of a second dialect (Payne 1980; Chambers 1992; Vousten and Bongaerts. 1995) has shown how ...... Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag. Festinger, Leon (1962).
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance RAPHAEL BERTHELE
Abstract This paper investigates the sociolinguistic choices within a group of children in a Swiss elementary school. Due to the special socio-cultural status of the school, the children belong to non-native families moving in from other parts of Switzerland and Europe. The data show that after a time of about two years, the children use a relatively consistent Swiss German dialect in peer-oriented communication which may be different from the dialect used at home. Variation within this dialect co-varies with the social structure within the school class and not with the parents’ speech. Interview data and classroom observations allow inferences about the individual child’s possible intentions and motivations which are claimed to shape the linguistic repertoire. The ‘model of idiolectal dissonance’ provides a typology for the linguistic choices observed. The emerging classroom variety is shaped by ecological factors, by the social interactions within the group, and by internal linguistic constraints. Introduction Theoretical assumptions In recent years radical claims have been made that the emergence of language can be explained as a by-product of social interaction (Keller 1994; Snow 1999). The need to realize communicative goals is seen as the primary driving force which leads the individual to shape his/her linguistic means such that they are thought to be most effective. There is convergent evidence from other linguistic subdisciplines for the impact of communicative intentions and social interaction on linguistic form: studies in the accommodation theory paradigm (e. g., Giles, Coupland, and Coupland 1991) show how people linguistically converge even in relatively short social encounters, and research dealing with the learning Multilingua 21 (2002), 327⫺344
01678507/2002/021⫺0327 쑕 Walter de Gruyter
328
Raphael Berthele
of a second dialect (Payne 1980; Chambers 1992; Vousten and Bongaerts 1995) has shown how children and adults change their linguistic repertoires as they move to other dialect areas. In this paper, acquisition of a second variety and accommodation to a second variety of a particular language are seen as the two phases of one single process of an individual converging to his or her linguistic environment over a certain span of time. A typology will be established whose aim is to depict the microprocess at the hinge of linguistic choices in multilectal settings, and the possible types of linguistic behaviors are exemplified with data from a sociolinguistic study in a dialect contact situation. If we want to do more than pay lip-service to the social grounding of language, and especially if we dare to search for explanations for the social constraints on linguistic choices, we have to try to explain why every single member of a social group behaves in a specific way and how the cumulation of individual actions forms collective phenomena such as language, language change and social stratifications of language. In this paper, therefore, I will try to focus on very small bits of evidence. The aim will be to explain linguistic choices in the framework I propose to call ‘model of idiolectal dissonance’. I consider the linguistic choices described in the following as acts of identity in a small group of peers. Acts of identity are linguistic choices which allow the speakers ‘to get into focus with those with whom [they] wish to identify’ (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985: 182). A choice of a particular linguistic form in this view does not simply reflect social strata and processes, it is rather an important place where social roles are being negotiated all the time. Setting and informants The ideas presented in this paper have been developed during my research in a multi-lingual and multi-dialectal setting in the French-German bilingual town of Fribourg, Switzerland (Berthele 2000a). My fieldwork was concerned with 9 year-old-speakers who were all members of the same primary school class. The majority of the children are bilinguals or multilinguals (cf. Table 1), and some of them only learned German after having joined this elementary school. This particular group of informants has been chosen because of three important features: firstly, there is intensive communicative interaction among the members of a school class, secondly, there is a wide range of native linguistic variation in this particular class, and thirdly, we have quite good social-psychological hypotheses about the social processes which are going on within a class of schoolchildren. In the school context, the diglossic situation in Switzerland leads to the parallel use of two varieties: Standard High German as the official
