First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The Case of German Jews in Anglophone Countries (Studies in Bilingualism)

First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil) Editors Kees de Bot University of Ni...

Author: Monika Schmid

64 downloads 905 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

AUTHOR ""

TITLE "First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The case of German Jews in anglophone countries"

SUBJECT "Studies in Bilingualism, Volume 24"

KEYWORDS ""

SIZE HEIGHT "220"

WIDTH "150"

VOFFSET "4">

First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance

Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil)

Editors Kees de Bot University of Nijmegen

Thom Huebner San José State University

Editorial Board Michael Clyne, University of Melbourne Kathryn Davis, University of Hawaii at Manoa Joshua Fishman, Yeshiva University François Grosjean, Université de Neuchâtel Wolfgang Klein, Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik Georges Lüdi, University of Basel Christina Bratt Paulston, University of Pittsburgh Suzanne Romaine, Merton College, Oxford Merrill Swain, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Richard Tucker, Carnegie Mellon University

Volume 24 First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The case of German Jews in anglophone countries by Monika S. Schmid

First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance The case of German Jews in anglophone countries

Monika S. Schmid Free University Amsterdam

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schmid, Monika S. First language attrition, use and maintenance : the case of German Jews in anglophone countries / Monika S. Schmid. p. cm. (Studies in Bilingualism, issn 0928–1533 ; v. 24) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Language attrition. 2. Language maintenance. 3. Language in contact. 4. Jews, German--English-speaking countries--Languages. I. Title. II. Series. P40.5.L28 S36 2002 306.44-dc21 isbn 90 272 4135 X (Eur.) / 1 58811 190 3 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2002018568

© 2002 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

In memory of Jack Sanders (1909–1998)

Table of contents

Abbreviations Preface Introduction

xi xiii 1

Chapter 1 Language contact, language change, and language attrition 1.1 Criterion variables: What is lost, and how? 1.1.1 ‘Last in, Wrst out’? — The regression hypothesis 1.1.2 ‘Hostile takeover’? — The interlanguage hypothesis 1.1.3 SimpliWcation? — The language change hypothesis 1.1.4 Universal Grammar? — The parameter hypothesis 1.1.5 Not lost, just mislaid? — The psycholinguistic hypothesis 1.2 Predictor variables — the extralinguistic factors 1.2.1 Individual factors 1.2.2 Community factors 1.3 Research designs 1.3.1 Data collection 1.3.2 Linguistic levels 1.3.3 What is ‘language attrition’?

7 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 19 26 29 30 31 36

Chapter 2 The situation of German Jews — A historical overview 2.1 The situation of German Jews before the Nazi rise to power 2.2 The situation of German Jews under the Nazi regime 2.3 Emigration 2.4 Conclusion

45 46 52 58 61

Chapter 3 The study 3.1 Free spoken data 3.2 Questionnaires 3.3 The informants — Extralinguistic factors

63 64 68 68

viii First language attrition, use, and maintenance

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2

Age Education Time Gender Contact Autobiographical and historical factors Some hypotheses The corpus — Linguistic factors ‘Interference’ data ProWciency data

68 69 70 70 70 72 77 78 78 82

Chapter 4 Morphology: NP-inXection 4.1 Case 4.2 Gender 4.3 Plural 4.4 Conclusion

85 87 100 113 123

Chapter 5 Morphology II: VP inXection 5.1 Tense 5.2 Number, Person 5.3 Conclusion

127 128 143 146

Chapter 6 Syntax 6.1 German sentence types and verb placement 6.2 Verb placement in English 6.3 German word order in acquisition 6.4 Interferences in the corpus 6.4.1 Verb-subject structures in main clauses 6.4.2 Discontinuous word order 6.4.3 Subordinates 6.4.4 Conclusion

149 151 153 154 157 158 163 177 168

Contents

Chapter 7 Predictor variables 7.1 Independent variables 7.2 Dependent variables 7.2.1 Interference data 7.2.2 ProWciency data 7.3 Analysis of the interference data 7.3.1 Results 7.3.2 Discussion 7.4 Analysis of the proWciency data 7.4.1 Results 7.4.2 Discussion 7.5 Native speaker ratings 7.6 Conclusion

169 169 172 172 173 174 174 185 186 186 186 188 189

Conclusion

191

Notes

193

References

197

Appendix Appendix I: Tables 213 Appendix II: Letter and questionnaire 223 Appendix III: CD and transcripts 229 Index

253

ix

Abbreviations

ACC AGEEMI1 AGEEMI2 ANIM AUX DAT DET DO DWO EMIGRA1

Accusative Age at emigration < 17 years Age at emigration 17 years Animacy Auxiliary Dative Determiner Direct object Discontinuous word order Emigration from Germany between January 1933 and September 1935 (before Nuremberg racial laws) EMIGRA2 Emigration from Germany between October 1935 and November 1938 (before Pogrom) EMIGRA3 Emigration from Germany between November 1938 and August 1939 (before beginning of WWII) EVT Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory GEN Genitive IMPL Implied person (e.g. the noun ‘leg’ implies a person as its owner, whereas the noun ‘car’ does not) IO Indirect object L1 First language L2 Second language LAD Language acquisition device LGCHI Language use with children (self-report data) LGPAR Language use with parents (self-report data) LGSIB Language use with siblings (self-report data) LGSPO Language use with partner/spouse (self-report data) MLU Mean length of utterance NATLGSE Native language of spouse English NATLGSG Native language of spouse German NATLGSN No partner/spouse NOM Nominative NP Noun phrase

xii First language attrition, use, and maintenance

PLU PP SLA SUB SVO UG V2 VS VFIN VINF VP XVS

Plural Prepositional phrase Second language acquisition Subordinate clause Subject — Verb — Object Universal Grammar Verb second Topicalized sentence structure in which the subject appears behind the verb Finite part of verb NonWnite part of verb Verb phrase Sentence structure where a non-subject constituent (X) is topicalized, obliging the subject to appear postverbally

Preface

The idea for this study was conceived when I Wrst, more or less by accident, came across narrative autobiographical interviews with German Jews in California. It was during a term as a visiting lecturer in German at UC Davis in the spring of 1996 that I was present as some of these interviews were recorded. Listening to people relating their lives across a period that had always been history to me was both moving and disturbing. One thing which amazed me were the diVerent attitudes towards ‘being German’ or ‘being Rhenanian’ which I encountered. I recollect, for example, the enthusiastically nostalgic reaction of several people to my using the typically regional greeting “Tschüss” upon leaving. These were often encounters where I could feel an immediate bond having been established on the basis of our common background. On the other hand, I also met people who obviously did not retain any lingering sense of ‘being German’. It was my feeling that there was a correlation between these diVerent attitudes and the degree to which people felt comfortable using the German language. However, I could not establish any pattern beyond that. I looked for an explanation in whether they had been children or adults at the time of their emigration — and failed to Wnd it. I looked for other factors — again without success. I then decided that the subject might bear closer investigation — and that decision eventually ended in this book, a (slightly revised) version of my Ph.D. thesis. I am very grateful for the kindness that many people have shown to me while I was working on that investigation. First of all, I want to express my thanks towards my informants, many of whom I was in close contact with. I was intensely touched by the interest that was expressed, and the generosity and openness all my requests were met with. Secondly, I could never have done this project without the help and support of two people: Prof. Dieter Stein, of the Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, and Prof. Kees de Bot, of the Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. They have been unfailingly generous and kind to me, and I owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Many other colleagues and friends have been kind enough to listen to my ideas and share their thoughts, from which my investigation has proWted

xiv First language attrition, use, and maintenance

enormously. Most of all, I very much enjoyed — and still enjoy — the productive cooperation and exchange of ideas with Barbara Köpke of the Université de Toulouse — Le Mirail. I am furthermore very grateful to Ulrike Altendorf, Alex Bergs, Michael Clyne, Heidrun Dorgeloh, Christine Gunia, Verena Jung, Simone Pesch, Anette Rosenbach, Katrin Schott, Bert Weltens, Richard Young, and Michaela Zitzen for their patience, interest, and insight. Where the historical chapter is concerned, I would especially like to thank Annette Klerks for her helpful comments and support. I am furthermore deeply indebted to Frans van der Slik of the Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen for his help with the statistics, and to Iris Guske and Stefanie Schmid, who were kind enough to proofread every page of the manuscript — remaining errors are, of course, mine. I would furthermore like to express my thanks to two institutions: The Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf, who collected the interview corpus on which this project is based and very kindly made it available to me, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, without whose funding the project would not have been possible. I was also deeply touched by the amount of personal support and kindness that was shown to me by many people. One person I would like to mention — and thank — particularly is Theresia Bernstein of the Dept. of English Linguistics at the Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. Most of all, I want to thank my parents, Gisela Schmid and Dankward Schmid, who have supported me through what in eVect were 32 years of learning and education. It was their love and belief in me, more than anything else, which has made this project possible. Last but certainly not least, I want to thank Chris McCully — partner, lover, husband, and best friend — for his love, support, close reading of the text, and insight from the perspective of historical linguistics. Among other things. Thy Wrmness draws my circle just And makes me end, where I begun. (John Donne)

Amsterdam, October 2001

Introduction

I always thought I was a German. It was Hitler who taught me I was a Jew. (Autobiographical interview with Jack Sanders)

On February 16th 2000, the German president, Johannes Rau, gave an address to the Knesset (the Israelian parliament), asking forgiveness for the Nazi crimes. The fact that this address was given in the German language sparked oV a heated controversy in the Knesset, and the speech was boycotted by a number of the members of parliament who felt that “the time had not yet come for German to be spoken in this house”, and even that “an address by a German politician in the German language is deWling the memory of the Holocaust”. Many people felt that, while German was the language of Heine, Benjamin and Einstein, it was also the language of the perpetrators of the Nazi genocide (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17. February 2000). The ambiguity that marks this controversy is an indication of the deeply conXicting feelings that were ingrained in the lives of many of the assimilated German Jews who were forced to emigrate under the Nazi regime. Most of these had, up to the Nazi seizure of power in January 1933, lived in a monolingual German environment that was characterized by a very high regard for the German language and culture, by highly patriotic feelings and a by deep sense of identiWcation with their own country. Jewish and German identity were not just two unrelated parts of most peoples’ identity, nor were they even closely linked, but each was an integral part of the other. Being brutally excluded from a society, culture and tradition of which German Jews had formed a part for many centuries gave rise to a conXicting sense of identity — which (among other things) inXuenced the attitude towards and use of the German language in emigration. The present study is an attempt to explore these factors within the framework of L1 attrition. It is based on a corpus of narrative autobiographical interviews with former citizens of Düsseldorf, who emigrated between the Nazi seizure of power and the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. These interviews were collected by the Düsseldorf Holocaust Memorial Center be-

2

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

tween 1995 and 1997. The corpus, which consists of 54 interviews of a total of some 270,000 words, is augmented by a questionnaire on language use and language attitudes, Wlled out by the informants. The role of attitude has been an important factor in studies on second language acquisition ever since Gardner and Lambert’s groundbreaking study (Gardner and Lambert 1972). It is generally accepted nowadays that the success of the second or foreign language learning process is to a large part determined by the speaker’s attitude towards this language, and that this attitude is inXuenced by a number of factors comprising the prestige of the language as well as entirely subjective factors. Ever since the mid-seventies, these models of thought have been applied to the study of the survival of minority languages as well. Theoretical frameworks on the basis of social issues as well as ethnicity and ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) have shown that prestige, attitude, and other socioethnic factors very much aVect the chance a minority language has to survive (e.g. Boyd 1986; Dorian 1982; Leets and Giles 1995). This is intuitively convincing, since the likelihood of a minority language being passed on to the next generation is higher if the present generation thinks that it will be useful. However, more recently the question has also been asked whether language attitudes might aVect language maintenance within one generation, whether a negative attitude on the part of the speaker might be conductive to the process of Wrst language attrition. At Wrst sight, this question seems much more diYcult to answer, since it apparently presupposes that such seemingly involuntary processes as forgetting something might at some level be governed by attitudes as well. However, if it is taken into consideration that the attitude a speaker has towards his or her Wrst language might well aVect their everyday behavior, that they might avoid situations in which they have to use this language, it does seem possible that such an eVect might obtain — although the underlying presupposition that the amount of language use correlates with attrition has by no means been proven to this day. Studies on Wrst language attrition have attempted to establish the impact of attitude on the basis of frameworks such as ethnicity and ethnic aYliation (Waas 1996), ethnolinguistic vitality theory (Yaægmur 1997) and social network theory (Hulsen 2000). However, where the results from these studies were quantiWed, they have not proved conclusive. For the present study, therefore, a diVerent approach was taken. The classiWcation adopted is not based on subjective evaluations on the part of the informants, but Wndings from historical research. A commonly accepted

Introduction

framework is taken as the starting-point, in an attempt to analyze the eVect that living — and suVering — through diVerent phases of a historical period had on the proWciency which speakers retain. The study is divided into two parts. The Wrst part examines some theoretical issues. As the Weld of language attrition is entering its third decade of research, it was felt that a re-examination and evaluation of some theoretical and methodological issues was in order. The Wrst chapter therefore gives an outline of the research done in this Weld, outlining the major theoretical frameworks, discussing the selection of linguistic and extralinguistic variables as well as the research designs as they were presented by various studies and summing up the Wndings. The second chapter is a historical outline of the situation of German Jews before and after the Nazi seizure of power as well as of the circumstances of emigration and the situation in emigration. It addresses issues of assimilation and identiWcation with regard to the established German Jewish minority. Based on analyses of the development of persecution during the years before the outbreak of World War II — a process that has been described as ‘cumulative radicalization’ by historians, i.e. a situation where all parts of the national socialist bureaucratic system contributed to the ever increasing severity of persecution of German Jews which culminated in the death camps — it is assumed that pre-war emigrants can be divided into three groups according to the degree of severity of the persecution they were exposed to. The Wrst group comprises the people who left Germany within the Wrst 2 ½ years after the Nazi rise to power, before September 1935, when the Nuremberg race laws were announced. The second group left after these laws were passed, but before the Wrst deportations to Poland in late October of 1938 and, most importantly, before the pogrom on Nov. 9th 1938 that has come to be known as ‘Reichskristallnacht’. The last group left between this pogrom and the outbreak of World War II on September 1st 1939, after which emigration became virtually impossible. Our prediction is that there will be diVerences in the self-report data as well as in the amount of interference in the spoken German between these three groups. The second part of this study presents an empirical investigation conducted on the data. In an introductory chapter on data collection and methodology (Chapter 3) the advantages and disadvantages of the nature of the data under investigation are discussed, and the linguistic (dependent) and extralinguistic (independent) variables to be investigated are established. The linguistic variables have been conWned to the grammatical system, and speciWcally to

3

4

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

the domain of (inXectional) morphology and syntax. This decision was made on the basis of the hypotheses on language contact and language attrition that this study will be testing. Furthermore, it was felt that native speaker judgements on what is or is not a ‘mistake’ in the speech of an ‘attriter’ were only consistent in those domains. Chapter 4 describes the analysis performed on the linguistic variables. For each variable, this analysis is based on Wndings from acquisitional studies, issues of interlanguage, and previous attrition studies (where such exist). On the basis of these theoretical issues, each section attempts to make predictions about the possible nature of the attrition process, and then proceeds to establish whether these can be borne out by the actual Wndings from the corpus. It is attempted to provide evidence for or against various theoretical frameworks of attrition — for example, Jakobson’s regression hypothesis (Jakobson 1941), which predicts that language loss will be the reverse of the acquisition process. This chapter is based on the corpus of ‘interferences’ found in the data in the domains of inXectional morphology and verb placement. It is important to note, however, that throughout this study the term ‘interference’ should not be read to imply an interlanguage eVect. It is used to describe an utterance that is in some way felt to be deviant by native speakers, without making any prior assumption about the nature of the disturbance that caused this ‘mistake’. Chapter 5 then extends the analysis to include extralinguistic or predictor variables. On the basis of statistical analyses, it is attempted to establish the inXuence of individual factors on the attrition process of speakers. Among these factors are age at the time of emigration, interim use of the language, as well as the degree of ‘traumatization’ and identiWcation conXicts. In order to arrive at a complete and representative picture of individual proWciency, it has been decided not to base this analysis on interference data alone. It was felt that a comprehensive picture of how much or little attrited a speaker’s L1 is could not be gained on the basis of those instances where something ‘went wrong’ to the exclusion of all instances where something ‘went right’. Narrowing the perspective to the mistakes of speakers does not do justice to either the vividness and individuality of their linguistic repertoire or to the creativity of the language contact process that has led to the individual variety over a period of some sixty years of emigration for each speaker. For the purpose of the analysis of the extralinguistic variables, each interview was therefore further analyzed for features like lexical richness and morphological and syntactic complexity. Having taken into account all of these features, however, I realized that as a reader who had no access to the actual recordings, I would still be left with an

Introduction

unsatisfactory impression of the proWciency the individual speakers retained. Gradients of ‘errors’ or ‘morphosyntactic richness’ do not translate directly into a picture of what someone would ‘sound like’. I therefore decided to do two more things: I included a variable which I called ‘native speaker rating’, for which I asked a number of L1 speakers of German to give me their subjective impression of how ‘native-like’ these speakers sounded. And I further contacted my informants again, requesting their permission to use a short stretch of their interview on a CD to be included with this book. I was able to obtain this permission from about two thirds of my informants — to whom I am very grateful. Having lived in such close and intimate proximity with more than Wfty autobiographical narratives for a period of several years has been an immensely enriching experience. I feel intensely privileged to have been granted access to these data, and am very grateful to my informants, who have been more than helpful and kind. I have also, during the course of this work, often felt a deep sense of ambiguity at investigating a phenomenon that would not exist if it had not been for the most atrocious crime of the 20th century. The deep respect and admiration I felt at the courageous and dedicated way every one of my informants pursued the course of their lives in the face of inhuman persecution and overwhelming obstacles has often made me question the justiWcation of dispassionately placing their narratives under the microscope of linguistic investigation sixty years later. However, corresponding with my informants, and being granted insight into the deeply conXicting feelings many of them had or still have towards their native language, convinced me that this was indeed a subject in need of further investigation. Some of the experiences I was allowed to share are these: A married couple who had known each other in Düsseldorf long before emigrating, when they were all but children, state that in more than Wfty years of marriage they never spoke German to each other, not even intimately. While expressing similarly negative attitudes towards German, another informant states that she naturally and without conscious eVort talked and sang to her children and grandchildren in German when they were very small. She goes on to say that “the only thing that will immediately stop my 11 months old twins from crying is when I sing ‘Schlaf, Kindchen, schlaf ’.” And another informant says: “Among Jewish refugees like myself we only talk English, since it would seem too intimate to use German.” It thus seemed to me that the language which many of my informants had to reject not only embodied memories of Nazi persecution, but also of being

5

6

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

loved and being secure within their own family. The loss of this residual part of many people’s childhood is what this study aims to investigate. Towards the end of 1998, while I was writing this study, news of the death of Jack Sanders reached me. Jack Sanders was one of the informants who generously donated the story of their lives to the Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf, and his interview forms part of the data base for this study. He was also one of those informants that I was fortunate enough to meet in person. Like all other informants, Jack Sanders appears in this study under an alias name which I chose to preserve anonymity. Since it was impossible to express my gratitude to all of my informants in their real name, I am dedicating this study to him as a representative for all those whose narratives I was allowed to share.

