of a German Dialect in the Italian Alps. Bern: Lang. DAL NEGRO, S. / DELL‘AQUILA, V. / IANNÀCCARO, G. Ms. Indagine sociolinguistica sulle comunità Walser del Piemonte. Torino: Regione Piemonte. DORIAN, N.C. 1981. Language Death. The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DORIAN, N.C. (ed.). 1989. Investigating Obsolescence. Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DRESSLER, W. U. 2003. ―Dallo stadio di lingue minacciate allo stadio di lingue moribonde attraverso lo stadio di lingue decadenti: una catastrofe ecolinguistica considerata in una prospettiva costruttivista‖. In Valentini, A. / Molinelli, P. / Cuzzolin, P. / Bernini, G. (a c. di). Ecologia linguistica. Roma: Bulzoni, 9-25. DRESSLER, W. U. / DE CILLIA, R. 2006. ―Spracherhaltung, Sprachverfall, Sprachtod‖, in: Ammon, U. / Dittmar, N. / Mattheier, K. / Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik, vol. 3, 2nd Edition. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2258-2271. EISENBERG, P. 2004. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Bd. 1: Das Wort. Stuttgart: Metzler. GIACALONE RAMAT, A. 1979a. Lingua dialetto e comportamento linguistico. La situazione di Gressoney, Aosta, Musumeci. GIACALONE RAMAT, A. 1979b. ―Language function and language change in minority languages‖. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 4: 141-162. GIACALONE RAMAT, A. 1989. ―Per una caratterizzazione linguistica e sociolinguistica dell‘area Walser‖. In E. Rizzi (a c. di). Lingua e comunicazione simbolica nella cultura Walser. Atti del VI convegno internazionale di studi Walser (Gressoney, 14-15 ottobre 1988). Anzola d‘Ossola: Fondazione Enrico Monti, 37-66. GREWENDORF, G. / POLETTO, C. 2005. ―Von OV zu VO: Ein Vergleich 69

S. Dal Negro

zwischen Zimbrisch und Plodarisch‖. In Bidese, E. / Dow, J. R. / Stolz, T. (Hrsg.). Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 114-28. HUFFINES, M.L. 1989. ―Case usage among the Pennsylvania German sectarians and non sectarians‖. In Dorian N.C. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence. Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 211-226. KÖPKE, B. / SCHMID, M.S. 2004. ―Language attrition: The next phase‖. In Schmid, M.S. / Köpke, B. / Keijzer, M. / Weilemar, L. (eds.). First Language Attrition. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1-45. KORECKY-KRÖLL, K. / DRESSLER, W. U. 2009. ―The acquisition of number and case in Austrian German nouns‖. In Stephany, U. / Voeikova, M. D. (eds.). Development of Nominal Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter, 265302. MARRA, A. 2009. ―L‘uso del caso accusativo nei parlanti slavo-molisani‖. In Consani, C. et alii (a cura di). Alloglossie e comunità alloglotte nell‘Italia contemporanea. Roma: Bulzoni, 95-119. MATRAS, Y. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MILLS, A. E. 1985. ―The acquisition of German‖. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, New Jersey-London: Erlbaum, 141-254. NÜBLING, D. 2000. Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. NÜBLING, D. / DAMMEL, A. / DUKE, J. / SZCZEPANIAK, R. 2006. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Narr. POLETTO, C. / TOMASELLI, A. 2000. ―L‘interazione tra germanico e romanzo in due ―isole linguistiche‖. Cimbro e ladino centrale a confronto‖. In Marcato, C. (a c. di). Isole linguistiche?. Padova: Unipress, 163-176. SASSE, H.-J. 1992. ―Language decay and contact-induced change: Similarities and differences‖, in Brenzinger, M. (ed.). Language Death. Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 59-80. 70


SDS = HOTZENKÖCHERLE, R. (Hrsg.). 1975. Sprachatlas der Deutschen Schweiz, Band 3: Formengeographie. Bern: Francke. SEILER, G. 2003. Präpositionale Dativmarkierung im Oberdeutschen. Stuttgart: Steiner. SMITS, C. 1996. Disintegration of Inflection. The Case of Iowa Dutch. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. THOMASON, S.G. 2000. Contact Languages. An Introduction. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. THOMASON, S.G. / KAUFMAN, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. ZÜRRER, P. 1986. Deutscher Dialekt in mehrsprachiger Gemeinschaft. Die Sprachinselsituation von Gressoney. Stuttgart: Steiner. ZÜRRER, P. 1999. Sprachinseldialekte. Walserdeutsch im Aostatal. Aarau: Sauerländer. ZÜRRER, P. 2009. Sprachkontakt in Walser Dialekten: Gressoney und Issime im Aostatal (Italien). Wiesbaden: Steiner.

71