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
329
language of instruction and Swiss German as the language of informal exchange among the children and between teachers and children. The focus of this paper will be on the Swiss German dialect, and in particular the dialectal repertoire of the subgroup of children who speak a Swiss German dialect both at home and at school. I am particularly interested in the dialect acquisition of those children who speak a Swiss German dialect at home which is different from the prestige variety in this class of schoolchildren. The prestige variety, a dialect which strongly resembles the Bernese dialect, emerges due to a set of interrelated factors. There are cultural and historical reasons: the school, located in a town with a very strong Catholic tradition, was founded in the 19th century by Protestant immigrants from Berne, and Bernese or Bernese-speaking teachers still give important linguistic input. Also, the children who stem from Bernese families still form an important minority among the children attending class ⫺ the majority being a very heterogeneous group of children whose families share the feature of being ‘not locals’. Table 1. Native languages and dialects spoken by the 14 members of the school class when first entering the school. Benjamin Brian Eva Fabien Fiamma Franc¸ ois Iris Jessica Judith Martin Michael Miriam Sophie Yves
Bernese dialect English, Bernese dialect Zurich dialect Bernese dialect Italian, French, Bernese dialect Sense dialect, French Basle dialect Rhaeto-Romansch, Standard High German Standard High German Zurich dialect, Standard High German French Bernese dialect English, Zurich dialect, French Standard High German
The data The data presented here were gathered in 1996 in order to test sociolinguistic hypotheses concerning the correlation of social network scales and linguistic variation. At the time of my data gathering my informants were approximately 9 years old. When entering the class, all the children were about 7 years old, which means that they were still at the age that allows the perfect acquisition of a new dialect. The dialectological data analyzed consisted of recordings of an interview (approximately 20’) and the retelling of a picture story (approximately 10’), both entirely in Swiss
330
Raphael Berthele
German. The interview, together with observations from classroom interaction provided the necessary information for establishing hypothetical explanations for the linguistic behavior observed. All recordings were phonologically transcribed and coded for 18 dialectological variables. There is one important exception, Jessica, who only speaks Standard High German in class. Her very marked linguistic choice is an extreme case in the setting described here and of course deserves further examination. For the present purposes, however, Jessica has to be excluded from the analysis because of her refusal to speak dialect. The model of idiolectal dissonance The concept of idiolectal dissonance which I would like to focus on applies primarily to multi-dialectal settings, where mutual unintelligibility does not play a major role. I am using the word ‘dissonance’ for two reasons: firstly, as an allusion to Festinger’s well-known concept of ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Festinger 1962) and secondly, because the competing linguistic features which stem from different dialectal systems are acoustic dissonances in the literal sense of the word. Let us assume that speaker ‘Ego’ speaks the variety dialect 1 in his/ her family as well as in the social network where he/she lives (cf. Fig. 1). Around the age of 7, Ego’s parents move to another area where Ego enters the first grade of the local primary school. The group-variety among the schoolchildren, dialect 2, and Ego’s native variety are mutually intelligible but not the same. For instance, for a certain position in the diasystem, variant 1 in Ego’s native dialect is different from variant 2 in the local group ‘standard’.1 Even if it is difficult to make exact statements about Ego’s metalinguistic awareness, it is inevitable that at least on a very low level of consciousness, Ego will perceive the difference between V1 and V2, and it is very probable that the awareness of linguistic difference will lead to a reaction in the long term. It is important to note that the flow chart depicted in Fig. 1 applies to one single speech event involving one single linguistic feature. The figure is a schematic representation of one decision-making process which is applied continually for a great number of linguistic features in many occurrences of those features. In this model, the typical variable stage of new dialect acquisition would be represented by different weights of the different solutions. For example, for a particular variable X, in 30 percent of the cases solution 1 and in 70 percent solution 4. Solution 1: According to non-linguists’ intuition and to linguistic research we know that Ego’s most probable and ‘unmarked’ reaction in