Chapter 1

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

Diachronic linguistics, the perspective on investigation of language that takes into account the dimension of time and the diVering states of a language at diVerent points in time, has been a major Weld in linguistic research for at least the last century. And yet, a close look at research into the domain of language change reveals only that we do not really know how or why it happens. We may speculate, and close and diligent research on a large number of languages and vast amounts of data may eventually substantiate or disprove those speculations. In some areas, there may exist very good reasons even now to accept some of these speculations as the probable truth. But the general picture is still to a large part obscure. The one tenet that seems to be almost universally accepted nowadays is that extensive language contact is conductive to language change. The second half of the last century has seen a constant increase of studies on language contact, a process that was inaugurated with Weinreich’s seminal work (Weinreich 1953). For a large part of that time, such studies were predominantly preoccupied with language change on a societal level; with either the shift of entire communities from one language to the other, resulting in language death, or with substantial changes in the linguistic system(s) of those communities, without ensuing decrease in use. It is only relatively recently that research has become interested in possible changes of individuals’ use of and proWciency in one of their linguistic systems. If we focus on these two phenomena of language shift:1 Language death on the one hand and ‘language attrition’ — i.e. the gradual loss of a language by an individual — on the other, a number of questions immediately present themselves, and the answers might be very similar or very diVerent according to which of the two phenomena we look at: – – –

Can any one language ever be really ‘lost’? How can we measure if and to what degree a language is lost? What is language loss, anyway?

8

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

On a societal level, the answer to the Wrst question will have to be an unequivocal yes. Languages can and do die out. This is generally an intergenerational process, where one generation fails to pass on the language system either in its entirety or in parts to the next. This is illustrated by Gonzo and Saltarelli’s (1983) ‘cascade’ model, in which each ensuing generation has a smaller linguistic repertoire than the last one, until the language ceases to be spoken. Many linguistic and extralinguistic factors are, of course, involved in this change in language use — the ‘marketability’ of the language probably being one of the more important, but certainly not the only one — and, since every language contact situation is diVerent, it can be argued that no language dies out in quite the same way as any other (see for example the intriguing case of Montana Salish, which — after close contact with English over 150 years — is undergoing language death, but not changing in this process (Thomason 1999)). On the level of the individual, however, the question is much more diYcult to answer. Cases like the one of a California-born third generation Japanese American who thought he knew no Japanese whatsoever, but unexpectedly started to speak in that language when he was age-regressed to under the age of four years under hypnosis (Fromm 1970: 79) give rise to doubts as to whether a language once learned is ever really forgotten. This issue will be discussed in more detail below, but immediately leads up to the next question: How do we know if a language is lost? Again on a societal level, this question is answered most often on the basis of census data. While such data are valuable to gain insights into the domains of life in which language shift occurs as well as into the degree of shift, they are not unproblematic, being based on self-reports rather than observation of linguistic behavior (see Romaine 1989: 25–30). More importantly, however, they do not allow conclusions about the microlinguistic trends operative in language shift. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about what is happening within the language as a system as it falls into disuse on the basis of census data alone. Both kinds of research — societal and individual — therefore have to take into account actual spontaneous and/or elicited data from the endangered language if the researcher wants to tackle the last and arguably most complex of the questions formulated above: What is language loss? What linguistic levels are aVected, and to what degree? Is there a sequence to it that obtains universally? If so, is this sequence the reverse of how languages are acquired? Are languages lost according to the same principles that appear to govern language

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

change as a whole? And, if so, is this true for loss both on a societal and an individual level? This chapter will outline some of the research that has been done in this Weld, in order to establish hypotheses about the L1 attrition of the speciWc group of speakers studied here. Needless to say, a comprehensive account of research on language contact and language change is beyond the scope of this study. The overview will therefore largely be focused on hypotheses and Wndings in the domain of Wrst language attrition in a second language environment. At the end of this chapter, all of the studies cited in the subsequent sections have been listed in Table 1, giving the languages and linguistic variables under investigation, as well as the theoretical framework that was applied. These details will therefore not be given when the studies are referred to in the text. Language attrition: How, why, what (if any)? Language attrition is a special case of variation in the acquisition and use of a language or languages and can best be studied, described, documented, explained and understood within a framework that includes all other phenomena of language acquisition and use. (Andersen 1982: 86)

The inauguration of language attrition studies is commonly assumed to have taken place in 1980 with the UPenn conference ‘The Loss of Language Skills’. To assume this date as the ‘birth’ of the discipline is justiWed, even though issues like interlanguage eVects in the L1 of immigrants or the role of the individual in language death had received attention before in the works of, e.g., Michael Clyne (1967; 1973). However, there was no integrated framework of quantiWed research into issues of language loss at this point, and most of Clyne’s work is predominantly descriptive. The Wrst decade of research into the study of language attrition after the publication of the UPenn conference volume (Lambert and Freed 1982) was thus characterized by ‘staking out the territory’. This is manifest in the fact that about half the papers published during this time were purely concerned with methodological issues. A seminal paper is Andersen (1982), who took it upon himself to provide the community with a number of research questions and hypotheses on the basis of theoretical issues and Wndings from studies on language contact. His axioms have proved extremely valuable as the Weld enlarged and deepened.2 Further early papers concerned themselves with questions of research design (Clark 1982; Oxford 1982) and the state of the art

9

10

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

in current research (Freed 1982). The following years saw a host of papers which dealt with (intra- and extralinguistic) factors inXuencing language loss (Lambert 1989; Sharwood Smith 1983), the selection of variables (Hinskens 1986), issues of methodological frameworks (De Bot and Weltens 1991; Davies 1986; Leets and Giles 1995; Seliger and Vago 1991; Sharwood Smith 1989; Sharwood Smith and Van Buren 1991) and central questions on research designs (Jaspaert, Kroon and van Hout 1986; Lambert and Moore 1986; Weltens and Cohen 1989). Towards the end of the Wrst decade, a number of papers were dedicated to summing up and evaluating present and ongoing research (de Bot 1991; van Els 1986; Grendel, Weltens and de Bot 1993; Hagen and de Bot 1990). That same period witnessed a number of comparatively small applied studies or pilot studies on Wrst language attrition in a variety of languages and linguistic contexts, on a variety of linguistic levels and within a variety of (socio)linguistic frameworks and research designs (see Table 1 at the end of this chapter). It was only in the nineties that the Weld was suYciently staked out for a number of larger studies to be conducted on some aspects of language attrition. These studies all investigate L1 attrition from a speciWc explanatory framework. In some of these, the focus is on the intralinguistic situation, i.e. they focus predominantly on linguistic variables and phenomena of interlanguage (e.g. Kaufman 1992; Håkansson 1995), while others investigate the socio- and psycholinguistic determinants of language attrition (e.g. Ammerlaan 1996; Köpke 1999). As frameworks of identity theory gained importance in research on language loss, studies also attempted to incorporate these in data-based studies: Hormann (1994) provided an attempt to operationalize Le Page’s framework of Acts of Identity, while Waas (1996) based her study on the concept of “Ethnic AYliation”, and Yaægmur (1997) investigated language attrition from the point of view of Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory. A related approach was taken by Ricker (1994; 1995; 1997), who investigated aspects of language choice and linguistic behavior of French immigrant women in northern Germany from a cultural and social framework. The following outline of these theories will be structured along the distinction between criterion and predictor variables made by Lambert: Criterion variables are the linguistic factors which are investigated by microlinguistic studies of language attrition. Predictor variables are the extralinguistic factors, those features which do or do not inXuence language skill attrition; comprising among other things an individual’s personal characteristics, her motivation for

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

the acquisition, retention and use of language skills, the learning context, and the interim use of language, as well as traditional sociolinguistic variables like age, gender, and education (cf. Lambert 1982: 9). In empirical studies of language attrition, predictor variables therefore form the independent variables, while criterion variables form the dependent variables.

1.1 Criterion variables: What is lost, and how? The problem confronting the researcher in bilingualism and Wrst language attrition is to explain how traYc is directed when two language grammars are melded and allowed to intermix. What principles seem to be governing the movement of rules from one language to the other and what determines which factors become changed in the host language and what remains? (Seliger 1989: 173)

Studies into how Wrst language attrition proceeds on the level of the linguistic system have mainly been characterized by the following Wve hypotheses: – – – –

–

Language attrition is determined by the acquisitional sequence (Jakobson’s regression hypothesis (Jakobson 1941)) Language attrition is determined by interlanguage eVects, aspects from the linguistic system of the L2 encroaching on that of the L1 Language attrition is determined by general tendencies of language change, leading to a simpliWcation of the linguistic system Language attrition is determined by principles of Universal Grammar (UG), marked structures will be lost while unmarked structures will be preserved Language attrition is determined by reduced accessibility of information in retrieval processes

The division between these hypotheses cannot be drawn as neatly as this list might lead one to suspect; often theories will overlap and phenomena will show up that can equally well be explained by several of these theories or by an interaction of them. Moreover, some of the theoretical aspects underlying these diVerent hypotheses are related. For example, in the course of the search for universal mechanisms in language, parallels between language change, language acquisition, and (pathological) language loss have been pointed out. This suggests that the evolution of a linguistic system over a long time in a

11

12

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

language community and over a short time in an individual follow the same principles (cf. de Bot and Weltens 1991). 1.1.1 ‘Last in, Wrst out’? — The regression hypothesis The regression hypothesis has a tradition that goes back far longer than any other theory in language loss: It was Wrst formulated by Ribot in the 1880s, and taken up again by Freud in connection with aphasia (Berko-Gleason 1982: 17). It was Roman Jakobson who in the 1940s integrated it into a linguistic framework, speciWcally in the area of phonology (de Bot and Weltens 1991: 31). The central tenet of this hypothesis is comprehensively summed up by Caramazza and Zurif: The pattern of language dissolution in aphasics is similar, but in reverse order, to the pattern of language acquisition in children. Those aspects of language competence acquired last, or, more precisely, those that are most dependent on other linguistic developments, are likely to be the Wrst to be disrupted consequent to brain damage; those aspects of language competence that are acquired earliest and are thus ‘independent’ of later developments are likely to be most resistant to eVects of brain damage. (Caramazza and Zurif 1978: 145)

The regression hypothesis has been the subject of much debate in research on both pathological and non-pathological loss. Where aphasia is concerned, it has come to be generally accepted that this hypothesis does not provide a conclusive framework. One reason for this is that pathological language loss is usually not a universal phenomenon, depending as it does on diVerent forms of local impairment to the brain (Caramazza and Zurif 1978: 146) and therefore aVecting only speciWc linguistic skills. Even where the language of aphasics does resemble that of children, there is a striking diVerence in the metalinguistic awareness of two groups: While children are apparently content with ungrammatical utterances they produce, aphasics are often painfully aware of their deviances in production from an accepted standard and attempt (albeit unsuccessfully) to correct themselves (Berko-Gleason 1982: 17). Where non-pathological language loss is concerned, it has been speculated that the sequence of L1 acquisition might determine the sequence of attrition (e.g. Andersen 1982: 97; Berko-Gleason 1982: 14; Seliger 1991: 227). The fact that languages are acquired in stages by children has been taken to suggest that language competence is ‘layered’, and that attrition will work its way from the topmost layer to the bottom. (Berko-Gleason 1982: 14; Caramazza and Zurif 1978: 145). A related but slightly diVerent approach is concerned with the

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

notion of frequency of reinforcement, hypothesizing that it is not what is learned Wrst but what is learned best that is least vulnerable to language loss (Berko-Gleason 1982: 21; Jordens, de Bot, van Os and Schumans 1986: 161; Lambert 1989: 7). The diVerence between these two lines of thought, as well as the major theoretical problem in connection with the regression hypothesis, can be reduced to the two basic competing frameworks in the theory of L1 acquisition: The nativist (or Chomskyan) and the cognitivist (or Piagetian) approach. If the sequence of L1 acquisition is seen as determined by an innate languagelearning capacity developing autonomously (Chomsky 1965: 27–37), then the hypothesis that the loss of this autonomous system will proceed in inverse order appears at least possible. The linguistic system could ‘atrophy’ due to lack of use, and this atrophying process could be the reverse of the acquisitional one. If, on the other hand, the linguistic capacity is seen as being paced by the growth of conceptual and communicative capacities in L1 acquisition then such an assumption would not make sense: In non-pathological language attrition, it is not the conceptual and communicative skills that are aVected, but the lexical and grammatical system. If the cognitive concepts that are seen as the prerequisites for the acquisition of a certain feature — e.g. the concept of singularity and plurality, which the child must have in order to acquire the singular — plural distinction — are not lost again in the same sequence that they were acquired then, there is no reason why the grammatical features that express them should be. Given the extent of the debate on the regression hypothesis, it seems strange that little research in the Weld of attrition has attempted to link acquisitional and attritional sequences. Only two studies have so far compared the sequence of attrition with that of acquisition. One of these is Jordens et al. (1986; 1989), who suggest that, while the regression hypothesis makes predictions that explain the observations on L2 attrition, L1 attrition does not parallel any acquisitional sequence. This Wnding points towards a cognitivist explanation of language acquisition: Since (adult) L2 acquisition is not ‘paced’ by a cognitive development, a ‘last in, Wrst out’ sequence of attrition seems more likely than in the case of L1 attrition (for a discussion of these studies and their Wndings see below). The regression hypothesis was also tested by Håkansson in her study on the L1 attrition of Swedish. Again, her Wndings on the attrition of morphology and syntax did not suggest that the attriters had reached a stage that was found anywhere in studies on the acquisition of Swedish (Håkansson 1995: 163f.).

13

14

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Since Jordens et al.’s study is based only on experimental data in one speciWc grammatical Weld (case marking), while Håkansson based her study on written data by early bilinguals, however, these Wndings alone are no suYcient basis for the sweeping rejection of the regression hypothesis often found in literature on attrition (e.g. Sharwood Smith 1989: 186). 1.1.2 ‘Hostile takeover’? — The interlanguage hypothesis The notion that in situations of language contact and ensuing language change the modiWcations that can be observed in the linguistic system of one of these languages are entirely or in parts due to the second language ‘taking over’, encroaching on the Wrst, is fairly widespread and probably true to some extent. In the lexical, or open-class domain, at least, it is hard to see where eVects like code-switching and code-mixing should come from, if not directly from the linguistic system of the L2. In the grammatical system, however, a clear distinction of cases of L2 inXuence from modiWcations within the linguistic system of L1 that are not due to L2 is often problematic. Studies on language death as well as situations of intense language contact, e.g. creolization have often discovered modiWcations within a linguistic system that cannot be explained by interlanguage eVects alone: “Perhaps the errors in a half-forgotten language have a logic of their own too (that is, arise from properties of the language being forgotten or from the structure and order of the forgetting process itself) and are not simple interference phenomena.” (Dorian 1982: 57)

The distinction between externally and internally induced linguistic change in language attrition was made by Seliger and Vago (1991: 10), who identiWed diVerent strategies of linguistic change caused by these two forces. Within this framework, studies of attrition would have to be based on a comparison of linguistic features of both languages, trying to isolate interferences3 that can only be due to interlanguage eVects against mistakes that are clearly internally induced. In this context, the role of contrast between the two languages is clearly a determining factor. However, researchers disagree on the role of contrast in this respect: It has been hypothesized that features that are cognate in L1 and L2 are more likely to be retained while categories that do not have an equivalent in the L2 will be lost both in language attrition and language death (Andersen 1982: 97; Dorian 1982: 153; Lambert 1989: 7; Romaine 1989: 75; Sharwood Smith 1989: 193). On the other hand, Seliger has

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

hypothesized that at a certain stage in language attrition, due to lack of L1 input, the L2 grammar will become a source of “indirect positive evidence” which will aVect grammaticality judgements in the L1 (Seliger 1991: 237). The two linguistic systems will interact in those domains where both of them contain a rule which serves the same semantic function, and “that version of the rule which is formally less complex and has a wider linguistic distribution […] will replace the more complex more narrowly distributed rule” (Seliger 1989: 173) — a deWnition which would appear to presuppose a situation where the relevant corresponding category is present in L2. In a similar vein, Altenberg, who found more instances of ‘mistakes’ in the domain of plural allomorphs than in the domain of gender marking in L1 attrition of German under L2 inXuence of English, hypothesized that this discrepancy was due to English not having a gender distinction on nouns, thus making it easier for her subjects to keep up this distinction in their L1. She therefore speculates that “L1 and L2 similarity is a necessary condition for transfer” (Altenberg 1991: 203). Unfortunately, the two types of language attrition — internally and externally induced — have not, so far, been systematically explored on the basis of, e.g., research done in language contact studies.4 However, such a study would have to be based on experimental data obtained in a rigorously controlled environment. Data obtained from free spoken discourse oVers diVerent numbers of possibilities for the speaker to make ‘mistakes’ on diVerent types of grammatical features, thus making it impossible to assess the degree of attrition of a speciWc linguistic rule by simple comparison of the frequencies of mistakes. It would also be useful if such a study of individual language loss were to investigate two linguistic systems with a high degree of inXectional variability and a tendency towards synthetic structures, in order to assess the inXuence of variation between L1 and L2. Since, however, the vast majority of studies on language attrition done so far (including the present one) use English — a predominantly analytic language — as one of the contact languages, it is very diYcult to assess the role of interlanguage: Most of the deviant forms produced by language attriters might equally well be due to internally and externally induced linguistic change. 1.1.3 SimpliWcation? — The language change hypothesis Such diYculties in the distinction of processes of interlanguage interference and internal simpliWcation of a system notwithstanding, some processes that were predicted or have been shown to obtain in language attrition are qualitatively

15

16

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

diVerent from processes that could be explained by interlanguage alone. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that, once gaps in the linguistic system of L1 have been created, L2 elements might move in to Wll the voids thus created. One eVect that has been shown to occur in language loss due to extensive language contact is a reduction in registers. This is due to the fact that in an immigrant setting, the use of a speciWc language will often be conWned to certain situations, e.g. domestic ones (Andersen 1982: 88; Maher 1991: 80). It has also been predicted that the lexicon of attriters will be reduced, and moreover contain only or mainly high-frequency items (Andersen 1982: 94). Where the grammatical system is concerned, a general prediction is that language death as well as language attrition will lead to an overall reduction in morphological complexity, resulting in a more analytical language structure. Features that are considered vulnerable in this respect are multiple case systems and systems with a large amount of allomorphic variation (Maher 1991: 80; Seliger and Vago 1991: 10; Andersen 1982: 97). Further predictions include a trend towards periphrastic constructions, like the development of the go-future (Maher 1991: 80) or do-support. One reason for the development of such quasi-auxiliaries might be that they are characteristic of a more non-standard vernacular, and are therefore concomitant to the reduction in registers immigrant languages often experience. Language loss is thus seen as a form of language change that is speeded up within the individual or within the community. Several studies have borne out some of these predictions (see e.g. Schmidt 1991 on Dyirbal under the inXuence of English; Dorian 1982 on East Sutherland Gaelic under the inXuence of English; and Håkansson 1995 on the L1 attrition of Swedish in English/Swedish or French/Swedish bilinguals). An interesting hypothesis that has hitherto gone uninvestigated predicts a reduction in morphological distinctions that is dependent on the amount of vital information they contribute to the discourse and suggests that distinctions will be maintained if their loss would result in frequent loss of information (Andersen 1982: 97; Lambert and Moore 1986: 180). This hypothesis presupposes a high awareness of the morphological and functional complexity of the attriting language by the attriter, and it would therefore be interesting to see if it can be veriWed. It should be noted that the distinction between the interlanguage hypothesis and the simpliWcation hypothesis is very hard, if not impossible, to draw. Analytical structures are not forcibly the outcome of language change eVects, since they can develop even in areas where the contact language has highly developed synthetic structures.

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

How diYcult it is to clearly draw the distinction between interlanguage eVects and internal simpliWcation is illustrated by the debate on Middle English. The question of whether this was, in fact, a creole language due to highly productive language contact, or whether the rapid loss of inXectional marking was due to language internal mechanisms is widely and controversially discussed in the literature (see e.g. Allen 1997; Bailey and Maroldt 1977; Dalton-PuVer 1995; Danchev 1997; Görlach 1986; Poussa 1982) but as yet remains unsolved. 1.1.4 Universal Grammar? — The parameter hypothesis At a very basic level, the UG approach to language attrition is not unrelated to the regression hypothesis, since it also considers acquisitional factors. It is, however, not so much based on an observable sequence of acquisition but on grammatical reasons for this sequence. The parameter view on language acquisition and language attrition is based on Chomsky’s notion of a UG which contains a set of Wxed principles and certain open parameters which are set during the acquisitional process (Chomsky 1981: 4; Ingram 1989: 64; Seliger and Vago 1991: 12). This theory is complicated by the assumption that certain parameters carry a preferred or unmarked setting, which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will be the value assigned to the speciWc feature (Sharwood Smith and van Buren 1991: 25). The parameter view has instigated many studies into Wrst and second language acquisition, with a view to establishing factors such as – – –

are children born with an innate knowledge about universal properties of the linguistic system? if a parameter is set to a speciWc value, can that setting ever be neutralized (e.g. in L2 acquisition, if the settings for L2 diVer from those of L1)? the role of markedness in this context: Can a marked parameter be reset to an unmarked setting in L2 acquisition?

Within the framework of L1 attrition, it has been proposed that this process might involve the ‘unmarking’ of parameters that have been set to a marked value in L1 (Håkansson 1995: 155; Sharwood Smith 1989: 199). However, an alternative view has been proposed by Sharwood Smith and van Buren: Since parameter settings are inXuenced by evidence from input, and since language attrition is characterized by lack of evidence through lack of contact, they assume that marked values in the L1 will persist (Sharwood Smith and van Buren 1991: 26).

17

18

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

The only study that investigates a speciWc case of language attrition within this theoretical framework is Håkansson’s work on the V2-rule in Swedish. However, she could Wnd no evidence for her subjects coming to prefer an unmarked SVO sentence structure over topicalized VS constructions: The distribution of SVO and VS sentences paralleled that in unattrited monolingual Swedish (Håkansson 1995). 1.1.5 Not lost, just mislaid? — The psycholinguistic hypothesis All of these approaches to language attrition are based on language-internal principles. On the basis of acquisitional or typological features of the languages that are interacting in the contact situation, they analyzed and discussed the changes found in contact varieties. In recent years, however, an approach to language attrition has gained in importance which tries to analyze language attrition in terms of processing and memory retrieval, dealing with more general psychological issues like the accessing and forgetting of information. This approach is based on the growing emphasis on psycholinguistic processes in bilingual speech production at large that the past decade has witnessed.5 For some time now, attrition researchers have attempted to establish whether evidence for attrition is evidence for something being irretrievably ‘lost’ or merely an indication of a temporary problem of accessibility — an issue that is somewhat related to the competence — performance debate in language attrition (see Ammerlaan 1996: 10; de Bot 1996: 583; Hulsen, de Bot and Weltens 1999; Köpke 1999: 84). The question of whether attrition merely aVects procedural knowledge, or whether the actual knowledge of the L1 can become deteriorated (Ammerlaan 1996: 10) — or, on a more general level, whether knowledge once acquired can ever be lost from memory — has not conclusively been resolved, but evidence overwhelmingly points towards what diYculties there are being only temporary (Ammerlaan 1996: 210; de Bot 1996: 584; Köpke 1999: 359).

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

1.2 Predictor variables — the extralinguistic factors Surely it all very much depends on personal circumstances i.e. background, age, time of emigration amongst others. (Eric Kaufman, Questionnaire)

It is generally accepted that language attrition is only partly determined by internal or intralinguistic factors. SpeciWc features of a certain language may be more vulnerable to attrition than others — a highly developed inXectional system may be subject to ‘mistakes’ in a contact situation more quickly than SVO word order. However, external and social factors also play a role. Such factors comprise the classical sociolinguistic variables like age, gender, education etc., as well as the amount of contact the individual has with the attriting language and the length of her stay in the country of emigration. However, language attrition might also be inXuenced by factors which operate at the level of society, and these are far more elusive to describe, determine, and operationalize. Such factors can largely be subsumed under theories of (ethnic) identity and assimilation. 1.2.1 Individual factors Age Obgleich ich mit 13 ½ Jahren nach England kam; ich konnte kaum ein Wort Englisch, und konnte mich kaum verständlich machen, und hatte deshalb auch etliche Schwierigkeiten; ist Deutsch bis heute meine ‘Muttersprache’. (Even though I was 13 ½ years old when I came to England and hardly spoke a word of English — and had a lot of diYculties because of that — German remains my ‘mother tongue’ to this day.) (Albert L., Questionnaire)

The role of age at the onset of second language acquisition (SLA) has been much debated in the literature on bilingualism, but it seems to be a widely held view that ‘children’ have a greater aptness at acquiring a second language than ‘adults’ (Romaine 1989: 238f.). Neurological approaches to this phenomenon have assumed a ‘critical period’ for language acquisition, which is limited by cerebral factors and lasts from about age three to the onset of puberty. The assumption that “by the time of puberty, a turning point is reached” (Lenneberg 1967: 150)

19

20

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

is based on observations of recovery from aphasia and of physical changes in the brain (Lenneberg 1967: 142–82). The ‘critical period’ hypothesis for language acquisition in general and L2 acquisition in particular has been contested in some points (cf. Bolotin 1995; Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith 1987: 333f.; Köpke 1999: 34; Romaine 1989: 238V.). Today, the inXuence of age on second language acquisition is still very much in doubt (Flynn and Manuel 1991: 118), although evidence indicates that at least phonological patterns are very diYcult to acquire after a certain age: Clyne reports that, after age twelve, it is close to impossible to learn a language to the degree that one can be taken for a native speaker (Clyne 1981: 39; see also Flynn and Manuel 1991: 119). Where Wrst language attrition is concerned, however, one immediately relevant factor of age is the level of achievement at the onset of attrition. In the hypothetical case of a child emigrating at age six and not being given the chance to speak her Wrst language from that point onwards, the linguistic abilities of a six-year-old child would obviously have to be the base-line for comparison in a study of language attrition, and it would be foolish to compare her with an attriter who had reached adult age before her emigration. To what degree attrition — as opposed to failure to acquire — is inXuenced by the age at the onset of non-contact beyond this has not been determined so far. There are a number of studies which observe immigrants who had been very young when input in their L1 became reduced (Kaufman and AronoV 1991; Seliger 1991; Turian and Altenberg 1991; Vago 1991. All of these studies investigate children who had been less than six years old at this point). Others use ‘adult’ informants, although the age at which the acquisition of the Wrst language is considered completed varies between 14 (Köpke 1999), 15 (de Bot and Clyne 1989; 1994; Clyne 1973; 1981), 16 (Waas 1996) and 17 years (de Bot, Gommans and Rossing 1991). Köpke is the only one among these researchers who tried to determine the eVect of age on attrition: She divided her informants into two groups (14–25 and 26–36 years at emigration), but this distinction did not show signiWcant eVects on any linguistic level of attrition (Köpke 1999: 203f.).

Education Da ich Akademiker […] bin, war es mir von Anfang meines Studiums (in den zwanziger Jahren) an sehr wichtig, englische wie auch französische Fachliteratur zu lesen.

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

(Since I’m an academic, it was very important to me from the time I began my studies (in the 1920s) to read English and French texts.) (John Herz, Questionnaire)

Very little research has been devoted to the inXuence of the education level on language attrition. The only studies that included education among their independent variables are those by Jaspaert and Kroon (1989) and Köpke (1999). The results from these two studies are contradictory: In Jaspaert and Kroon’s study, education turned out to be the most important explanatory factor for language loss (Jaspaert and Kroon 1989: 92). They hypothesize that the reason for this inXuence might either be purely material — a higher level of education, on the whole, making for a better Wnancial situation and allowing more trips home — or be linked to a higher familiarity with the written code and thus oVering more chances for contact (Jaspaert and Kroon 1989: 92). A third hypothesis put forward is that “maybe their education provides them with a better insight in the structure of language”, thus making retention easier (Jaspaert and Kroon 1989: 92f.). For Köpke, on the other hand, the level of education did not show signiWcant results for attrition on any linguistic level (Köpke 1999: 204). Yaægmur treats education as an ambivalent factor which might either facilitate the shift to L2 (through better instruction) or be conductive to a higher degree of maintenance of the L1 (Yaægmur 1997: 20). A higher level of education has also been cited by Clyne in explanation of the fact that he found a greater tendency towards maintenance of the L1 in pre-war German emigrants to Australia than in an otherwise comparable group of post-war emigrants (Clyne 1973: 97).

Time Für dreissig Jahre habe ich kein Wort Deutsch gesprochen, nachdem ich auswanderte, aber die Muttersprache vergißt man nie. (For thirty years after my emigration I didn’t speak a word of German — but you never forget your mother tongue.) (Erich E., Questionnaire)

The Wndings from several studies suggest that the time span elapsed since emigration does not inXuence language attrition to the degree one might suspect. In fact, it seems generally agreed nowadays that what attrition of

21

22

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

linguistic skills takes place does so within the Wrst decade of emigration (de Bot and Clyne 1994: 17). This conclusion is based on two series of tests of German migrants in Australia, which took place in 1971 and 1987 but could not establish any further loss within that sixteen year period (de Bot and Clyne 1994). Furthermore, a study of German migrants in Australia who had emigrated less than 10 years previously did Wnd indications of attrition (Waas 1993). De Bot and Clyne therefore conclude that Wrst-language attrition does not necessarily take place in an immigrant setting and that those immigrants who manage to maintain their language in the Wrst years of their stay in the new environment are likely to remain Xuent speakers of their Wrst language. (de Bot and Clyne 1994: 17)

Gender In many studies on language change and variation, the gender of the informants appears to be an important sociolinguistic variable (e.g. Hudson 1980: 195; Wodak and Benke 1997). However, unlike the other factors considered in this section, such Wndings have validity only within the cultural context of the speciWc situation under investigation and cannot be taken as universal. In a cultural context where women are not expected to work outside the home or to have ties outside their own cultural (or ethnic) community, it would have to be expected that they maintain their native language to a higher degree than men (cf. Yaægmur 1997: 19f.); but a diVerent social setting may produce very diVerent results. Within the context of research on language attrition, gender has not been investigated as an independent variable. The only exception is Köpke (1999) whose Wndings do not show any evidence for a signiWcant inXuence of gender on language attrition of Germans in emigration (Köpke 1999: 203f.). Contact Q: For what other purposes do you use German now? A: Hardly ever, only on visits to Germany or speaking with Germans whose English is worse than my German. (Walther E., Questionnaire) Um eine Sprache richtig ‘zu verstehen’ muss man die Menschen gut kennen, die sie sprechen. (In order to be able to properly ‘understand’ a language you have to know the people who speak it.) (Martin R., Questionnaire)

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

It seems to be intuitively evident that language attrition might depend to a large degree on the amount of contact that the ‘attriting’ individual has with speakers of the L1. This factor, however, is diYcult to put into quantiWable terms, since it is not discrete. Moreover, it can only be established on the basis of self-report data. Researchers cannot hang a tape recorder around someone’s neck and monitor their linguistic behavior for ten years — even if this were a practical possibility, ethical considerations would forbid it. However, selfreport data from an area that is as emotionally charged as linguistic proWciency might very well be inXuenced more by how a person wishes to view herself than by an accurate assessment of her linguistic behavior. Language attrition has on various occasions been found to be a very sensitive issue for the attriters: Some of the informants indicate that they feel ashamed of what they perceive as their inadequate control over their L1 (Ricker 1995: 110), while others vigorously deny having a ‘language problem’ (Waas 1996: 77). One former citizen of Düsseldorf, on listening to a recording of an interview he had given to the Mahn- und Gedenkstätte some years previously, protested in the sharpest terms possible that this recording was very insulting, saying “I speak German much better than that”. Consequently, someone who feels that her linguistic competence is not what she would like it to be might convince herself that this is due to the fact that she has not used the language, and underrate the amount to which she spoke it. Alternatively, someone who does not want competence in her L1 to be part of her personality any longer might also show a tendency to downplay her use of that language. On the other hand, someone who feels that she still retains perfect control over her L1 might report more use of it than ‘objectively’ true. Bearing in mind these methodological considerations, it has also to be taken into account that ‘contact’ depends on two factors: Opportunity and choice. The Wrst of these factors is largely (though not entirely) outside the individual’s control, the second is not. An immigrant might Wnd herself in a situation where no other speakers of her Wrst language are part of her social environment any longer, so that use of that language in everyday interaction is no longer an option. A less dramatic scenario is that contact is reduced to a small number of people in a certain context, so that language use is conWned to speciWc domains, e.g. the domestic and family one. However, it is also possible that, though the immigrant still has contact with speakers of her L1, she chooses not to use that language in interaction with them. This factor often depends on the prestige of that particular language: Languages that have a high prestige and are considered to have a large

23

24

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

utilitarian value may be maintained to a higher degree than languages that are associated with stigmatized groups of immigrants (Olsthain and Barzilay 1991: 139). Based on previous investigations of the role of language contact for language attrition, I would like to propose the following taxonomy of L1 use in emigration: – – –

language use with the previous generation (grandparents and parents) language use within the same generation (partner/spouse, friends; also professional use of the language, e.g. by language teachers or translators) language use with the next generation (children)

In most immigrant situations, there is an overall decline of the use of the L1 within these contexts (among others Hulsen, de Bot and Weltens 1999). In many immigrant groups, language maintenance is highest in interaction with the grandparents (Clyne 1981: 26), and most young immigrants both of whose parents belong to the same linguistic group are actively bilingual (Boyd 1986: 107). Language use with a partner with the same L1 or with friends appears to be more governed by choice, and this is the domain where language use is most inXuenced by personal factors such as a wish for assimilation and/or distance towards the ethnic community of origin on the one hand (leading to disuse of the L1) or a wish to maintain the native language. While some studies Wnd that all informants go on using their L1 on a regular basis (de Bot and Clyne 1989: 171 for Dutch speakers in Australia and PfaV 1991 for Turkish children in Germany), others discover a decided preference for the immigrant language with age peers (Boyd 1986: 111). With the next generation, many immigrant groups prefer not to use the L1 (de Bot and Clyne 1989: 171), since it is often felt that being bilingual would be an impediment for children growing up in an immigrant context. The factor of language use within the speaker’s own generation for language attrition is widely under debate, and the inXuence of endogamous or exogamous marriages has been an ambivalent factor in attrition studies: While Yaægmur hypothesizes that a shift to the mainstream language is more likely when members of the immigrant group marry someone from another ethnolinguistic group (Yaægmur 1997: 20), Jaspaert and Kroon found evidence contradicting such a hypothesis: Those of their informants who had married a partner whose did not belong to the group they were investigating (Italians in the Netherlands) actually did better on their tests than those whose partner was

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

also a native speaker of Italian (Jaspaert and Kroon 1989: 94). Similarly, de Bot and Clyne found that informants whose self-report data stated that their linguistic proWciency had not changed in emigration used their L1 to a signiWcantly smaller degree than those who had reported a change (de Bot and Clyne 1989: 171). Köpke’s analysis of free spoken discourse, on the other hand, did not reveal any signiWcant inXuence of language use on any linguistic level save that of the lexicon (Köpke 1999: 204). These discrepancies are probably linked to the question of whether attrition is due to lack of practice or memory reinforcement — does the linguistic system ‘atrophy’ if it is not used by the speaker? — or whether it is due to lack of conWrming evidence in the input. If the latter could be shown to be the case, a large amount of contact with the L1 in spoken discourse might actually have a detrimental eVect on L1 proWciency: A speaker in emigration might come to lose conWdence in her own L1 competence (Andersen 1982: 112; Gardner 1982: 27), and therefore use ‘deviant’ input from the speech of other immigrants she interacts with as conWrming evidence, not recognizing those interferences as non-native-like structures (Py 1986: 166). A large amount of contact with the L1 through other immigrants might therefore be conductive to a process of attritional language change through a kind of ‘vicious circle’ where speakers come to prefer non-native like structures from the speech of the people they interact with over their own native judgements.

Attitude and motivation Ich liebe meine deutsche Muttersprache und spreche und lese viel deutsch. Je emotionaler der Gegenstand des Sprechens ist, umso mehr neige ich dazu, deutsch zu sprechen. (I love my German mother tongue, and I speak and read German a lot. The more emotional the topic, the more I tend to use German.) (Martin R., Questionnaire)

The role of individual attitudes towards a second language and the motivation for its acquisition has been a central issue in research on SLA and bilingualism for some time. Within this framework, the individual’s motivation in the process of SLA is to a large degree determined by her attitude toward the language communities and her orientation (either integrative or instrumental) toward language study (Gardner and Lambert 1972). This factor is important

25

26

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

in determining whether the outcome of SLA is additive or subtractive bilingualism. Additive bilingualism is a process in which SLA is an enriching experience, adding an L2 without loss to L1 or to the feelings of identiWcation with the speaker’s own cultural community. In subtractive bilingualism, on the other hand, SLA has a deleterious eVect on L1 or on the sense of identiWcation with the learner’s own ethnic community (Gardner 1982: 28). In other words, it is predicted that L1 attrition will to a large part be determined by notions like attitude and identity. Attitude and motivation in SLA are based largely on the individual’s perception of the situation and on how the ‘minority’ group is perceived by the ‘majority’ group. This deWnition takes the factors of attitude and motivation out of the realm of individual factors considered within this section and places it on a societal level. They will therefore be discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections in the context of concepts like identity and Ethnolinguistic Vitality. 1.2.2 Community factors All groups are targets for ascribed identities: Images of themselves pinned upon them by others. The number of diVerent ascribed identities attributed to any group is a function of that group’s social role and social power. (Breakwell 1983: 191)

The process of emigration places an individual in an entirely new context, making a re-evaluation of identity and self-conception necessary. While groups consider themselves as stratiWed, they are often viewed as homogenous from the outside (Breakwell 1983: 191). Thus, while an individual might have perceived herself as belonging to a social class with a certain social prestige while still in the country of her origin, after emigration she may Wnd attitudes towards her inXuenced by stereotyped notions associated with ‘immigrants’ or ‘immigrants of a certain ethnolinguistic background’ (Yaægmur 1997: 31). Almost invariably, the prestige attached to the status of ‘immigrant’ will be lower than that of her former status (Yaægmur 1997: 31). This downgrading by members of the dominant community may instigate a wish for complete assimilation. In order to achieve that, the immigrant may reject her native language in an attempt to acquire a native-like competence of her L2, a foreign accent being one of the more notable indications of her immigrant status. If, on the other hand, she still feels comfortable with or even

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

proud of her origins, she may wish to be perceived as a member of the community of immigrants from her country of origin, and even ‘Xaunt’ her bilingual competence or non-native command of the dominant language (cf. Giles, Bourhis and Taylor 1977: 323, 331).