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
331
Figure 1. The model of idiolectal dissonance
the long term is to converge or to accommodate to dialect 2 (or to learn, acquire dialect 2). Solution 1 stands for a single action which, in cumulation, is the basis for complete accommodation to variant 2. However, there are two possibilities: either Ego replaces the native variant, which means that in the long term probably dialect 2 will gradually replace dialect 1. Or Ego expands his/her linguistic repertoire and uses the new variant in the specific context where dialect 2 is the ‘norm’. For example, if Ego uses the new variant 2 in the school context and the native variant 1 in his/her family context, I propose to use the term ‘dialect splitting’. In both cases, solution 1 leads to total convergence for the feature in question ⫺ and if Ego’s exposure to dialect 2 lasts long enough this kind of accommodation can apply to many or virtually all features which distinguish dialect 1 from dialect 2. Solution 2: This solution occurs when an individual ⫺ for the change from V1 to V2 ⫺ applies a rule which does not properly match the target variety’s system. Solution 2 leads to VH, to ‘the production of forms which do not occur in the target prestige variety’ (Trudgill 1988: 551). It depends on the specific linguistic features involved if this phenomenon leads to a variant which is closer to V2. Therefore, it cannot be determined in Figure 1 whether this solution leads to convergence or diver-
332
Raphael Berthele
gence. Hyperdialectalisms are often seen as important factors for linguistic change. Solution 3: Another possible reaction is to bring variant 1 closer to variant 2 without really achieving a complete accommodation, i. e., to use interdialectal forms (VI) between the native and the group variety. Interdialectal variants occur neither in the source nor in the target variety, and on a collective level they are important for new dialect formation (Trudgill 1983: 62). In my data this solution occurred only exceptionally, in other settings it might be more frequent. Solution 4: If Ego does not modifiy his/her linguistic behavior, the result is what is depicted in this solution: V1 is maintained and nothing changes. Solution 5: Solution 5 leads to the same result as solution 4: V1 is maintained and nothing changes. However, the path is different, as Ego continues using a feature which is already identical in his/her dialect and in the target variety. This solution is the most unmarked behavior of Ego and stands in sharp contrast to the next, extremely marked solution. Solution 6: The sixth solution is the most unexpected one: Ego diverges from both dialect 1 and dialect 2 and increases dissonance of an initially identically set parameter. The result, VD, represents divergence from the target variety. There are three sets of constraints on the linguistic choice at the center of Fig. 1. The ‘internal linguistic constraints’ are intrinsic linguistic properties which have entailments on possible paths of linguistic variation and change (e. g., factors such as leveling of paradigms, phonological system pressure, naturalness or markedness). The list of ecological conditions given in Fig. 1 is not exhaustive. A comprehensive list of ecological factors includes all social and historical constraints which motivate a particular speaker to modify her/his way of speaking (Keller 1994: 112). The third set of constraints concern the speaker’s individual psychological disposition, which is also known to affect linguistic behavior (Hofer 1997: 21 ff.). In my view, the ‘group variety’ is not stable and initially given. It only exists as a collective and more or less converging pattern of linguistic choices like those just described here. If we apply this model to the school class I introduced in Table 1, dialect 2 in Fig. 1, i. e., the prestige variety in the whole school and in the classroom, is one of the most important Swiss German dialects, the one from the region of the Swiss capital Berne.