Identity I feel that my family did a lot for Germany and for Düsseldorf, and therefore I feel that Germany betrayed me. America is my country, and English is my language. (Gertrud U., Questionnaire)

The role of language within the framework of ethnic identity has been a prominent research topic in recent years. Identity is very closely related to identiWcation, i.e. group membership, and human beings tend to act in a way which is considered accepted behavior for the group they want to belong to (Edwards 1985: 3; Hormann 1994: 15). Group membership is determined by an interaction of complex characteristics, attitudes and behaviors, many of which (e.g. age, sex, ethnicity) are outside the individual’s control. Within this framework, linguistic behavior is one of the more prominent and more immediately noticeable aspects among those the individual does have the power to change. This notion is at the core of, e.g. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) theory of ‘Acts of Identity’, which is based on the assumption that an individual will conform to patterns of linguistic behavior through which she will resemble that group of people to which she wishes to belong (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985: 181). This may involve a shift in dialect, register or linguistic system. Language behavior can therefore be considered to be one of the most important markers of identity (Edwards 1985: 96; Giles, Bourhis and Taylor 1977: 325). Obviously, such a pattern of achieving a sense of identiWcation through adaptation of linguistic behavior will lead to complex processes for bilinguals, since groups or individuals they might wish to identify with for various reasons might customarily speak diVerent languages. This is especially true for migrant’s children who use their parents’ language at home and the majority language in school or in contact with other members of the dominant society, so that linguistic behavior is tied up with the language of certain role models (Northover 1988: 204f.). Based on these observations, Ervin-Tripp (1973 [1954]) has for-

27

28

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

mulated the theory that the diVerent languages of bi- or multilinguals might be associated with diVerent aspects of their personalities, and empirical research has since borne out the assumption that bilinguals’ attitudes, values, and beliefs tend to vary with the language they speak (G. Hermann 1990: 69; J. Hermann 1988: 230; Hull 1991; 1996: 419; Matsumoto and Hull 1994: 92). Language, however, is not only a marker of identity in individuals, but it is often crucial in the sense of group membership that has been called ethnicity.

Ethnicity Ethnicity is rightly understood as an aspect of a collectivity’s self-recognition as well as an aspect of its recognition in the eyes of outsiders. Ethnic recognition diVers from other kinds of group-embedded recognition in that it operates basically in terms of paternity rather than in terms of patrimony and exegesis thereupon. (Fishman 1980: 16)

Language has often been cited as one of the more important, if not the most important, constitutive factors of a concept of ethnicity (Edwards 1985: 6; Fishman 1989: 5; Giles, Bourhis and Taylor 1977: 331; Khemlani-David 1998: 71). This is especially true for minorities, who base their sense of ethnic identity on language to a far higher degree than is usually true for majorities. In mainstream populations, the language of everyday interaction is also the language which embodies cultural heritage (Edwards 1985: 110f.), and as the default will not normally be perceived as salient. Ethnic identities and the symbols through which they are represented diVer widely across cultures and situations (Weinreich 1983: 178), and some ethnic minorities will assimilate quickly into the dominant majority, giving up their own culture and traditions along with their language, while others have a high degree of persistence. One of the frameworks developed in this context is the theory of Ethnolinguistic Vitality (EV) associated with the names of Howard Giles, Richard Bourhis, and Allard Landry, among others. This framework has attempted to operationalize some of the factors which combine to make up ethnic situations, and to establish the degree of what is termed ‘vitality’, i.e. “that which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations” (Giles, Bourhis and Taylor 1977: 308). Groups with a high degree of EV are predicted to maintain their language and culture more than groups with negative or inadequate social identity, i.e. a low degree of EV. Factors used to measure this are prestige, demographic

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

distribution and institutional support through e.g. linguistic clubs, education in the minority language, or prominent representation in the media (Giles, Bourhis and Taylor 1997: 319; Leets and Giles 1995: 39; Yaægmur 1997: 25). While this framework might provide a step towards the operationalization of such complex and elusive factors as ethnicity and identity in language attrition and language death studies, Wndings have not, so far, been able to show that there is any inXuence of EV on language loss. Yaægmur, who has tested EV theory factors for speakers of Turkish in Australia, did not Wnd any signiWcant interaction of vitality factors and language attrition, and states that “a direct relationship between them cannot be concluded” (Yaægmur 1997: 100f.). It appears, therefore, that much further research will have to go into the theory of Ethnolinguistic Vitality if we are to apply this complex framework as an explanatory approach within studies of language attrition.

1.3 Research designs Ultimately, language attrition research should adopt a language use perspective. This would include (1) both comprehension and production, (2) both oral and written use of language, (3) both the traditional linguistic areas of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon, on the one hand, and functions […] that we can group under the general category of ‘doing things with language’ (Andersen 1982: 84)

The view on language attrition research expressed in this quote is a very idealistic one; and no study to this date has been able to fulWll all these requirements. Research on language attrition is a priori faced with three major methodological considerations: 1. How shall the data be obtained (free discourse; experiments; elicitations; self reports)? 2. What linguistic features are to be considered? 3. What is to be considered evidence for ‘attrition’? The fact that studies on attrition often have contradictory results, that some researchers claim to have found attrition to a large degree, while others state that they have found virtually none, can almost certainly be put down to varying notions about these issues on the part of researchers.

29

30

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

1.3.1 Data collection As in any empirical linguistic study, possibilities of obtaining data rank from observing while interfering as little as possible to rigidly controlled elicitation. While most researchers would agree that free spoken discourse will probably give the best representation of an individual’s linguistic proWciency, this method of data collection has several drawbacks. One of them is frequency: If a speciWc linguistic feature is to be looked at, often a very large amount of data will be needed to yield suYcient instances of production of that variable. A second drawback is control: In free discourse, there is no possibility for the researcher to ensure that every subject has the opportunity to produce an equal number of instances of the variable to be looked for. This problem is linked to a third one, namely avoidance strategies: If a speaker feels that she is losing her native competence in any given language, she might cope with this sense of diminished ability by avoiding certain structures; and such strategies are very hard to detect and quantify in free spoken data. A further complication is that being interviewed by a linguist is often not the most conductive situation for the production of free discourse with a low amount of monitoring on the part of the interviewee. If she knows that she is participating in a linguistic experiment conducted by someone who is a native speaker of her language, the probability is that she will feel self-conscious about her perceived diminished competence. Waas, for example, reported that several of her subjects, prior to participating in her experiments, felt a need to ‘brush up’ on their German (Waas 1996: 82). Because of these methodological considerations, few studies so far have relied on interviews alone as their linguistic data (exceptions being de Bot and Clyne 1994; Olshtain and Barzilay 1991); while ‘elicited’ free discourse (through a description of pictures) is often combined with other metalinguistic tests like grammaticality judgements (de Bot, Gommans and Rossing 1991; Köpke 1999; Seliger 1991). Further methods that have been employed to assess attriters’ linguistic performance are explicit grammatical tasks, where speakers are either presented with lexical items and asked to inXect them (Altenberg 1991; Vago 1991) or asked to produce a certain sentence structure (Yaægmur 1997); cloze or editing tests where missing or superXuous items have to be inserted or deleted in a text (Ammerlaan 1996; Jaspaert and Kroon 1989); or Xuency assessments in controlled association, where the speaker is presented with a stimulus and asked to produce as many lexical items as possible within a speciWed semantic Weld (e.g. ‘plants’ or ‘animals’) within a given time span (Ammerlaan 1996;

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

Waas 1996; Yaægmur 1997). These data are often augmented by self-report data or Can-Do-scales to yield a comprehensive picture of an individual’s control over her language. An integrated methodological evaluation of these diVerent research designs has not, to this date, been performed. Such an analysis is clearly called for, however, since it is not at all evident that attrition will show up to the same degree in these tests, which may account in part for the diVerence in results encountered in language attrition studies. 1.3.2 Linguistic levels In research on language attrition and language shift it is not always clear on what grounds linguistic variables are selected. […] An important criterium for selection in attrition/shift research is the extent to which a linguistic aspect is expected to be representative of part of the language or of the language as a whole, and the extent to which it is expected to be ‘vulnerable’, that is, an early candidate for decay. (Hagen and de Bot 1990: 137)

A second factor which makes studies on language attrition very diYcult to compare is the selection of linguistic variables. Ever since Weinreich’s seminal study on language contact (Weinreich 1953), contact linguistics has attempted to provide a classiWcation of linguistic material in terms of likelihood for transfer. It is generally agreed that there is a cline of ‘borrowability’ within the linguistic system; that lexical items are borrowed more easily than functional or grammatical ones; that nouns are more easily borrowed than verbs and so on (Wilkins 1996).6 In language attrition studies the analysis of variables on any linguistic level furthermore has to make the basic distinction between ‘what is lost’ and ‘what is retained’. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that it is necessary to treat these two issues as two sides of a single coin. Any study that focuses merely on ‘what is lost’, i.e. on ‘mistakes’ in the speech of an attriter, fails to take into account avoidance strategies that she might have developed in order to deal with her reduced capabilities. If these strategies are perfected in a simpliWcation of the linguistic system, her speech might very well show up little or no ‘interferences’ at all, and the emerging picture might be skewed if ‘deviant’ utterances are all that is considered.

31

32

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Lexicon The Wrst area is that of quick retrieval of appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic phrasing in on-going speech production. (Andersen 1982: 114)

Where lexical items are concerned, ‘interferences’ of several types can occur. The Wrst and surely most widespread of these is the use of L2 items in L1 discourse. This is a frequent feature in the discourse of bilinguals, especially with other bilingual interlocutors, and it is very doubtful whether simple codeswitching can be considered evidence for attrition. Much work has gone into reasons for and constraints on code-switching and a discussion of this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this study. SuYce it to say that the use of L2 items does not necessarily license the conclusion that the speaker has ‘lost’ the corresponding L1 item (Romaine 1989: 143) or even that she cannot access it within the time span allocated for that task in on-line discourse; she might also feel that the L2 item is for some reason more ‘appropriate’, ‘sounds better’ or is more salient. Some pragmatic functions of code-switching — such as providing ‘local color’ or Xagging quotations — have been pointed out by Appel and Muysken (1987) and Romaine (1989: 160V.), they will not be considered further here. A second area in which the lexicon may be aVected in language attrition is that of speciWcity of meaning. This can manifest itself in diVerent ways. One of them is what has been called ‘(semantic) extension’ (Romaine 1989: 56), ‘semantic transfer’ (de Bot and Clyne 1994: 20) or ‘loanshift’ (Haugen 1953). In this type of interference, the meaning of a word from the base language is extended so that it corresponds to that of another language. This corresponds to overgeneralizations, as in the case of selectional restrictions. Consider the case of English take and break: In some cases, the German equivalents of these verbs, nehmen and brechen respectively, are adequate translations, and in others they are not, as is illustrated by English to take a sandwich and German ein Brot nehmen, but English to take a picture and German *ein Foto nehmen (→ ein Foto machen). Tests have shown that such selectional restrictions are vulnerable to language attrition (Altenberg 1991: 198f.). In some cases, these transfers extend to composite items, yielding what has been called a ‘calque’, i.e. a morpheme-by-morpheme translation, as in the case of English look after which is translated to German nachschauen ‘look up’ and used instead of the semantic equivalent sich kümmern (Clyne 1981: 32).

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

A further type of mistake that sometimes occurs in the speech of attriters is that an L1 word which is homophonous to an L2 item with a diVerent meaning is used in inappropriate contexts (Romaine 1989: 56). An interesting example of such an interference can be found in the data used for the present study, where two informants used German zerstreuen (‘scatter’) in the sense of English destroy, instead of the appropriate German zerstören (Gertrud U., p. 3; p. 13; Victor S., p. 6). Interferences of all these types are easily spotted and analyzed in attrition studies, since they show up on the ‘surface level’ of utterances. Much less easy to Wnd is evidence for a predicted reduction of the vocabulary, i.e. a loss in lexical richness. It has often been hypothesized that this will be one of the most prominent characteristics of an attriter’s speech (Andersen 1982: 94; Grendel, Weltens and de Bot 1993: 59; Olshtain 1989: 162; Olshtain and Barzilay 1991: 146; Yaægmur 1997: 9). Several studies have attempted to Wnd evidence for or against such a reduction. The hypothesis that it will manifest itself Wrst in low-frequency, highly marked lexical items (Andersen 1982: 94) was tested through a retelling of a picture-book (the ‘Frog story’) and an analysis of overgeneralized use of frequent, general terms in situations where a more speciWed term is required provided evidence to support this hypothesis (Olshtain and Barzilay 1991; Yaægmur 1997). A further test that has been conducted in this framework is Fluency in Controlled Association (Waas 1996; Yaægmur 1997). Since both these tests establish lexical richness in a speciWc Weld only, a broader approach would be desirable. This could be established through type/ token ratios of a larger stretch of discourse or (ideally) through an analysis of the distributional frequencies of the tokens used in native speech. This is extremely tedious and time-consuming work, which may account for the fact that only one study to this date has conducted such an analysis on the data collected (de Bot and Clyne 1994). This study did not Wnd any signiWcant reduction of lexical richness in the vocabulary of the informants (de Bot and Clyne 1994: 24).

33

34

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Morphology Probably a rather universal principle of language change and decay is that a decrease in morphological complexity is compensated by an increase of syntactic diVerentiation. (Hagen and de Bot 1990: 143)

Where language attrition in the domain of morphology is concerned, the predictions and hypotheses appear to be fairly speciWc. They include – loss of case-marking – loss of gender marking and the adjective/noun congruence – reduction in allomorphic variation – a movement from inXectional devices and allomorphic variation towards more regularized or analytic forms – a trend towards periphrastic constructions (e.g. from an inXected future tense to a go-future) – grammatical relations tend to be encoded less by bound morphemes and more by lexemes (cf. Andersen 1982; Hagen and de Bot 1990; Maher 1991). The selection of these features is largely based on observations from language contact, language change and language/dialect death (Hagen and de Bot 1990). Studies on language attrition in these domains have produced conXicting Wndings. While Altenberg (1991) and Håkansson (1995) found substantial interferences in allomorphic reduction and gender marking in German and Swedish L1 attrition, the study on German case marking conducted by Jordens et al. (1986; 1989) showed up hardly any signs of attrition. Similarly, Köpke’s bilingual informants only produced marginally more errors in the domain of case marking than her monolingual control group, while interferences in other morphological domains seem to diVer to a larger degree from the data of non-attriters (Köpke 1999: 189f.). De Bot and Clyne mention having found an overgeneralization of the -s plural allomorph for nouns requiring an -en plural and a slight tendency to overgeneralize the neuter in L1 attrition of Dutch in contact with English (de Bot and Clyne 1994: 21, 23), but do not give frequencies. The domain of morphology is probably the linguistic level on which it is hardest for the attriter to develop avoidance strategies. While it might be conceivable that an attriter might come to prefer intransitive over transitive verbs and arrive at an overall less complex argument structure than a non-

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

attriter, it is hard to conceive of a strategy that would reduce inherent inXectional categories like gender and plural morphology (on the distinction between inherent and relational inXection see below). It is therefore far more likely that the regular or more frequent instances of inXection, e.g. the regular plural allomorph -s in English or the most frequent gender of nouns, will be overgeneralized, resulting in ungrammatical structures.

Syntax With severely restricted contact, there is severe reduction in the syntactic devices available; and the greater the access to and interaction with Xuent speakers, the more elaborate the syntactic devices the learner acquires. In situations conductive to language attrition, the same consequences of restricted use of a language would be expected. The number and variety of syntactic transformations would decline gradually in favor of a small number of more widely productive devices. (Andersen 1982: 99)

The assumption that word order is a domain which is vulnerable to a simpliWcation process in language attrition seems intuitively convincing: Many languages oVer their speakers the possibility to express what they want to say in structures with a variation in complexity, e.g. hypotactical structures with a large number of embedded clauses vs. a straight paratactical construction. The information load more complex structures carry is generally comparatively low, and a trend away from more elaborate constructions — e.g. avoidance of embedded clauses — will often not result in ungrammatical utterances. Given these presuppositions, it seems strange that syntax in L1 attrition has hardly been explored to this date. The only studies that have investigated this feature in detail are Yaægmur’s investigation of Turkish relative clauses and Håkansson’s study of the V2-rule in Swedish. Yaægmur found the late-acquired complex Turkish forms of relative clauses to be most vulnerable to language loss among the features he investigated (Yaægmur 1997: 95), while Håkansson’s data contained only three violations of the V2-rule in Swedish, all of them occurring in the data from one informant. Furthermore, she found that the distribution of VS and SVO structures almost exactly paralleled that in monolingual Swedish (Håkansson 1995: 160). It therefore seems that more work will have to be done on syntactic variation in language attrition. Such studies cannot conWne themselves to

35

36

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

violations of syntactic rules, but have to draw up a ‘complexity index’ for sentences used grammatically so that an overall picture of syntactic change in attrition can be obtained. 1.3.3 What is ‘language attrition’? Hypothesis 1a: An LA [language attriter]’ s use of language X will be signiWcantly restricted in comparison with an LC [linguistically competent individual]’ s use of the same language and the LA’s earlier use of language X when he was an LC (if he indeed was an LC at one time). Hypothesis 1b: An LA will exhibit (through self-report, ethnographic study, etc.) a lack of adherence to the linguistic norm adhered to by an LC, both speakers of the same language X. (Andersen 1982: 91)

One of the main reasons why the results from studies of language attrition often seem conXicting is that there is no agreed-upon and testable deWnition of what, exactly, counts as ‘attrition’. There are several ways in which the “signiWcant restriction” and “lack of adherence to the linguistic norm” proclaimed by Anderson have been attempted to be established. One obvious way to achieve this is to collect data from a monolingual control group and test whether the language use of (presumed) attriters and non-attriters shows any statistically signiWcant diVerences (Andersen 1982: 85; Jaspaert, Kroon and van Hout 1986; this approach was taken e.g. by Köpke 1999; Yaægmur 1997. Ammerlaan (1996) used subjects with a shorter emigration span as a control group). Secondly, data from attrition studies have sometimes been compared to data gleaned from statistical analyses of the distribution of the variable under investigation in ‘normal’ language data (e.g. Håkansson 1995). However, the majority of studies done on language attrition so far does without comparisons of this kind. Such an approach tacitly assumes the ‘mistakes’ that occur in the language of attriters to be “competence errors”, while non-attrited speakers language only contains “performance errors” which “are not representative of their ordinary language use, and which can be corrected by them if they are asked to do so” — slips of the tongue. (Poulisse 1999: 1). However, even studies which adopt a comparative perspective often leave us with an unsatisfactory picture of an ‘attriter’. Even if the study can establish that subjects who have lived in an L2 environment for a certain length of time have statistically signiWcantly more errors in free speech than the monolingual

Language contact, language change, and language attrition

control group (as was the case, for example, in Köpke (1999)), it is often not clear to what degree these errors make the speech ‘sound’ non-native-like or impede communication. A second major problem in language attrition studies is that of dialectal or sociolectal variation in the L1. No study so far has been able to collect data from language attriters who originate from the same region and social class in their country of origin. If the informants come from diVerent dialectal regions or social groups in their country of origin, utterances may show deviations from the standard which the researcher is unable to recognize as being part of the informant’s L1 variety. Since no native speaker can be assumed to be proWcient in all varieties of her L1, the possibility that the attriter produces structures which are unacceptable to the researcher but may be acceptable in the informant’s variety cannot be ruled out. The fact that any classiWcation of such structures as ‘interferences’ or ‘mistakes’ will yield a skewed picture of some individuals’ attrition process leads directly to the next methodological problem in research on language attrition: What is to be counted a ‘mistake’? Most researchers have made these judgements exclusively on the basis of their own native speaker intuition (with the exception of Köpke, who had every utterance judged by seven competent speakers of German, and classiWed those structures as errors that were objected to by at least two of these judges (Köpke 1999: 163f.)). As anyone who is familiar with literature on language attrition will conWrm, native speaker judgements vary to the degree that almost no study will not contain at least some examples that were classiWed as ‘mistakes’, but will appear perfectly acceptable to other people who are competent speakers of the language under investigation. Although this possibility can never be ruled out — unless one were to use a potentially inWnite number of judges — it can at least be minimized if the data under investigation is rated by native speakers other than the researcher herself. A fourth issue was pointed out above: The overwhelming majority of language attrition studies have concentrated on ‘what is lost’ to the exclusion of ‘what is retained’. This, again, is a factor that may potentially give a biased picture of an individual’s proWciency: Speakers who are prepared to take more risks by using complex structures will potentially make more ‘mistakes’ than speakers who accept that their control over their L1 is not what it was and consequently use a simpliWed variety. This means that a study of L1 attrition that wishes to come up with a comprehensive picture of the linguistic proWciency of the group under investigation cannot do without an in-depth analysis of factors such as lexical richness and morphological and syntactic complexity

37

38

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

of the total data under investigation, or at least part thereof. These methodological considerations leave us with the following demands for language attrition studies: 1. Comparison of the data to non-attrited speech, either from a monolingual control group or from existing statistical analyses of the language under investigation 2. Exclusion of the possibility of dialectal or sociolectal variety within the group of attriters under investigation 3. ClassiWcation of ‘mistakes’ from the data collected by more than one judge 4. Establishment of a ‘linguistic complexity index’ to augment the data on ‘what is lost’ by ‘what is retained’ In addition, it might be valuable to have free spoken data collected from the attriters subjectively rated by native speakers in order to establish to what degree the data sound ‘native’ or ‘foreign’ — based on features such as accent, sentence structures or lexical choices. Such intuitive judgements might provide us with valuable insights into the perception of attrited proWciency. If these data are combined with the overall rate of mistakes, it is possible that a ‘tolerance saturation point’ might be established, i.e. the overall frequency of mistakes up to which listeners are prepared to accept a speaker as native. A further issue that has been widely debated in the literature on language attrition is whether attrition is a phenomenon of performance or competence (de Bot 1991: 63f.; Köpke 1999: 105V.; Seliger and Vago 1991: 7; Sharwood Smith and van Buren 1991: 19; Sharwood Smith 1983: 49). Can the linguistic system an individual has acquired actually be changed in the attrition process, or is the larger number of mistakes found in the speech of attriters merely a surface phenomenon? However, it is hard to see how this is to be established. It would seem that there is no way to test whether an attriter is actually unable to produce a certain structure any longer. While the hypothetical case of all the data collected from one speaker exclusively containing misapplications of a certain rule might point strongly towards her having lost that rule entirely, there would still be no conclusive evidence that she does not, on occasion, apply it correctly. The actual Wndings from language attrition studies, however, are nowhere near this point: There is not a single case where any individual made any mistake in all possible cases, and most of the time the overwhelming majority of structures are correct. It appears, therefore, that there is a host of methodological issues within the study of language attrition which is worthy of further consideration and development.

L1:German L2:English

Clyne 1968

30

21

de Bot, Gommans and L1:Dutch Rossing 1991 L2:French

Dorian 1982

L1:East Sutherland Gaelic L2:English

45

lexicon, morphology

overall competence

translation from English

interview; grammaticality judgements

lexicon, morphology, interviews; syntax

self evaluation

overall competence

45

descriptive

descriptive

sociolinguistic questionnaire; Cloze test; verbal Xuency self evaluation

acceptability judgements; grammatical tasks

descriptive

lexicon, syntax

lexicon

language use

lexical retrieval

lexicon; morphology

Elicitation method

not spec.

50

not spec.

76

de Bot and Clyne 1994 L1:Dutch L2:English

L1:German L2:English Clyne 1981 L1:German L2:English de Bot and Clyne 1989 L1:Dutch L2:English

L1:Finnish and others 700 L2:Swedish

Boyd 1986

Clyne 1973

L1:Dutch L2:English

Ammerlaan 1996

2

L1:German L2:English

Altenberg 1991

n of Subjects Linguistic levels

Languages

Language attrition studies — an overview

Study

Table 1.

language shift

sociolinguistic (contact with L1 and time since emigration)

comparison with 1971 study: time factor

reversion; critical threshold

sociolinguistic description of German in Australia

sociolinguistic

sociolinguistic/ psycholinguistic

interlanguage

Theoretical framework

Reversion occurs, loss does not get worse (p. 167) No attrition since 1971: attrition happens in Wrst decade (p. 27) Amount of contact and time matter, but time matters only when there is few contact (p. 94) Loss of allomorphic variation and vocabulary (p. 56)

Rapid shift to Swedish in 2nd generation (p. 113)

Attrition is most likely to occur where L1 and L2 are similar (p. 204) Access problems are temporal (p. 210)

Results

Language contact, language change, and language attrition 39

Languages

L1:Breton L2:French

L1:Spanish L2:French

L1:Swedish L2:English/French

L1:Finnish L2:English

L1:Pennsylvania German L2:English

L1:Dutch L2:English

Study

Dressler 1991

Grosjean and Py 1991

Håkansson 1995

Hirvonen 1995

HuYnes 1991

Hulsen 2000

morphology, syntax

syntax semantics

morphology, syntax

90 (30 from lexical access each generation)

32

Elicitation method

Theoretical framework pathological vs. non-pathological

naming; word matching

phonology: reading list; minimal pairs; morphology: translation descriptive

essays

social network theory, EVT

extralinguistic: sectarian vs. non-sectarian informants

UG and markedness

attestation judgeInterlanguage ments; grammaticality judgements

phonology, morphology, morphophonology

18 (phon.) phonology, 29 (morhp) morphology

5

15

not spec.

n of Subjects Linguistic levels

Results

More convergence in non-sectarian communities (p. 135) Productive skills decrease within generations, receptive skills are largely unchanged. Retrieval diYculties, not ‘loss’ as in

Both types have reduction but not simpliWcation; unmarked structures are preserved better than marked; dysfunctional language production and insecurity (p. 109) Some contact structures are accepted, but Spanish structures have higher acceptability (p. 59) VS is unaVected, morphology strongly aVected by L1 attrition (p. 164) Language attrition is systematic (p. 192)

40 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

L1:Russian L2:Finnish

L1:Linguistic enclaves in US L2:English

Leisiö 2001

Maher 1991

159

60

L1:German L2:English/ French

not spec.

Köpcke 1999

L1:German L2:Dutch

Jordens et al. 1986; 1989

1

1

L1:Dutch L2:English

Jaspaert and Kroon 1992

30

Kaufman and AronoV L1:Hebrew 1991 L2:English

L1:Italian L2:Dutch

Jaspaert and Kroon 1989

overall competence

morphosyntax — interlanguage

overall competence

lexicon

case marking

loanshifts

overall competence

overview of studies

picture description; sentence generation; grammaticality judgements informal interviews

spontaneous data

incomplete sentences

correction; editing; lexicon and comprehension test letters to the Netherlands

language change

interlanguage eVects and psycholinguistic models of bilingual production Interlanguage

interlanguage

‘linguistic’ and ‘cognitive’ assumptions are tested: regression vs. Zubin’s egocentricity scale

sociolinguistic

Attrition is due to retrieval problems, not to actual loss (p. 359) Attrition is determined by social factors and linguistic similarities between system, similarity is conductive to change, (p. 248) SimpliWcation in lg. death, not necessarily consequence of interlanguage eVects (p. 57)

L2 loss conWrms regression hypothesis, L1 loss does not. Little overall attrition found (de Bot, p.c.) Idiosyncratic system emerges (p. 187)

‘erased from memory’ (p. 188) Much less attrition found than expected (p. 95) Little erosion found (p. 146)

Language contact, language change, and language attrition 41

L1:English L2:Portugese

L1:English L2:Hebrew

L1:Polish, Armenian, Russian, Tamil, Kabardian L2:English

L1:Spanish L2:Swiss French

L1:Boumaa Fijian L2:Standard Fijian

L1:Dyirbal L2:English L1:Portugese L2:Dutch/French

Major 1992

Olshtain and Barzilay 1991

Polinsky 1994; 1997

Py 1986

Schmidt 1991

Schmidt 1991

L1:English L2:Hebrew

L1:Danish, L2:English

Seliger 1991

Søndergaard 1996

Schoenmakers-Klein Gunnewiek 1998

Languages

Study

89

1

40

not spec.

20

not spec.

30

15

5

picture retelling (frog story)

word lists to elicit voiceless stops

Elicitation method

prestige of attriting language

interlanguage

Theoretical framework

intuitive judgements on how ‘Xuent’ speaker is

morphology

Semantics, morphosyntax

morphology

phonology; morphology

free discourse

correction task; matching task (word to picture),picture naming; translation free discourse; metalinguistic tests

descriptive

sentence translation

psycholinguistic

sociolinguistic: simpliWcation;

sociolinguistic

syntax (pro-drop, translation; agreement, resumptive grammaticality pronouns) judgement; narrative; ProWciency Wrst assessed by how many of 100 basic items speaker can translate communicative descriptive role of input competence

lexicon

phonology

n of Subjects Linguistic levels

Attrition is not unlike acquisition (p. 239) Attitude/ ‘Danishness’ main factor (p. 554)

Mutual interaction of L1 and L2 can aVect L1 (p. 204) Attrition leads to problems in vocabulary retrieval (p. 150) Attrition phenomena on diVerent levels of the linguistic system correlate with each other (1994: 274; 1997: 401) Evidence for restructuring of the system (p. 171) Dialect features are weakening in younger speakers (p. 117) Allomorphic reduction (p. 124) All tasks: there is little or no loss (p. 163)

Results

42 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

L1:Russian L2:English

L1:Hungarian L2:Hebrew

L1:German L2:English

L1:Turkish L2:English

Turian and Altenberg 1991

Vago 1991

Waas 1996

Yaægmur 1997

40

86

1

1

lexicon, syntax

overall competence

morphophonology

overall competence

paradigm elicitation (subjects presented with nominal and verbal stems and asked to inXect them) Can-do scales; selfreports; Xuency test in controlled association (FiCA) (naming animals) Questionnaires; CanDo Scales; Controlled Lexical Naming; Relativization Production

free spoken data

Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory (EVT)

sociodemographic key variables: citizenship and ethnic (non) aYliation

language change

compensatory strategies

Sociodemographic variables signiWcant; but L1 attrition in L2 environment is inevitable (p. 171) EVT does not provide explanation (100f.)

The same compensatory strategies are used in L1 attrition and L2 acquisition (p. 216) Rule simpliWcation, reordering, loss and lexical restructuring (p. 249)

Language contact, language change, and language attrition 43

Chapter 2

The situation of German Jews A historical overview

The present study attempts to analyze language attrition within the historical context surrounding the massive persecution and emigration of German Jews from Germany under the Nazi regime. During the second half of the 20th century, the words ‘German Jews’ have nearly always been equated with ‘victims of Nazi persecution and genocide’. The horror at the extent of organized mass destruction thus blocks out the perspective on the fact that Jews have formed a vivid and lively part of German society and culture ever since written records exist. In a sense, this very view perpetuates the anti-Semitic perspective, since it only looks at German Jews in the situation where they were marginalized and excluded from a culture of which they formed and still form an integral part. Just how far removed from historical fact such a perspective is can only be understood if the events of those twelve years are not looked at in isolation. To understand the situation of German Jews within German society, the developments of at least the past centuries have to be taken into account. Needless to say, the extremely complex history of German Jews cannot be gone into in any kind of detail within the scope of this study. This overview is merely to be seen as an introduction, and will be conWned to those aspects pertinent to understanding the historical and cultural background of the informants on whose speech data this investigation is based.

46

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

2.1 The situation of German Jews before the Nazi rise to power The destruction of the European Jews between 1933 and 1945 appears to us now as an unprecedented event in history. Indeed, in its dimensions and total conWguration, nothing like it had ever happened before. […] Yet if we analyze that singularly massive upheaval, we discover that most of what happened in those twelve years had already happened before. The Nazi destruction process did not come out of a void; it was the culmination of a cyclical trend. (Hilberg 1961: 3)

The Wrst methodological diYculty in an outline of the history of ‘German Jews’ is the deWnition of the geographical area under investigation. Since early modern times, there was no such geographical, political or administrative unity as ‘Germany’. Instead, there were a host of scattered principalities, each with its own jurisdiction. While there were often general trends to be identiWed in legal or political behaviors or decisions at certain periods in time, therefore, it is hard to describe such overall developments with any amount of precision. Decisions taken, regulations enforced, and laws passed often show variation both chronologically and in their contents. The present overview will therefore focus on the situation in the Rhineland with special emphasis on Düsseldorf and disregard such matters of variation for the sake of clarity. While Jews in the Rhineland were Wrst mentioned as early as in the 4th Century AD, a consistent picture only emerges with records from the 11th century onwards (AschoV 1998: 17f.). In the Middle Ages, they were not merely a religious community, but a political body that was viewed as an entity from the outside, as evidenced by the fact that taxes were imposed on the community as a whole, not on individuals (AschoV 1998: 36), and that there was even a certain amount of legal autonomy within the community (Zittartz 1998: 97). At this point as well as during the centuries that followed, there was a rigorous separation and segregation between the Jewish and the Christian communities, based largely on the rigid rules of the Ständegesellschaft — a society characterized by classes or ‘estates’ separated from each other in political, legal, and social terms. The rigidity of these estates, membership of which was determined by birth, made social mobility all but impossible. The practice of most professions required membership in a guild, to which Jews were not admitted, so their professional opportunities were largely limited to trading or unskilled labor.

The situation of German Jews

The restrictions placed upon Jews went beyond exclusion from most professions and the imposition of special taxes. After most of the large Jewish communities had been dispersed in the late 15th and early 16th century, the vast majority of towns either did not tolerate Jewish settlement at all, or only within a rigidly deWned quota (Zittartz 1998: 79). Many towns only granted rights of entry during the daytime and under strictly enforced restrictions, while those Jews that were permitted settlement in the towns were often charged exorbitant taxes for the privilege (Zittartz 1998: 83). This practice of expulsion from towns and restriction in professions led to a large number of impoverished rural settlements, often close to the larger towns or cities so that tradespeople and laborers could conduct their business during the day and leave again at nightfall, as they were required to do. These segregational policies led to a Wrm sense of unity and solidarity within the community or the family. While a society that is structured in rigid layers is limiting possibilities for personal achievement and social mobility, at the same time it has the beneWt of providing the individual with the security and stability of knowing exactly his or her place and social networks within that society. The value and importance of those networks is thus reinforced immensely, especially within those groups that are kept on the margins of society. It was only towards the end of the 18th century and the intellectual movement of the Enlightenment that these restrictions to the Jewish communities began to be somewhat lifted. During this period, the traditional view of humans being put in their speciWc station through God’s will was gradually replaced in favor of a philosophy that saw man as essentially capable of reason, and therefore of education and improvement. All human beings were to be considered equal, which led to a criticism of legal and social injustices determined by the accident of birth. The drawback of this egalitarian philosophy is that the recognition of a capacity for ‘improvement’, i.e. integration and acculturation into the dominant society, often translated into the expectation or even obligation for that assimilatory process to be performed. As long as a person or a group of people were considered to be on the margins of society because they were born into this station through the will of God, while they were unable to change their status as outcasts, they could also not be held responsible for their misfortune. But once those same people were oVered the possibility of integration through achievement and adaptation, they were expected to avail themselves of it. In the words of the German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt:

47

48

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Jews are to be transformed into human beings. It is bad enough that Jews exist in the Wrst place; and it is therefore necessary that they be made into human beings, i.e. into enlightened human beings. (Arendt 1959: 19, my translation)

During most of the 18th century there was a Werce and passionate public debate on granting Jews legal equality. The Wrst reforms towards an equal status came from France, where Jews had acquired civil rights equal to those of the non-Jewish population in 1791 from the revolutionary parliament (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 141). Through the Napoleonic wars, these reforms inXuenced the legislative in some parts of Germany that were under temporary French rule. But such laws remained fragmented, with a large amount of regional diVerences, and even in those parts where equality had been achieved or almost achieved under French occupation there were roll-backs. But the demand for Jewish emancipation remained a central issue of liberal politics, and the Rhineland was the Wrst of the Prussian provinces to introduce full equality in 1843. Other provinces followed suit, but it was only with the foundation of the German Reich in 1871 that all restrictions to legal and civil rights based on religion were abolished nationwide (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 142V.). However, the changes in the legal system which, over the course of the 19th century, gradually paved the way towards nationwide equality in 1871 were often made and taken in the spirit of ‘educational’ measures with a view more to ‘improving’ than to ‘liberating’ the Jewish population, i.e. under an increasing pressure for acculturation (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 145f.; Volkov 2000: 19). This process of acculturation which, during the 18th century, brought about the loss of Yiddish as the language of communication among the indigenous German Jews (while still being used by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe; Best 1973: 39; Simon 1993: 10) was accompanied by a less rigid observation of religious rules, such as the prohibition to work on the Sabbath or the strict regulations for the preparation of food. On the one hand, these rules were becoming more and more diYcult to observe as the contact with the non-Jewish population increased. The observation of the Sabbath and of religious holidays, for example, would have entailed a substantial loss in business for Jewish tradespeople (especially since it was made compulsory at the beginning of the 20th century for shops to be closed on Sundays), and was all but impossible for children who attended Christian schools, as was becoming more and more common during the 19th century (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 169; Sparing 1997a). On the other hand, religious diVerences as well as dogmatic prescriptions were decreasing in over-