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
333
The model of idiolectal dissonance has to take into account such different factors as dialectal and sociolinguistic embedding, age, language awareness, social styles, and personality traits. At the same time, the intrinsic constraints of the respective dialectal systems must not be neglected. Unfortunately, we still know very little about the exact weights of the different internal and external factors listed in Fig. 1. It is the great challenge of any comprehensive (socio-)linguistic theory to provide a framework which can take into account both external and internal constraints on linguistic choices of the type depicted here. In the following sections, the typology elaborated above will be applied to the sociolinguistic data gathered in the Fribourg school class. The model will be used to reconstruct and understand both expected and unexpected linguistic choices. Examples of converging and diverging behavior Since the present paper’s aim is to establish a model which should apply to any dialect contact setting, there will not be a detailed discussion of the particular variables used in this study. Most of the variables represent modern reflexes of Middle High German phonemes from the short2 and the long3 vowel system, followed by two variables concerning verbal morphology4 and two variables which cover two very typical Bernese consonantal features: the vocalization of /l/5 and the velarisation of the cluster /nd/.6 In the Berne area, only these two latter features are governed by variable rules, depending on factors like the phonological environment, rurality and social class (cf. Christen 1988: 3; Werlen 1983: 1130 ff.). All other variables describe phenomena which are categorical in Bernese. In sum we can observe that most of the children for most of the 18 dialectological variables analyzed in fact do accommodate in a rather straightforward way to the Bernese variety (cf. Table 2). Particularly the variables from the Bernese long and the short vowel system are used with only sporadic deviations from the Bernese norm. Much more variation is found in the two variables concerning the Bernese verbal morphology, and most variation is generated by the two consonantal features. This last result can be expected since these consonantal features do not have categorical status in the Bernese target dialect. Even though there seems to be a straightforward tendency of accommodation to the target variety, a more precise analysis of the data reveals some interesting ‘anomalies’ within the linguistic choices. Sophie and Martin The first case I would like to present here is the most common solution among the 8 to 9 year-old children observed. Sophie speaks Zurich dia-
334
Raphael Berthele
Table 2. Dialectological variables. On the left are the columns representing the ‘best’ Bernese speakers, at the top the rows with the most Bernese-like realized variables. Variables ‘ä’ to ‘enn’ are the vocalic variables, ‘VPl’ and ‘VVok’ the morphological variables, and ‘l’ and ‘nd’ the consonantal variables.
lect with her father (with her mother she speaks Australian English). Zurich dialect is, especially in its phonology, rather different from the Bernese spoken by most of the children in the classroom. In my survey it turned out that Sophie’s school dialect, after a bit more than two years in primary school, can hardly be distinguished any longer from the dialect of the native Bernese children in the class. For the variables I analyzed, Sophie only shows very few tokens which do not match the Bernese variants. In Fig. 2, white columns represent Sophie’s values and black columns stand for the values of her class mate Miriam, who is a native speaker of Bernese dialect (Martin’s values will be discussed shortly). The closer to 1 a variable scores, the less ‘un-Bernese’ variants had been found in the analyzed data. As the consonantal phenomena vary even in Berne, Miriam can be a near to prototypical Bernese speaker without scoring 100 percent for these two variables. Sophie converges almost perfectly to the prestige variety in the classroom, i. e., she opts very consistently for solution 1 in the model of idiolectal dissonance. Only in very sporadic cases can former Zurich dialect variants be observed.
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
335
Miriam
1.20
Sophie Martin 1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 u
o
e
i
ou
ei
rK
enn
VPl
VVok
l
nd
Figure 2. Miriam’s, Sophie’s, and Martin’s values for the dialectological variables
However, Sophie continues to speak Zurich dialect in her family context, which means that Sophie is a ‘splitter’. No cases of solutions 2 and 6 can be found in Sophie’s data, very few cases of solutions 3 and 4, but the bulk of the linguistic choices obviously turn out to be governed by solution 1 ⫹ splitting. Where Sophie’s native variety matches the target dialect, she simply maintains the state of consonance (solution 5). The splitting solution is very elegant because it allows Sophie to maintain linguistic solidarity within the primary group while converging quickly to the prestige variety in the school context. Only where the two contexts meet are there potential conflicts between the two linguistic identities. In our interviews, some children even spontaneously mentioned such ‘identity-conflict’ situations where brothers and sisters mix with peer group members. The second case seems to be quite similar: Martin’s native variety is Zurich dialect as well, and it’s again his father who comes from Zurich.7 But, if we consider the variables I analyzed, Martin’s scores show a completely different pattern (cf. Fig. 2 above). Only for the two variables ä and e¨ does Martin match in all tokens the Bernese dialect variants, and anyway these two variables show the same variants in Zurich and Berne dialect (cf. SDS I: 19 f. and 21 f.). So Martin did not have to change anything in order to converge to Bernese. In most of the other variables Martin regularly uses non-Bernese vari-
336
Raphael Berthele
Figure 3. Sophie’s way of coping with idiolectal dissonance
ants; in the case of the six variables to the right of the chart he even deviates categorically. All the choices for those six variables correspond to solution 4; they maintain dialectal dissonance. Martin is actually the child who shows the lowest Bernese score; of all dialect speakers8 in the class he deviates most from the target variety. One specific variable in Martin’s data deserves a more precise analysis: Fig. 4 is the box plot showing all the values of the class members for the variable ⫺ ‘aˆ ’⫺. Martin appears as the only extreme value. He uses the Bernese variant in only 67 percent of the relevant tokens. All other children in the class for this variable accommodated highly to Bernese. However, just as for the variables ‘ä’ and ‘e¨ ’ (cf. above), Martin’s native Zurich variety matches the Bernese dialect: both would say [stra6s] or [sta6] for ‘street’ and ‘stand’, whereas, for example, between Berne and Zurich we find vowels like [strc6s] and [stc6] or even [stro6s] and [sto6] (cf. SDS I: 61⫺72). In terms of my model of idiolectal dissonance, Martin selects solution 6 in as much as 33 percent of the relevant tokens. He increases the dissonance between initially identical phonemes. Fig. 5 shows Martin’s linguistic choices in the case of the ‘aˆ ’ variable. As explained above, the value for the ‘aˆ ’ variable in Martin’s dialect and in Bernese happen to be identical. Due to this, Martin’s behavior is not one of the solutions at the bottom of the accommodation-branch of the
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
1.1 1.0 .9 .8 .7
Martin
.6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0.0 -.1 Figure 4. The ‘aˆ ’ variable
Figure 5. Martin’s way of coping with idiolectal dissonance for the ‘aˆ ’-Variable
337
338
Raphael Berthele
diagram; rather the boy has to choose between keeping up consonance and creating dissonance. Thus, for the three variables which are identical in Martin’s native dialect and the prestige variety in the classroom, Martin shows two types of selection: in the case of both ‘e¨ ’ and ‘ä’ he maintains the accordance, in the case of long ‘aˆ ’ depicted here he obviously starts to use deviant variants. This difference in treatment of the three variables ‘e¨ ’, ‘ä’, and ‘aˆ ’ is likely to be an entailment of their different geographic distributions in the Swiss German dialects. The dialectological atlas of German-speaking Switzerland (SDS) shows that the use of non-Bernese variants in the case of ‘ä’ and ‘e¨ ’ would be much more marked than the use of the non-Bernese variants of the ‘aˆ ’-variable. A deviation in one of these two variables would be very salient, because it points either to a very eastern Swiss German dialect or it could be the result of influence from Standard High German. The non-Bernese [c6]variant, on the other hand, can be found in much larger parts of the Swiss German area. In contrast to ‘ä’ and ‘e¨ ’, there are other children in the classroom using this deviant variant, admittedly quite infrequently. This evidence suggests the following interpretation of Martin’s data: it is possible to diverge from both the native and the school variety if the variants are not too salient and at least sporadically present in other idiolects in the classroom. Eva and Benjamin Eva is another child with a comparable linguistic biography. The girl’s family languages are Zurich dialect and Swedish (only as her father’s mother tongue, Eva does not have active competence in Swedish). For the ‘aˆ ’-variable Eva shows no deviations from the common Zurich and Bernese German variant. However, as Fig. 6 shows, Eva’s variety is ⫺ especially for the variables to the right ⫺ characterized through the relatively frequent use of native Zurich variants. Eva is one of the cases that go against the general correlation of social network status within class and linguistic conformity (cf. section 6 below). But, most interestingly, the pattern observed in Eva’s data is an exception rather than the rule: on the whole there is only a low correlation between the children’s linguistic biography and their actual linguistic behavior in class. In statistical terms one can say that even if we control for the child’s linguistic biography, the correlation between social network scores and linguistic conformity to Bernese remains highly significant (Berthele 2000a: 196). To illustrate this, it is useful to take a closer look at the children who already speak the target variety at home. The third case included in Fig. 6 belongs to this group: Benjamin’s pattern of variation indeed corrobo-