The situation of German Jews

all importance during and after the Enlightenment, as a more rationalist and scientiWc view of the world became predominant. Two other factors played a large role in this development of a more liberal religious trend. The legal equality, which among other things encompassed freedom of movement, as well as the social and economic changes within the larger societies, caused a strong general movement towards the towns, especially the commercial centers like Köln and Düsseldorf. Within those larger, urban communities, the social pressure to observe cultural and religious rules was far less than it had been in the smaller, more rural congregations (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 157). Towards the end of the 19th century, this trend was reinforced by large migrations of Eastern European Jews in the wake of epidemics, famine and pogroms. These migrants were subsumed under the term Ostjuden, ‘Eastern Jews’, which referred not only to their countries of origin, but conveyed a large number of stereotypes, among them cultural inferiority (evidenced among other things through their use of Yiddish, which was widely viewed as a degenerated dialect of German), poverty, and religious orthodoxy (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 195f.; Sparing 1997b: 156). The large number of Ostjuden within the Jewish community — after World War I, their proportion among most of the larger parishes in Prussia averaged 23% (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 196) — served to reinforce the tendency for acculturation among the established and assimilated German Jews. The apparent ‘diVerence’ and ‘strangeness’ of some of these migrants, which was evident not only from their outward appearance and adherence to orthodox religious rules but also from their language, was often even a source of embarrassment, and while the parishes made every eVort to give them what support they could, there was a clear wish for distance (Benz 1994: 18; Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 199; Volkov 2000: 59). The attitude of the assimilated Jews was such that in some way we were ourselves ‘anti-Semitic’ towards those Jews (Ostjuden) who were still living in a sort of Ghetto, and who were represented in almost every town, as in the ‘Wallstraße’ in Düsseldorf. They were looked down upon, we made fun of their Yiddish accents and their habits — not a very noble attitude to take. (Herz 1984: 41, my translation)

Both the small range of professional choices that was open to the Jewish population for many centuries and the pressure to assimilate were at the heart of German-Jewish identities in the late 19th and early 20th century. On the one hand, the segregation of the past centuries had led to very real diVerences in the social structure of the Jewish and the mainstream population: The percentages

49

50

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

of workers, artisans or farmers among them were extremely low, while there was overrepresentation of tradespeople as well as a growing number of doctors, lawyers and judges (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 213V.; Sparing 1997c: 167f.). This social stratiWcation fed directly into anti-Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as a ‘parasite’ on the ‘truly hard-working’ members of society. The gradual weakening of many social, legal and cultural borders that had so far ensured the segregation of the established Jewish minority did not lead to a disappearance, but merely to a transformation of anti-Jewish stereotypes. It was with the economic crisis of the late 1870s that the new type of this phenomenon which has been labeled ‘anti-Semitism’ emerged. This was no longer based on the purely religious foundations which had so far stigmatized Jews as the ones who had murdered Christ, who were ‘ritual murderers’ of small Christian children, and who poisoned wells. It was the outcome of an antimodernistic trend among those who encountered diYculties through the loss of the perceived securities engendered by the more rigid system of estates and guilds, and who identiWed Jews as not only the beneWciaries but also the instigators of these changes (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 143). At the same time, as theories of evolution, inheritance, and ‘race’ became the prominent object of the natural sciences, this economically motivated anti-Semitism also acquired a racist component (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 183). It can be seen, therefore, that the loss of importance ascribed to religion during the 19th century was not accompanied by a similar loss, but by a transformation of the separateness and distinctness of the Jewish community, both in self-perception and in how they were viewed from the outside. Judaism gradually became to be viewed as a socio-cultural category, instead of a purely religious one, while also — towards the end of the 19th century — acquiring a basis in racist theory. These tendencies in anti-Semitic sentiment, which gained ground and support from large parts of the population in the last two decades of the century, led to the foundation of various Jewish organizations and societies, with a view to Wghting the more blatant manifestations of anti-Semitism. The most prominent among these was the society of German citizens of Jewish denomination (Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens). This society, which was founded in 1893, was a typical example of a platform where those Jews who did not wish to invest their energies in activities of a purely denominational character could take a stand against anti-Semitism and for a proud and modern German-Jewish identity (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 180f.). Similar tendencies were to be observed in Jewish student-, women-, and youth-organiza-

The situation of German Jews

tions, societies for Jewish history and literature, and sports clubs (cf. Klerks 1997: 116V.; Zielke 1997: 130). Some of these organizations were founded as a reaction against the non-Jewish counterparts that did not admit Jews (particularly fraternities), but all of them served to propagate an understanding of a Jewish identity that was deeply rooted in German culture and history.1 It seems puzzling that, while many of the acculturated German Jews were unreligious to the point that they did not even keep the High Holidays, but celebrated Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter, they still retained this feeling of Jewish identity. A large part of this was, of course, due to anti-Semitic pressures from the outside. These were to become even more virulent after World War I. Before the outbreak of this war, the social situation of German Jews looked like the outcome of a very successful process of acculturation. Legal (if not actual) equality had been achieved, and — some anti-Semitic outbreaks notwithstanding — Jews were Wrmly established within the society. The majority of them belonged to the upper middle classes or to what has been called Bildungsbürgertum, a moderately wealthy, well-educated background with a penchant for classical education and a very high regard for German culture and literature (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 192). The outbreak of WWI in August of 1914 and the attending surge of patriotic enthusiasm at Wrst seemed to be a source of hope for the Wnal achievement of total equality; and a large number of Jewish volunteer soldiers, doctors, and nurses joined the forces. But as the rapid victory that had been counted on in the early months of the war kept dwindling from sight and the years of war dragged on, bringing poverty and frustration, anti-Semitism again gained in power. Jews were identiWed as the convenient scapegoat for the fact that victory had not been achieved, and (unsubstantiated) rumors that Jews were evading service spread (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 192V.). The resentment at Germany’s eventual loss of the war in 1918 and at the Versailles peace treaties gave even more strength to these attitudes and fed them all through the relative prosperity of the early 1920s and the generally more liberal climate of the Weimar Republic. Again, these and similar anti-Semitic attacks only served to emphasize collective eVorts among the Jewish community to establish themselves as an integral part of German society, while preserving a positive sense of Jewish identity. In 1929, the Rabbi of Düsseldorf, Max Eschelbacher, mentions such instances of anti-Semitic slander and propaganda, and states:

51

52

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

All that is behind us, forgotten like a nightmare. We have always lived in good understanding with the non-Jewish community; and the occasional anti-Semitic attacks could never change that. (Eschelbacher 1929: 8, my translation)

Towards the end of the Weimar Republic, the social stratiWcation of the acculturated Jewish minority was very similar to what it had been around the turn of the century. In Düsseldorf, more than half of the community were engaged in trade; and most of the larger stores as well as the big department stores were owned by Jews. In addition, Jews were overrepresented among the academic professions, such as doctors, lawyers or engineers (Benz 1994: 16; Sparing 1997c: 170). The Jewish community enjoyed relative prosperity, notwithstanding the depression of the late 1920s. Due to this depression, however, anti-Semitic attitudes again became virulent, even before the Nazi rise to power on January 30th 1933. Anti-Semitism, segregation and discrimination of the Jewish population were thus not Nazi inventions. Attitudes of this kind have existed in Germany and elsewhere ever since there are records of Jewish minorities. It was whenever times got rough — through wars, economic crises, political upheavals — that participants in the struggle for power would exploit these underlying sentiments for their own purposes, picturing Jews as the scapegoats for whatever events caused or were held to have caused the current crisis, and antiSemitic attacks gained in intensity once more. 2.2 The situation of German Jews under the Nazi regime The steps of the destruction process were introduced in the following order: At Wrst the concept of “Jew” was deWned; then the expropriatory operations were inaugurated; third, the Jews were concentrated in ghettos; Wnally, the decision was made to annihilate European Jewry. (Hilberg 1961: 31)

The persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime was not a process that started immediately and in full force after the Nazi seizure of power (Machtübernahme). The process of erosion of legal and civil rights that eventually culminated in the genocide was a gradual one. As one of the informants for this study put it in her interview: Between thirty-three and thirty-eight, each day would bring something new, atrocious and scary, and Düsseldorf was one of the leading communities where meanness was concerned, absolutely. (Thea S., p. 7, my translation)2

The situation of German Jews

Nevertheless, Jewish life in Germany was aVected almost immediately after the Nazi takeover. During the Wrst year and a half, eVorts were mainly targeted at the exclusion of Jews from many domains of public life and the limitation of their professional and educational opportunities. Within weeks of the Machtübernahme, boycotts of Jewish stores were organized, and Düsseldorf was among the very Wrst towns where such boycotts took place on March 10th 1933. The procedure on such occasions followed a routine that was quickly established: SS- or SA-men took their posts outside the shops, the shop-windows were disWgured and besmirched, and customers entering the shops were abused and sometimes photographed to have their pictures published in local newspapers or prominently displayed on trees or lantern-posts. On several occasions there was also abuse or violence towards the shopkeepers as well as vandalism. After such boycotts had been conducted in various towns and cities, the leadership of the party ordered a nationwide boycott for April 1st 1933, which was accompanied by articles and advertisements in newspapers, admonishing the ‘Aryan’ population not to take their business to Jewish shops (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 230; Sparing 1997c: 171V.). These attempts to drive Jewish merchants out of business were accompanied by other measures like the prohibition for Jewish butchers to enter the slaughterhouses (Sparing 1997c: 172). The boycott of April 1933 was not only targeted against Jewish shops, but speciWcally against doctors and lawyers. One of its objects was to further the preparations for the ‘law for the re-establishment of the professional civil service’ (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums; Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl) 1933: 175V.), which stated that all civil servants of ‘non-Aryan descent’ were to be retired, unless they had held their positions since before August 1914 or were the fathers or sons of soldiers who had died in World War I (Hilberg 1961: 54; Walk 1981: 12). One of the consequences of this law was that Jewish doctors, lawyers and judges lost their licenses (Woelk 1997a: 61; 1997b: 176). Furthermore, in September of 1933, a law was passed which obliged everyone who held any kind of artistic profession (this included musicians and actors, but also shop-window decorators) to join a trade association or ‘chamber’, membership in which was granted only to ‘Aryans’ (Reichskulturkammergesetz, Sept. 22nd 1933, RGBl 1933: 661f.; cf. also Hilberg 1961: 58). Another step towards the exclusion of Jews from public life was the ‘law against the overcrowding of German schools’ (Gesetz gegen die Überfüllung deutscher Schulen und Volksschulen) which was passed on April 25th 1933

53

54

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(RGBl 1933: 225; Walk 1981: 18), and stated that no public school or university was to have a percentage of Jewish pupils exceeding 1.5%. In the wake of this law, anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish children — both from teachers and other children — increased dramatically (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 241; Sparing 1997a: 109), so that a large number of Jewish schools were founded from October 1933 onwards. In Düsseldorf, a Jewish school was opened in April 1935 (Sparing 1997a: 110). Several of the informants for this study report how the situation in the common schools became more and more unbearable, as the following story of a young girl illustrates, who was thirteen in nineteen-thirty-three when the Nazi rise to power took place. After the Wrst boycotts and public demonstrations against Jews, her parents sent her to England for a year, after which she had to come back to Germany, in the summer of 1934. She went back to the same school she had been to before, and the Wrst thing that happened was that one of the teachers entered class, lifted his hand and said, ‘Heil, deutsche Mädchen’ (Heil, German girls), and the class answered ‘Heil Hitler’. She realized that this was a daily ritual but was at a loss how to react. The teacher noticed that she had not answered with the class, and immediately asked her whether she was a German girl. She says that she was in a terrible conXict on how to answer that question, since she had learned that her ‘Germanness’ was not what it had been, and she also realized that the teacher had only asked the question in order to cause her this exact conXict. Some time later, she and two friends had been cited in the class-diary for some kind of trivial mischief, and the next day, her teacher made the three of them stand up in front of the class and told them “You’ve got to understand that you Jews are guests here in Germany, you don’t belong, and you should behave accordingly.” She says: that was very very painful, although I knew her attitude towards us, but to tell us something like this, in front of the entire class — I mean, I was fourteen at that time, that is a diYcult age in any case, even without this kind of baiting, and I must say, I was very hurt, it is exactly as if love had died, and that was the point where I realized that our love aVair with Germany was over. (Lola R., p. 9, my translation)

It was thus at a very early stage of the Nazi regime that anti-Semitism came to pervade almost every aspect of daily and public life for the Jewish population, not only because of the laws and regulations that were passed but also through the changes in behavior, the open aggression, of large parts of the non-Jewish population. At this stage, however, many people still felt that all this would soon blow over, that it could not possibly get any worse than it already was.

The situation of German Jews

Those who did emigrate during this early period usually did so because they belonged to one of the (comparatively small) professional groups for whom the continuation of either their occupation (e.g. as doctors, lawyers, or artists) or of their education (at universities) had become impossible (Hilberg 1996 [1992]: 138). It was in September 1935 that the persecution entered a new and more radical stage, as the Nuremberg racial laws (Nürnberger Rassengesetze) were passed: The ‘citizenship law’ (Reichsbürgergesetz; RGBl 1935: 1146), the ‘law for the protection of German blood and German honor’ (Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre; RGBl 1935: 1146f.) augmented in October 1935 by the ‘law for the protection of the genetic health of the German people’ (Gesetz zum Schutze der Erbgesundheit des deutschen Volkes; RGBl 1935: 1246f.). These laws were fundamental to the subsequent measures of persecution in that they made a clear and basic distinction between the rights of ‘people of German or related blood’ and ‘people of foreign blood’, namely Jews, Gypsies, Blacks etc. The citizenship law essentially established two classes of citizenship on the basis of this ‘racial’ distinction, assigning those who were not considered ‘Aryans’ an inferior status, resembling that of foreigners. This status laid the foundation for literally hundreds of subsequent laws and regulations that were speciWcally discriminatory against these groups. This distinction between ‘races’ was applied in the other two laws mentioned above, in that ‘Aryans’ were no longer allowed to marry or have sexual relations with ‘nonAryans’, and infractions of these laws were deWned as ‘racial disgrace’ (Rassenschande), a criminal oVence. This, then, was the Wrst clear move away from civil equality and towards a strict segregation of the entire Jewish population. It also stigmatized Jews in a way they had never been singled out before: They were now deWned and discriminated against not as a religious minority, but as a race. So far, baptism had always been at least a theoretical way out. But in the commentaries to the Nuremberg laws, the deWnition of who was Jewish was not based on whether or not they belonged to a Jewish parish, but on whether their grandparents had. Some other consequences followed directly from these laws. For one thing, Jewish men were no longer allowed to directly employ ‘Aryan’ woman under 45 years, e.g. as housemaids or doctor’s assistants (Hilberg 1961: 46). The exceptions that had been made in 1933 for those civil servants who had lost a father or a son in WWI or fought themselves were also taken back, which was a terrible blow for all those who had so far believed that their patriotic deeds as soldiers for their country would make them exempt from persecution.

55

56

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Since the Nuremberg laws had created a special status for Jews, local and regional legislative and administrative bodies were now free to pass their own laws and regulations, restricting Jewish rights and movements more or less as they pleased. Even though the Nazi state was a rigidly centralist organization, local administrations as well as the suborganizations of the party were encouraged to use their own initiative in such matters. In Düsseldorf, Jewish participation in daily life became restricted in many areas. To cite only a few examples, from early 1936 onwards Jews were no longer permitted to use public swimming pools, and newspapers protested against their use of the public ice rink (Walk 1981: 154; Zielke 1997: 136). In June 1936 is was decreed that Jews were no longer to be admitted to the town hospital (Walk 1981: 166). The subsequent two years were characterized by a gradually but continually increasing persecution and exclusion from public life, but there were no really radical and drastic changes at this time. In the course of the next few years the machinery of destruction was turned on Jewish ‘wealth’. In increasing numbers, one Jewish family after another discovered that it was impoverished. […] The Jews were deprived of their professions, their enterprises, their Wnancial reserves, their wages, their claims upon food and shelter, and, Wnally, their last personal belongings, down to underwear, gold teeth, and women’s hair. We shall refer to this process as ‘expropriation.’ (Hilberg 1961: 54)

It was only in 1938 that the climate changed substantially. This was a process that began with the Anschluss on March 12th, the date when Austria became a part of Germany, and with the attending surge of nationalist and anti-Semitic feelings. One month later, Jews were forced to declare all property exceeding 5,000 Reichsmark. This was part of the ‘Four-Year-Plan’ (Vierjahresplan), by which from 1936 onwards the government had attempted to render Germany again a nation capable of going to war. The Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan, General Field Marshal Hermann Göring, was given authority to dispose of all Jewish property as he saw Wt ‘in accordance with the necessities of German economy’ (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 235). And then, in late 1938, the persecution gained intensity with two events. The Wrst of these was the deportation of all Jews of Polish citizenship to Poland, subsequent to a declaration by the Polish government that all citizens who had not been to Poland for more than Wve years would lose their status as citizens on October 31st. On the night of October 28th 18,000 Polish Jews all over Germany were therefore rounded up, allowed ten minutes to pack some basic necessities, put on trains and quite literally dumped in the no-man’s-land on

The situation of German Jews

the German-Polish border, where they were left in camps that had been hastily stamped from the ground. They stayed there for almost a year (Eschelbacher 1998 [1939]: 34–39; Sparing 1997b: 163f.). Among the deported were the parents of Herschel Grynzpan, a German Jew living in Paris. On November 7th 1938, he shot a member of the German embassy, vom Rath (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 245), whose death gave a convenient excuse for the pogrom of Nov. 9th, which has come to be known under the cynical name of Reichskristallnacht. In what was later portrayed to be ‘spontaneous uprisings’, organized groups of mainly SA-men (storm troopers) but also civilians destroyed more than 1,000 synagogues and 7,500 houses, apartments and businesses during that night. 91 people were killed according to oYcial records, the actual numbers are almost certainly far higher than that. More than 30,000 were arrested and taken to the concentration camps Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and Dachau. In Düsseldorf alone, seven people were murdered, and some seventy were hospitalized. About 80% of Jewish shops and homes were demolished, and the synagogue was burned down (Suchy 1989: 62). 200 people were arrested, most of whom were deported to Dachau a week later (Suchy 1989: 137). This was a turning point. It was no longer a matter of laws and regulations, virtually everyone who experienced this night now knew that there was an immediate threat to their lives. After Nov. 9th 1938, the segregation of Jews took on a new force and pace. On Nov. 12th, the ‘decree for the Wnal elimination of Jews from the German economy’ (Verordnung zur endgültigen Ausschaltung der Juden aus dem deutschen Wirtschaftsleben) provided the basis for the liquidation of all Jewish businesses. On the same day, a decree was passed, obliging the shopkeepers to pay for all repairs, while at the same time conWscating all insurance payments. In addition, a ‘Wne’ of 1 billion Reichsmark was imposed on the German Jews in ‘atonement’ for the death of vom Rath (Eckert 1985: 239). Jews were no longer permitted to attend theatres, cinemas, concerts or expositions (Walk 1981: 255). After the German invasion of Poland on Sept. 1st 1939 that started World War II, the Jewish population was quickly stripped of what remaining rights they had. They lost all professional opportunities. Jewish children were no longer allowed to attend non-Jewish schools. Jewish men were compelled to do forced labor. Jews were made to give up their houses and apartments and live in special ‘Jewish houses’ (Judenhäuser). They no longer had the right to read the daily newspapers, own a radio or a telephone or even use public telephones. They were only allowed to do their shopping at special times. And from

57

58

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

September 19th 1941 onwards, they had to wear the ‘yellow star’ that marked them as Jewish in public. In October 1941, deportations to Poland started (Rieker and Zimmermann 1998: 250). On January 20th 1942, in a committee-meeting that has come to be known as Wannseekonferenz, 15 high oYcials decided on how to organize and administer the deportation and genocide of European Jews.

2.3 Emigration So I got on the train, I had my suitcase […] and I put it up in the luggage net. And I knew I’d never see my parents again. And we stood and talked on the platform, until the train came, and I got on and said, thank God, it’s over. Finished, the chapter on Germany is closed, the chapter on parents is closed, I never want to think about it again — don’t forget, I was still wearing my iron suit, you know, nothing could touch me any more. So I sat down on the seat, but the train didn’t start. Then they called for me to go to the window and wave to my parents. That was the hardest thing I ever did. It had all been closed, you know, I had Wnished with it, I had drawn a line. So I had to get up and go back. Walk through that line. So I waved until the train started, then I sat back down and drew another line. (Ruth K., p. 46)

Until the outbreak of World War II, the ever-intensifying process of the persecution of German Jews was designed to force as many of them as possible to emigrate. These eVorts were connected with the phase of persecution that, according to Hilberg (1961), was characterized by expropriation: While the pressure on the Jewish population to emigrate was continually heightened, laws and regulations made it increasingly diYcult for emigrants to take anything with them. The Wrst step in this direction was taken more than a year before the Nazi seizure of power on Dec. 8th 1931, when a ‘Xight tax’ (ReichsXuchtsteuer) was decreed. This decree imposed a tax of 25% on emigrants whose property exceeded 200,000 RM (this allowance was lowered to 50,000 RM in May 1934) or who had an annual income exceeding 20,000 RM (Eckert 1985: 128; Hilberg 1961: 90; Walk 1981: 81).

The situation of German Jews

In addition, from 1934 onwards, the amounts of foreign currency that emigrants were allowed to transfer were continually lowered, and from Oct. 1935 onwards, other assets like foreign stocks or bonds could only be exported if it could be shown that they had been the property of the emigrant since before 1933 (Walk 1981: 70; 84; 136; 203). Any property that remained in Germany was converted to ‘Sperrmark’ and could only be liquidated under speciWc circumstances and at a tremendous loss which rose from 48% in 1934 to 90% in 1938 (Eckert 1985: 129). In this and a host of other ways, it was ensured that any loophole for the transfer of property would be sealed. Later on, the export of valuables like jewelry or even furniture was restricted; in 1937, it was decreed that such items could only be taken if a ‘reasonable’ sum was paid in recompensation (Walk 1981: 208). In 1939, this ‘reasonable’ sum was Wxed at 100% of the price of any item that had been the property of the emigrant for less than one year (Walk 1981: 291). No jewelry or other valuables could be taken any longer, with the exception of one set of silver cutlery per person, a wedding ring and a watch (Walk 1981: 274). In other words, this legislation made increasingly sure that those people who did manage to leave Germany would do so quite literally with the clothes on their backs and nothing else. Anything that was left behind was eventually appropriated by the state. This legislation not only increased the diYculties involved in taking the decision to emigrate. While the idea of starting an entirely new life in a diVerent country was overshadowed by the knowledge that this would be in entirely impoverished circumstances, the practical diYculties involved in getting a visa were also increased. None of the potential countries of emigration were enthusiastic at the thought of taking in a large number of refugees that were absolutely destitute, so one of the main problems in getting a visa e.g. for the USA was to Wnd someone who would give an aYdavit, aYrming the emigrants would not become a Wnancial burden to the state (Benz 1994: 29; Eckert 1985: 188). Professional qualiWcations were an added problem. For many professional groups, among them doctors and lawyers who were overrepresented among the Jewish population, emigration entailed a loss of their licenses, which were only reinstated at large cost and eVort. These diYculties were compounded by language barriers. The history of Jewish emigration from Germany, as well as the history of Jewish life under the Nazi regime, can therefore be divided into fairly clear-cut

59

60

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

phases. In Wrst phase, between 1933 and Sept. 1935, relatively few people emigrated, and those who did were largely convinced that the Nazi regime would soon blow over, upon which they would be able to return to Germany. During this time, emigration was comparatively easy. Since there was only a small number of people applying for visas, the quotas of countries like the US were never Wlled, and taking money and part of their belongings with them was still possible. With the Nuremberg laws, this changed, and the growing number of refugees seeking to emigrate met with a decrease in the willingness on the part of other countries to take in increasingly more and increasingly impoverished German Jews. The Anschluss, the union of Germany and Austria in March 1938, caused the number of people seeking to emigrate to increase immensely almost overnight. At the same time, the US now subsumed both Austrian and German refugees under the German quota, so that visas all of a sudden became very diYcult to obtain, especially since Jewish passports often were no longer extended by the German government, making the holders of such passports stateless (Göpfert 1999: 41; Sherman 1973: 17f.). Furthermore, Great Britain re-introduced obligatory visas for German and Austrian citizens in Mai 1938, and anyone wanting to emigrate had to get a work permission prior to applying for a visa (Göpfert 1999: 48; PHILO-Atlas 1938: 75). After the Pogrom of Nov. 1938, virtually everyone left was making huge eVorts to emigrate — to anywhere. However, the lists of applicants for visas had already become so long and the procedures so diYcult that it was mainly those who had already started the procedures long before that who eventually were successful (Göpfert 1999: 41f.) A very special case of emigrants were the 10,000 children of under 17 years who were brought to England in the time between the Pogrom and the outbreak of World War II. These transports were initiated by Jewish organizations in co-operation with the British government. The organizations took care of formalities like passports, visa, and host families or homes where the children were to live after their emigration (Göpfert 1999). Most of the children who went on one of the Kindertransporte never saw their parents again.

The situation of German Jews

2.4 Conclusion The later the date at which the attempt to emigrate was successful, the larger were the Wnancial sacriWces that had to be made, but also the psychological burdens that the victims had to carry. (Benz 1994: 12)

As shown in the above sections, historical approaches to the study of the persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime have identiWed diVerent periods of time in which the extent and intensity of the persecution diVered. The Wrst period comprises the time from the Nazi seizure of power in January 1933 to the issue of Nuremberg racial laws in September of 1935. For the Jewish population, this time was characterized by the belief that the Nazi regime could not last. Some anti-Semitic demonstrations like the boycotts and professional restrictions notwithstanding, during this time the German and Jewish parts of people’s identities were still reconcilable. Those who emigrated within this Wrst period mainly did so for professional reasons. They were not subjected to the full range of humiliation and marginalization that the later emigrants had to endure. The second period extends from September 1935 to November 1938. As was shown above, after the Nuremberg laws had laid down a clear ‘deWnition’ of non-Aryans as well as the basis for their legal marginalization, this period was characterized by a host of petty regulations designed to make everyday life more diYcult; by increasing anti-Semitic attacks from the mainstream population; but also by expropriation and a growing impoverishment of the Jewish population. Jewish life in Germany during this time became very diYcult, especially for children and adolescents who were being made to feel inferior and marginalized at every step. The terror of November 9th 1938 marks the beginning of the third period. It was on this date that the Jewish population realized that they were in immediate and real danger of their lives; that they were essentially outlawed. It is at least possible that the widening gulf between the German-Jewish population on the one hand and the non-Jewish German population on the other not only inXuenced the feelings of identity but also of identiWcation through language. Those German Jews who emigrated at an earlier stage of the Nazi regime potentially retained the feeling of identiWcation with the German culture, while it was made clear in no uncertain terms to anyone who stayed longer that they were not to be considered or consider themselves ‘German’.

61

62

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

One of the aims of the present study will therefore be to establish whether qualitative or quantitative diVerences in loss or maintenance of the German L1 can be found between informants who belong to these diVerent emigration groups.

Chapter 3

The study

The present study examines language use and language loss of a group of 54 German-Jewish emigrants. It will attempt to establish the inXuence of extralinguistic (autobiographical) factors on language attrition, as well as look at intralinguistic determinants for language loss. The informants for this study are all German Jews who were forced to emigrate under the Nazi regime. They left Germany between 1933 and 1939 and have lived in anglophone countries (England and the USA) ever since. All of the interviewees were born or grew up in Düsseldorf between 1905 and 1930, where they lived in a monolingual German environment until the time of their emigration, when they were between eight and thirty years old. The interviews were collected by two historians as part of an Oral History project by the Düsseldorf Holocaust Memorial Center (Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf). First contact was made with the informants by means of a letter from the Mahn- und Gedenkstätte, asking them whether they would be willing to contribute the story of their lives to the documentation of the center. This, of course, constitutes what amounts to a pre-selection of the subjects, since a large number of the people who received this letter never answered. It is, of course, not possible to make any valid claims about the situation of those who chose not to answer, but the fact that none of the people who consented to give an interview had, for example, been to one of the concentration camps implies that many of the people who went through the worst situations do not feel ready to talk about their experiences even now — apart from the fact that very few people survived the camps at all. Interestingly, the one person in my sample who had been to a camp was not among those originally approached by the memorial center, since he was not from Düsseldorf, but from Köln1: It was his Düsseldorf-born wife who received the original letter. Since he was present when the interview with his wife was recorded, he eventually started to talk about his experiences as well. The informants for this study form a relatively homogenous group as far as their social background is concerned; almost all of them come from families that belonged to a moderately wealthy, well-educated background.

64

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

This homogeneity may seem surprising at Wrst sight, but it is explicable if one considers the enormous diYculties, Wnancial and otherwise, involved for German Jews when they made the decision to emigrate. Taking anything with them became progressively diYcult and expensive in the years after the Nazi rise to power, and by the time the extent of the danger became obvious to most, the costs of a visa alone had risen far beyond most people’s means. Therefore, for people who did not have the necessary money, knowledge and connections, after a certain point in time, emigration was no longer possible. Since all of the informants belonged to this class of well-educated, middle class assimilated German Jews, they also all lived in a monolingual German environment. Yiddish had been abandoned in this group of society around the end of the 18th century. There were still speakers of Yiddish in Düsseldorf in the 1920s and 30s, but those were mostly people who came from an Eastern European background (Sparing 1997: 156; see also above Section 2.1). Since all informants are from the same geographic region and a similar sociological background, it can be assumed that both dialectal and sociolectal variation within the sample is comparatively small. For the purpose of this study, an ‘alias’ name was chosen for each of the interviewees, in order to grant them anonymity. There is only one exception to this: Prof. Dr. John H. Herz will be referred to by his real name, since his autobiography has been used among the historical literature this study is based upon, and since there are overlaps between this autobiography and his interview. He therefore kindly gave me permission to use his real name instead of an alias. For the other informants, I collected Wrst names from announcements of marriages, engagements, or Bar-Mitzvahs from the Jewish community newspaper (Gemeindezeitung für den Synagogenbezirk Düsseldorf) of 1935 and 1936, and then added a randomly selected last initial.

3.1 Free spoken data The study is based on a corpus of 54 narrative autobiographical interviews. Such interviews are not based on a Wxed catalogue of questions that would prejudice the subject’s selection of what he or she considers important enough to recount (Vorländer 1990: 15). As far as possible, topic management is left to the interviewee, as is the choice of the language (the two interviewers in this case are both native speakers of German with a sound, albeit decidedly nonnative, command of English) and the setting of the interview. The interviewer

The study

meets the interviewee in a location of his or her choosing (most commonly the home of the person who is interviewed, but in some cases interviewees preferred a public place, e.g. a restaurant). The interview itself is preceded by a period of informal conversation in order for both interviewer and interviewee to become acquainted and feel at ease with the situation. Only then will the interviewer take out the tape recorder and ask the informant to tell the story of his or her life. From this point onward, topic management is left to the informant. These interviews contain a wealth of information that is invaluable for any socio-linguistic study, since most relevant information on age, education, social and family background and so on is contained in the database itself. Furthermore it is the interviewers’ aim to establish a relationship with the interviewees prior to the interview in order to put them at ease and ‘get a feeling’ for the situation. This is necessary since otherwise they run the risk of putting the interviewee in a situation where serious re-traumatization might occur. A side-eVect of this interview technique is that the interviews contain spontaneous speech with a low degree of monitoring. The fact that the interviews analyzed in this study were not, initially, collected with a view to linguistic investigation and analysis is a clear advantage. When potential attriters are contacted by someone they know to be a linguist — even if the object of the investigation is not clearly stated — they often become self-conscious about their linguistic abilities even beyond the ‘normal’ scope of the observer’s paradox. In the present study, the linguistic interest in the data was only expressed to the subjects after all of the interviews had been conducted, through a letter describing the research topic for this investigation and asking permission to use their interview for these purposes. The actual interview situation was therefore free from demands upon the proWciency in German, and it was clear to the interviewee that she or he was free to use whichever language she or he felt more comfortable in, or switch as was suited to the situation. In order to enable readers to form their own impression on the diVerent varieties spoken by the informants, it was further decided to include an AudioCD with this book, containing excerpts from those interviews for which permission to do this was obtained from the informants. The transcripts of these segments, together with an English translation, can be found in Appendix III.

65

66

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Language use in the interview As a very Wrst step, all of the interviews were analyzed for use of English and German lexical items. In order to do this, all ‘hedges’ like ahem, äh etc. were eliminated from the database, as well as ‘false starts’ of words. In addition anything that was said by the interviewer was eliminated. English and German lexical items were then counted. Needless to say, there were instances where the decision of whether a lexical item was English or German was problematic, especially at switching sites, as in the following example (underlined elements are English items, elements in italics are dubious items): aber all the same Maureen is auf eigene Faust every year in december when die holidays in Afrika sind nach Amerika gekommen, hat gekuckt, was die Mode war, damals hat sie Kleider gemacht, nicht nur Hosen, jetzt macht sie nur noch Hosen. ‘but all the same, Maureen came on her own every year in december when there are holidays in Africa to America, to look, what the fashion was, back then she made dresses, not only pants, now she makes only pants’ (Alice L., p. 6.)

In this case, is was regarded as a reduced pronunciation of German ist and counted as a German item. Similarly, die was regarded as a German article on the basis of its pronunciation. Since, however, the overall number of such questionable cases was very small and the distribution in groups of interviews that are overwhelmingly predominant in one of the two languages is very clearcut, it was felt that the relatively small amount of such cases did not seriously aVect the overall classiWcation. This yielded the following distribution: Table 2. Distribution of German and English in the database n German words English words

205,297 64,107 269,404

% 76.2 23.8

A closer look at the interviews showed that the overwhelming majority of the interviews used one language absolutely predominantly: Only seven of Wftyfour informants used more than 10% of the non-predominant language (see Table 3). In the majority of the interviews it is thus not a problem to clearly identify the base language.

The study

Table 3. Distribution of German and English over the interviews % of English

n

< 3% 3–10 % 25–71 % 91% > 99 %

30 5 7 1 11

In order to make sure that the German language system is actually the dominant one in the context of the interview, all interviews which contained more than 10% of English items were excluded from further analysis. This reduced the corpus to 35 interviews and a total of 173,585 spoken German words.

Analysis of the corpus After the corpus was transcribed (orthographically), the 35 interviews to be included in the study were analyzed by two native speakers of German: The author of this study and one of three student assistants. All instances where something was felt to be clearly ‘deviant’ by both these native speakers were classiWed as ‘interferences’. The instruction to the judges was to apply an ‘in dubio pro’ approach, i.e. to include only such cases that they felt could not occur in native speech; and to ignore ‘false starts’, i.e. instances that eventually were produced correctly. The interferences were classiWed into categories according to the linguistic level. In order to make among-subject comparisons possible, the frequencies of mistakes of each type were standardly converted to a ratio per 1,000 spoken German words in the interview (e.g., an informant who made a total of 5 mistakes on case marking over an interview 5,000 words in length would have a frequency of 1 case-marking mistake per 1,000 words in that category). In addition to this analysis of ‘mistakes’, an in-depth analysis of lexical, morphological, and syntactic complexity was conducted on each interview (see below). To get an impression on how ‘native-like’ each speaker still sounded, thirteen native speakers of German were asked to listen to a one-minute excerpt from each interview and ‘rate’ the speakers on a scale of 1 (perfectly native-like) to 3 (non-native-like). On listening to the same segments a second time (after having rated all speakers), the judges were asked to reconsider the rating on the basis of the informants’ accent, Xuency, vocabulary, and sentence construction.2

67

68

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

3.2 Questionnaires The corpus of spoken data is augmented by a questionnaire that was sent to the interviewees in both English and in German. It contained questions on the learning situation and on interim language use and self-evaluation (see Appendix II). Of the 54 questionnaires that were sent out, 43 were returned. An additional three questionnaires were returned unanswered because the recipient was deceased. The number of subjects who gave an answer to the questions on language use with parents, siblings, partners or spouses and children vary, since some of them did not have siblings, never married or had children, or emigrated without their parents. Such self-report data can be problematic. Just how problematic is illustrated by a Wnding from two of the questionnaires: One of the questions asked was how often the informants used German with their siblings (possible answers being ‘always’, ‘frequently’, ‘seldom’, or ‘never’). To this, one informant replied that he ‘always’ used German with his only sister. This same sister, however, stated that she ‘never’ spoke German to her brother (Walther E. and Käthe S., Questionnaire).

3.3 The informants — Extralinguistic factors Since this study used data that were collected not for the purpose of a linguistic analysis but for historical documentation, a random distribution of those extralinguistic factors that are considered to inXuence language attrition could not be ascertained, nor could those factors be controlled. 3.3.1 Age The fact that the interviews on which this study is based were recorded after up to sixty-Wve years after the time of the emigration implies that all informants were relatively young when they emigrated, none of them being over thirty years old. The youngest informant whose interview contained less than 10% of English items and was therefore included in the analysis was eleven years old at emigration. As was stated above, the age at which Wrst language acquisition is to be considered completed by attrition studies varies between 14 and 17 years. For

The study

the purpose of this study, informants were grouped into those who were sixteen years and younger (AGEEMI1) and those who were seventeen years and older at the time of emigration (AGEEMI2). This classiWcation yielded a relatively even distribution of informants and data. Table 4. Distribution of informants and data among age groups # of informants AGEEMI1 AGEEMI2

(sixteen years and younger) (seventeen years and older)

18 17

# of German words 87,149 86,436

3.3.2 Education The factor of ‘education’ is particularly hard to deWne in any clear-cut terms for the informants under investigation. As was pointed out above, during the Nazi regime German Jews were progressively barred from schools and institutions of higher education. These restrictions were introduced within the time span of only a few years, as were restrictions placed upon professions. Taken together with the growing pressure to emigrate, many people and especially younger people experienced radical interruptions in their education and professional lives. Many children and adolescents, for example, who had been attending one of the high schools in Düsseldorf, were forced to leave those schools and attend the Jewish middle school. … but then when I was ten years old and was supposed to go to high school — that was in 1936–I couldn’t go; and so I went to a catholic school […] but I could only stay there for a little more than a year, when the nuns were no longer allowed to have a school, so I went to the Jewish school. (Gertrud U., p. 1, my translation)

For others, the educational perspectives changed at a somewhat later stage, as was the case for Hans L. who left High School very shortly before the Abitur since Jews were no longer admitted to universities, and started an apprenticeship as a pharmacist. In the same vein, in the country of emigration the primary preoccupation was usually simply to earn a basic living. Prior schooling and education were often useless since the qualiWcations were not accepted. Many people therefore took whatever job they could get, but a large number of these later either went back to school or college to get additional qualiWcations (Walther E., Lotte A.) or achieved some kind of informal qualiWcation through voluntary work or correspondence classes (Irma M., Liesl R.).