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
339
1.20
Miriam Eva Benjamin
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 u
o
e
i
ou
ei
rK
enn
VPl
VVok
l
nd
Figure 6. Miriam’s, Eva’s, and Benjamin’s values for the dialectological variables
rates some of the points made just before. Benjamin belongs to the small group of children who have always been speaking Bernese in the family context. His native variety is therefore very close to the school dialect. However, quite a few variables show sporadic deviations from Bernese phonology and morphology. Although these un-Bernese variants do not occur very frequently, they are not expected, given the initial matching of Benjamin’s native and the class’ prestige variety. This means again that ⫺ admittedly in a sporadic way ⫺ Benjamin can opt for solution 6 in the model of idiolectal dissonance (cf. Fig. 1 above), the increase of dissonance, at least from time to time. And the cumulation of this type of linguistic choice leads to a relatively low ranking on the overall Bernese index, which is perfectly congruent with the general pattern of covariance of language and social structure within the class network. It is this latter aspect which will be the topic of the next section. The social correlates of linguistic choices When I started my research, one of the main questions was to find out which children accommodated to which degree to the assumed prestige variety. One would expect the children either to converge or to maintain their native variants. However, in some cases, Martin and Benjamin not only do not converge, they actively diverge. I believe that we can try to find explanations for some children’s marked choices, although ⫺ once
340
Raphael Berthele ▲Brian
▲Fiamma▼
▲Miriam
▲Sophie
▲Fabien▼
▲Eva
▲Michael▼ ▲Yves
▲Martin▼
Benjamin▼
▲Judith
▲Jessica▼ ▼
▲Iris
Figure 9. Sociogram and cliques
again ⫺ in the multifactorial setting in which all linguistic choices are embedded, any ‘explanation’ must be considered with circumspection. In order to understand the observations described above, it is useful to take a look at the social network formed by the class of schoolchildren. A very traditional way to depict the structure of social groups is the sociogram (Moreno 1954). To get a sociographic image, the fieldworker asks all children the same questions about their preferences within the group. I asked them ⫺ among other questions ⫺ with whom they would like to play during their spare time. I also asked them with whom they do not want to spend their time. Although at the beginning I had not felt at ease asking such questions, I was very glad to discover that the children do not mind at all doing such sociographic tests ⫺ they even play a very similar game in their informal communication, e. g., during drawing lessons (cf. Berthele 2000a: 184). The result of this sociographic test can be displayed as in Fig. 9 above. Straight lines between children stand for reciprocal sociographic choices, that is the two children choose each other mutually. The two latter cases presented before, Martin and Benjamin, are either completely isolated or located in a relatively isolated dyad. Triangles standing on their head indicate the number of negative choices a child received: no triangle stands for no negative choices, the bigger the triangle, the more negative choices were counted. Conversely, the triangles which stand on their base represent the number of positive choices. The ovals enclose cliques, according to the definition of unities of at least three persons who all choose each other mutually in a sociographic test. Qualitative data collection corroborated the sociogram-picture: Martin tells me in an interview that he does not really feel at ease in this class. He finds it rather
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
341
small, too small to offer a large enough choice to find good friends. Benjamin for his part is a quite embarrassing classmate for most of his peers: he is very direct and critical and has a communicative style which is rather inappropriate for his age. When talking to Benjamin, I always had the impression of talking to a child who is much older than he actually was. Benjamin’s most important reference persons are actually his siblings, who are at least ten years older. This could help to explain his social style. In both cases it is possible that the boys demonstrate a certain distance from the peer-group dialect because they do not identify as much as the others with the group. For both it is possible that important reference groups can be found outside the school contexts. In the case of Benjamin it might be his older brothers and sisters, for Martin I was not able to find important reference groups. His best friend in the class and during his spare time is Yves (cf. the sociogram), and Yves, for the ‘aˆ ’ variable, accommodated perfectly to the Bernese variant. However, if we look at conformity for the sum of the dialectological variables, Martin and Yves seem to stabilize themselves mutually in a relatively deviant subgroup. They are found on the two lowest ranks on the ‘Bernese’ index (cf. Table 2). Sophie, by comparison, a native speaker of Zurich dialect who accommodated completely to Bernese, is in the very center of the school children’s sociographic network. Eva, however, who is quite well integrated in the girl’s clique structure, shows quite frequent instances of fidelity towards her native variety (cf. Fig. 6), and she is in fact the only case in the class where the degree of linguistic conformity does not reflect the degree of social integration. Therefore it is important to see that ⫺ even if the overall correlations show quite a striking link between social and linguistic behavior ⫺ in some cases the pattern can be modified. No individual is really forced to accommodate completely to the prestige variety, and there is always a remarkable range of individual freedom of how and through which channels social roles are negotiated. In the case of Eva linguistic conformity does not seem to be the most important means in order to establish solidarity within the class network. Conclusion As a conclusion, I would like to point out that the observed linguistic choices in my class setting can vary in rather unexpected ways. As expected, children accommodate to a different degree to the predominant variety. The general ⫺ and sociolinguistically expected ⫺ pattern is that the more a child is situated at the center of the social network within the class of schoolchildren, the fewer variants from other than the target
342
Raphael Berthele
dialects will be found in his/her idiolect. But at the same time it is possible to deviate from not only the class variety but even the native dialect if this suits the social identity the child is negotiating within the class network structure. The search for explanations ‘ex post’ admittedly involves some speculation. But the ethnographic study of language as a social practice leads to reliable insights into the individual’s attitudes and how those attitudes can have entailments for actual linguistic choices. The model and data discussed here also suggest that the sociolinguistic concept of prestige has to be reconsidered at a sub-group or even individual level: which linguistic forms do carry what type of prestige for which individual in a given context and situation? Some cases are understandable only if one considers aspects of the individual’s personality and the corresponding ‘acts of identity’. Again, evidence from qualitative data collection can give important clues as to why convergence ⫺ at the individual level ⫺ does or does not take place. It is important to be aware of the fact that the sociolinguistic tradition of labeling the more peripheral children as ‘lames’ is an entailment of a somewhat arbitrary perspective: from the point of view of the central members of the class network, they are ‘lames’, but as shown above, these ‘lames’ have other important networks of their own, which are not related to the school and which provide the basis for an externally oriented social identity. Siblings, sports clubs, and other group activities outside the school domain provide a lot of alternative networks which lend themselves to strong identification. The model of idiolectal dissonance is an attempt to establish a classification of possible linguistic choices, choices which serve to minimize or maximize differences between the self and a particular group. The model describes on a micro level what decision (consciously or not) is taken in one particular speech event. The frequent and regular application of one solution, e. g., to abandon the old and to accommodate to the new variant, leads to what we call short term accommodation or ⫺ in the long term ⫺ dialect acquisition. Moreover, this process is not only at the ‘hinge’ of individual choices, but yields ⫺ in its cumulation ⫺ linguistic stasis or change on the collective level. The examples from the class observed show that the dialect contact situation is an excellent laboratory for understanding the way in which social actors linguistically establish their respective social identity in the group. Acknowledgements Among the people who helped me in the process of writing this paper are Peter Trudgill, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Regula Schmidlin, Ingrid Hove, and two anonymous reviewers.
Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance
343
Notes 1. The notion of ‘variety’ is a sociolinguistic abstraction from the varying, heterogeneous, and gradual data. It is most probable that there is a metonymic process going on which allows Ego to construe the group variety as the variety of salient members of the group speaking in salient situations. 2. All of the following Middle High German short vowels are lowered in Bernese: e¨ J/æ/, eJ/i/, oJ/c/, iJ/e/; uJ/o/ 3. The Middle High German vowels ‘eˆ ’, ‘oˆ ’, ‘aˆ ’ and ‘ae’ are ⫺ in contrast to eastern Swiss German dialects ⫺ not raised in Bernese. 4. Variable ‘vpl’: Bernese has 2 different forms in the verb plural whereas many other Swiss dialects only have one form for the whole plural paradigm (cf. SDS III: 34, 44). Variable ‘vvok’: Some very frequent short verbs (können, gehen, haben, stehen, wollen) have diphthongized forms in Bernese which most other Swiss German dialects have not. 5. Variable ‘lvok’: Bernese [hawb], most other Swiss varieties: [halb] (cf. SDS II: 197 f.). 6. Variable ‘ndvel’: Bernese: [hon], most other Swiss varieties: [hond]. 7. His mother is a native speaker of Portuguese, but Martin does not speak this language. 8. Jessica, as indicated in section 2, does not speak dialect but only Standard High German.
References Bell, Alan (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 145⫺204. Berthele, Raphael (2000a). Sprache in der Klasse. Eine dialektologisch-soziolinguistische Untersuchung von Primarschulkindern in multilingualem Umfeld. Tübingen: Niemeyer (⫽ Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 212). ⫺ (2000b). Divergence and convergence in a multilectal classroom: Patterns of group structure and linguistic conformity. In Mattheier, K. (ed.), Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe. New York: Lang (Variolingua), 155⫺171. Chambers, John K. (1992). Dialect acquisition. Language 68, 673⫺705. ⫺ (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell. Christen, Helen (1988). Sprachliche Variation in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz. Dargestellt am Beispiel der l-Vokalisierung in der Gemeinde Knutwil und in der Stadt Luzern. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag. Festinger, Leon (1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland (1991). Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hofer, Lorenz (1997). Sprachwandel im städtischen Dialektrepertoire. Eine variationslinguistische Untersuchung am Beispiel des Baseldeutschen. Tübingen: Francke. Keller, Rudi (1994). Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. (Zweite, überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage.) Tübingen: Francke. Le Page, Robert and Andre´ e Tabouret-Keller (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Littlewood, W. T. (1977). Linguistic change during interpersonal interaction. Lingua 41, 1⫺11. Moreno, Jacob Levy (1954). Grundlagen der Soziometrie. Wege zur Neuordnung der Gesellschaft. Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag.
344
Raphael Berthele
Payne, Arvilla C. (1980). Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. In Labov, William (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic, 143⫺178. Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf (ed.) (1962⫺1997). SDS. Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz. Begründet von Heinrich Baumgartner und Rudolf Hotzenköcherle, in Zusammenarbeit mit Konrad Lobeck, Robert Schläpfer, Rudolf Trüb und unter Mitwirkung von Paul Zinsli. Bern: Francke Verlag. Snow, Catherine (1999). Social perspectives on the emergence of language. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.), The Emergence of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 257⫺276. Trudgill, Peter (1983). On Dialect: Social and Geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. ⫺ (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. ⫺ (1988). On the role of dialect contact and interdialect in linguistic change. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 547⫺563. Turner, John C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Vousten, Rob and Theo Bongaerts (1995). Acquiring a dialect as L2: The case of the dialect of Venray in the Dutch province of Limburg. In Viereck, Wolfgang (ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Dialectologists Bamberg 29.7.⫺ 4.8.1999. (Volume 4: Sociolinguistic Variation.) Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 299⫺313. Werlen, Iwar (1983). Velarisierung (Gutturalisierung) in den Deutschen Dialekten. In Besch, Werner, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.), Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1130⫺1136.