69

70

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

It was therefore felt that a classiWcation of the informants into groups according to the level of education would not do justice to the diverse, highly colorful and individual biographies. 3.3.3 Time Since all informants for this study emigrated during the Nazi regime, the time periods they spent in emigration are fairly similar. Two of the informants originally emigrated to Palestine while one emigrated to Colombia, but all of them have been living in an English-speaking environment since at least the early 1950s, i.e. for a minimum of 45 years. Since previous studies suggest that whatever attrition occurs does so within the Wrst ten years, ‘time’ was not included as an independent variable for this study. 3.3.4 Gender The only study so far to investigate the inXuence of gender on language attrition is Köpke (1999), who failed to Wnd any signiWcant correlations whatsoever. Since her subjects are from a similar cultural background to the informants investigated here, it was decided not to investigate the inXuence of gender in the present study. 3.3.5 Contact In order to ascertain how much contact the informants had with their L1, this study had to rely mainly on self-report data, which may not be an entirely reliable guide to actual language use. However, it is impossible to gain a more objective insight into actual language use. These self-report data are collected either from the questionnaires or from statements in the interview, as in the following example: I: Q: I: Q: I:

… we never spoke German. Not even with your husband? No, never. not with each other not with each other, no, it was ah partly because of the war, you couldn’t speak German then. (Lotte A., p. 9)

A number of the informants likewise give World War II as a reason for not using German, especially in public. This was partly due to a certain fear of hostility on

The study

the part of other people, but often a growing resentment towards Germany on the part of the emigrant herself would also play a role. This attitude is most radically expressed by Berta D., who categorically states in her questionnaire: “When the war broke out, 6 months after my arrival in England, I vowed I would not speak, write nor read German ever again.” Many other informants express similarly negative attitudes towards the German language, e.g.: When I was a child I hated speaking German because I was ashamed of being diVerent from the other children. As an adult I had such animosity towards Germany because of its slaughter of Jews, that I would not let my children take German in high school even though they wanted to. I was insistent as a child that my parents, who did not speak English, learn English immediately. For most of my life my brother and I spoke only English to our parents. (Kläre S., Questionnaire)

The questionnaire which was sent to the informants inquires about use of German with the previous generation (parents), within the same generation (siblings, spouse) and with the next generation (children). As was expected on the basis of Wndings from other studies, there is a continuous decrease of use of German between those generations. For the purpose of the following table, the responses to the question on use of German with the partner or spouse were eliminated for those cases where the native language of the spouse was not German. Table 5. Self-reports on language use (in % of total responses) Use of German with Parents with Siblings with Partner/Spouse with Children

Always

Frequently

Seldom

Never

47.2 11.1 11.5 5.4

13.9 11.1 23.1 2.7

19.4 41.7 38.5 18.9

19.4 36.1 26.9 73.0

An interesting Wnding here is that almost two thirds of the informants who were married to a native speaker of German report that they seldom or never used German with him/her. This is a very striking contrast to self-report data from in other studies, e.g. Hulsen, de Bot and Weltens (1999), where 62.5% of the Wrst generation informants with a Dutch speaking partner reported they used a mix of both languages (interpreted by the researchers on the basis of their Wndings as an interlanguage variety with Dutch as the base language), and 29.2% reported they used a variety of Dutch (Hulsen, de Bot and Weltens 1999: 225).

71

72

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

It will have to be established whether a (reported) more intensive use of German in emigration has any inXuence on language attrition, i.e. whether people who report they use German seldom or never have a larger number of ‘mistakes’ than those who report a frequent use. 3.3.6 Autobiographical and historical factors Historical analyses of the Nazi regime commonly make a qualitative distinction between progressively more radical phases of persecution (see above, Chapter 2). It was therefore decided to divide the informants of this study into three groups, based on the date of their emigration. –

–

–

Emigration group 1 (emigra1) comprises the people who left Germany within the Wrst 2 ½ years after the Nazi rise to power, before September 1935, when the Nuremberg race laws were announced. Emigration group 2 (emigra2) left after these laws were passed, but before the Wrst deportations to Poland in late October of 1938 and, most importantly, before the Pogrom on Nov. 9th 1938. Emigration group 3 (emigra3) left between this pogrom and the outbreak of World War II on September 1st 1939, after which emigration became virtually impossible. This group also comprises one informant who survived the war in Auschwitz, was liberated in January of 1945 and subsequently went to the United States.

It is predicted that the larger amount and higher degree of persecution suVered by those who emigrated at a later date will have led to a growing resentment of Germany and the German language that might have adversely aVected language retention. The distribution of informants and data across age- and emigration groups is relatively even, apart from the fact that emigration group 1 comprises only half as many informants as the other two emigration groups. Table 6. Distribution of informants among emigration and age groups EMIGRA1 EMIGRA2 EMIGRA3

ageemi1

ageemi2

4 7 7

3 7 7

7 14 14

The study

Attitudes and motivation In the historical chapter above (Chapter 2) it was attempted to give an impression of Jewish life in Germany before and during the Nazi regime. While German Jews often identiWed closely with German culture, there was a sense of exclusion from German society. One linguistic indicator of association with or dissociation from a certain group of people is the use of the Wrst person plural pronoun we. In order to get some insight into how this pronoun was used on the part of the interviewees, a survey was conducted on all 54 interviews. All instances of this pronoun (and any of its inXected forms in either English or German) were counted. From this count, instances which did not include the speaker were eliminated. Such uses were to be found in direct quotes, as in ex. (1) (1) Dann haben sie gesagt: ‘Wo ein Kind ist, zerstreuen wir nicht’ ‘Then they said: “We will not destroy anything where there is a child.”’

The remaining 2,935 instances of the use of we were analyzed on the basis of who was included with the speaker in the use of this pronoun. This yielded the following classiWcation: 1. Inclusion of family Under this heading, all references to parents, siblings, and other people who formed part of the informant’s family when he or she was a child are subsumed. Examples of this are (2) where the speaker talks about her experiences in the pogrom of Nov. 9th 1938 and (3).This category also includes reference to the family the interviewees had later in life, i.e. to their spouse, children, in-laws etc., as in ex. (4). With 2160 tokens, this category comprises more than 73% of all occurring items. Some examples are: (2) Und dann haben wir nicht versucht, zu schlafen, das ging nicht, aber wir lagen halt da zusammen, bis es […] Licht wurde, und wir sahen, was mit unserem Heim gemacht worden war. ‘And we didn’t attempt to go to sleep, we couldn’t, but we were lying in bed together until it got light and we could see what had been done to our home.’ (3) Q: A: ‘Q: A:

Und Sie hatten noch einen Bruder oder noch eine Schwester? Beides, also wir waren unserer viere And you also had a brother or a sister? Both, we were four of us’

73

74

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(4) und während des Krieges noch gegen Ende des Krieges haben wir geheiratet ‘And we got married during the war, towards the end of the war.’

2. Inclusion of Jewish Germans This category comprises all instances where the 1st person plural pronoun refers to people who are either explicitly designated as being Jewish in the text, as in ex. (5), or where it is clear from the context that they were, as in ex. (6) where a former teacher of the Jewish school in Düsseldorf is talking about himself and his colleagues, and ex. (7) where a former pupil of that school refers to herself and her classmates. This category comprises 449 tokens or 15% of the total number of items. (5) daß wenn die Leute einmal an der Macht sind, die Situation für uns Juden aussichtslos ist ‘that once these people are in power there is no perspective any longer for us Jews’ (6) aber wir hatten natürlich die Aufgabe, in einer jüdischen Schule auch jüdische Erziehung zu leisten ‘But of course in a Jewish school we had the task to convey some Jewish education’ (7) Aber die jüdische Schule war- es war schön für mich, da zu sein, weil die Kinder, weil wir alle jüdischen Kinder zusammen sein waren ‘But the Jewish school was — it was nice for me to be there, because the children, because we were all Jewish children’

3. Inclusion of non-Jewish Germans This category comprises those cases where it is either explicitly stated or clear from the context that the person or some persons included in the reference are not Jewish. Ex. (8) is the only example found where a speaker who did not attend the Jewish school refers to himself and his classmates by the inclusive pronoun, whereas in (9) the speaker is talking about his former best friend who later on joined the SS and stopped speaking to him. In this category only 25 tokens were found, which is less than 1% of all items. (8) mein Mathematiklehrer, wie wir in der Prima waren, hat er gesagt ‘My maths teacher, when we were in the Prima [the last year of high school] he said…’ (9) wir haben sehr viel voneinander gehabt, wir waren sehr eng befreundet ‘we were very fond of each other, we were very close friends’

The study

4. Inclusion of Germans of unspeciWed background Wherever inclusive reference was made to people the speaker had known in Germany and it was unclear whether these people where Jewish or not, those instances were counted in this category. Such instances add up to 56 tokens, or less than 2%. Since this category depends on the absence of any clear reference in the context, it was not possible to Wnd examples which would illustrate this. 5. Other This category comprises references to people the speaker knew in emigration (162 tokens or 5.5%), deictic reference to the context of the interview, as exempliWed by ex. (10) (24 tokens or 0.81%) and general statements, as in ex. (11) (59 tokens or 2%). (10) Ja, wo sind wir jetzt? ‘Yes, where are we now?’ (11) Schopenhauer bezeichnet als Glück das Unglück, dem wir entgangen sind. ‘Schopenhauer says that fortune is the misfortune which we escaped from.’

In order to establish whether continued exposure to the radicalizing antiSemitic persecution under the Nazi regime had aVected the informants’ identiWcation pattern, the distribution of categories 1–4 across emigration groups was calculated (see Figure 1). What is immediately striking is the amazingly low number of occurrences where the speaker uses the inclusive pronoun to refer to herself and non-Jewish Germans. This points to a very clear sense of identiWcation with German Jews and disassociation with non-Jews. These Wndings conWrm an impression gathered from the interviews: If, for example, the speaker attended the Jewish school in Düsseldorf, she may occasionally use ‘we’ to refer to herself and her classmates — if she didn’t, she doesn’t. It is also striking that data from interviewees who emigrated at a relatively early point in time contain a much larger number of occurrences where it could not be determined whether the referent of the deictic pronoun was Jewish or not, which supports the hypothesis that ‘being Jewish’ became a progressively more salient factor as persecution got to be more radical. (Interestingly this factors appears to have evened out in the country of emigration, where all groups refer more frequently to people of unspeciWed background than to people for whom this has been made explicit.) This again points towards the conclusion that ascribed identity, i.e. stereotyping that is brought

75

76

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

EMIGRA1

EMIGRA2

EMIGRA3

Family %

72.59

84.35

85.24

Jewish Germans %

20.78

14.04

13.14

Non-Jewish Germans %

1.13

1.11

0.56

Unspecified %

5.51

0.49

1.05

Figure 1. Use of 1st person plural pronoun

to bear against a group from outsiders, may be a factor that is constitutive for identity to a higher degree than acknowledged identity, i.e. the sense of ‘belonging’ a group holds for itself. To further assess the informants’ attitudes towards German, the questionnaires contained an open question, “Is there anything else you would like to tell me about how you feel about English or German?” The answers to these questions were analyzed for ‘neutral’, positive or negative comments. Neutral comments: “I consider myself a balanced bilingual” (Heinz F.) “I like reading German and English books equally well” (Martin R.)

Positive comments: “I love my German native tongue, and I speak and read German a lot. The more emotional the topic I talk about, the more I’m inclined to use German.” (Max M.) “I like reading German newspapers, and watching German TV… all said and done, it is still my old ‘native tongue’.” (Albert L.)

The study

100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

EMIGRA1

EMIGRA2

EMIGRA3

7.69 53.85 38.46

9.09 77.27 13.64

35.00 55.00 10.00

% neg. % neutral % pos.

Figure 2. Attitudes towards the German language

Negative comments: “For a long time, I did not wish to speak German, I felt that I wanted to cut myself oV, from Germany and its language.” (Hedwig Kaldenbach) “When we were young we found it very oVensive (abstossend sounds better) to speak or even listen to German.” (Charlotte G.).

The distribution of positive, negative, and neutral comments across the emigration groups is shown in Figure 2. EMIGRA3 has by far the highest amount of negative and the lowest amount of positive comments, supporting the initial hypothesis that this emigration group would have suVered most in its identiWcation structures. 3.3.7 Some hypotheses In view of the theoretical frameworks described in Chapters 1 and 2 above as well as of the description of the sample under investigation here, the following hypotheses pertaining to language attrition in the present corpus were formulated:

77

78

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Hypothesis 1 (Age): Informants in AGEEMI1 (age at emigration sixteen years or younger) will have more interferences and a reduced lexical and grammatical repertoire compared with informants in AGEEMI2 (age at emigration 17 years and older). Hypothesis 2 (Use): Informants who report little use of German in emigration will have more interferences and a reduced lexical and grammatical repertoire compared with informants who report more use of German. Hypothesis 3 (Identity): Informants who emigrated at a later date will have more interferences and a reduced lexical and grammatical repertoire compared with informants who emigrated at an earlier date. The following sections will try to establish whether evidence in support of any or all of these hypotheses can be found. Since all the data gathered in the course of this project are from informants who emigrated, it was not possible to Wnd a comparable monolingual control group. As a base line for comparison, the free spoken data which Köpke (1999) gathered from her monolingual German control group as well as the data from her L2 English group of L1 German attriters will be given for the linguistic factors wherever possible.

3.4 The corpus — Linguistic factors In order to gain an impression of the extent of a person’s language attrition, it is necessary to conduct both an analysis of the ‘mistakes’ she makes within a given stretch of discourse and of the linguistic material that she has used correctly. For the purpose of the present study, analyses in both these domains have been performed. In the following, the corpus of ‘mistakes’ that was collected will be referred to as ‘interference data’, while facts and Wgures on the correct use of the linguistic system are called ‘proWciency data’. 3.4.1 ‘Interference’ data One of the Wrst methodological diYculties researchers on language contact phenomena are faced with is a terminological one. While the use of the term ‘interference’ often appears slightly infelicitous, since it tacitly implies that the phenomenon under investigation is the outcome of one language encroaching upon the other — an assumption that has by no means been established so far

The study

— the apparently obvious label ‘mistake’ goes very much against the grain. Evidently, if language attrition is to be considered a phenomenon of language contact — and what else could it be? — the prescriptive attitude implied through this term is inappropriate. Language attrition might equally well be viewed as a creative process leading to a new variety of the language(s) of an individual. For the purpose of this study, the term ‘interference’ will therefore be used to designate any kind of utterance that deviates from an assumed norm of a monolingual standard. ‘Interference’ thus means any kind of disturbance in the production of an utterance, but makes no preliminary claims as to the origins of that disturbance — whether it is an eVect of interlanguage, of internal language change, or of momentary inaccessibility of some part of the linguistic system. This understanding of the term ‘interference’ is based on Weinreich’s deWnition: “Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals” (Weinreich 1953: 1). The point of reference for this ‘deviation’, as was mentioned above, is the native speaker judgement of two researchers who independently analyzed the corpus under investigation. This analysis yielded a total of 3,736 tokens, which were then classiWed into the following domains:

79

80

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 7. A taxonomy of interferences Domain

Type

Examples

Lexicon

Code-Switching

“…mein Vater had more dates than mein Bruder und ich zusammen” (‘my father had more dates than my brother and I together’) “…von der russischen Army…” (‘of the Russian army’) “…wie hieß es education, how does that…” “…und dann haben sie nicht das Schlafzimmer *zerstreut” (‘and then they didn’t destroy the bedroom’) *Hochschule (‘high school’)

Semantics

Function words

Morphology

Single item lexical transference/borrowing Lexical access problems Transfers of an English word to a homophone or partsynonym in German Calque (morpheme-bymorpheme translation) Dropping of articles (e.g. in front of streets or months) Deviant use of prepositions Case Gender Plural Verb phrase morphology

Morphosyntax

Syntax I

‘Structural borrowing’ (a German verb is used with the argument structure of its English equivalent) Analytic vs. synthetic negation Order of adverbials (place before time) Order of IO/DO

Syntax II

Verb-subject structures in main clauses (German as a V2 language) Discontinuous word order (Vfin-X-Vinf) Verb-Wnal placement in subordinate clauses

“Die Synagoge war *in Ø Kreuzstraße.” (‘the synagogue was on Kreuzstraße’) “…sie konnte *für ein ganzes Jahr nicht schlafen…” (‘she couldn’t sleep for a year’) “das tut *mein Herz gut” (‘how it pleases my heart’) “…*eine englisches Mädchen…” (‘an English girl’) “zwei *Festschrifte” (‘two Festschrifts’) “…meine Großeltern kamen dann und *sind bei uns *gewohnen.” (‘my grandparents came and lived with us’) “Darum *war ich erlaubt zu der Schule zu gehen.” (‘therefore I was permitted to go to that school’) “…es war *nicht eine sehr freie oder gute Zeit für mich.” (‘it was not a very free or good time for me’) “…und so ??in Kansas City war ich in neunzehnhundertachtundvierzig” (‘and so I was in Kansas City in nineteen-forty-eight’) “…man hat ??seinen seinen älteren Bruder ihm nachgeschickt” (‘his older brother was sent after him’) “…und dann den nächsten Tag *mein Vetter und seine Familie kamen.” (‘and then the next day my cousin and his family came’) “…ich war inzwischen *geworden fünfunddreißig Jahre” (‘in the meantime, I was thirty-Wve years old’) “…ich glaube, daß Hannelore Philipp in dem Bild da bei der jüdischen Schule vielleicht *war in meiner Klasse.” (‘I think Hannelore Philipp, on that picture of the Jewish school, may have been in my class’)

The study

In addition, there were a small number of structures that were clearly felt to be deviant, but proved impossible to classify under any of these categories. Such instances were classiWed as ‘not reconstructible’. (12) du kannst zwei Jahre Ferien auf eins schieben März am Ende des des einen Jahr der Anfang ist das andere Jahr, kannst du nach Bangladesh (Ruth K., p. 38) ‘you can take the vacation from two years in one year, March at the end of one year the beginning is the other year, then you can go to Bangladesh.’

The classiWcation of the interferences across these domains yielded the following distribution: Table 8. Distribution of interferences across the corpus Domain

n

Lexicon 1,519 Semantics 500 Function words 534 Morphology 559 Morphosyntax 175 Syntax I 151 Syntax II 276 (Not reconstructible) 22 Total 3,736

% 40.66 13.38 14.29 14.96 4.68 4.04 7.39 0.59

Since it is the aim of this study to test some of the hypotheses that have been put forward to explain language attrition, such as the regression hypothesis or theories on interlanguage, it was felt that some of these domains would have to be excluded from the in-depth linguistic analysis. Predictions on language attrition are often made on the basis of either acquisitional data (the regression hypothesis) or of general properties of the linguistic system(s) involved. For that reason, it was decided to limit the analysis in the present study to those interferences that occur in the grammatical system — i.e. the interferences in the domains of inXectional morphology, morphosyntax, and syntax. Within those domains, the investigation was limited to those linguistic factors for which studies on L1 and — ideally — L2 acquisition could be used as a basis for comparison. The analysis of interferences found in the corpus under investigation therefore comprises the following linguistic variables:

81

82

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

1. Morphological variables a. Case marking b. Gender marking c. Plural marking d. Verb phrase morphology 2. Syntactic variables a. Verb second placement in XVS structures b. Discontinuous word order c. Subordinate clauses These structures will be explored in more detail below, in an attempt to account for the Wndings on interferences from the corpus. For each of the variables under investigation, a brief description of its structure and function within the grammatical system of German will be given, followed by Wndings from L1 and L2 acquisition and language attrition. These Wndings will then be applied to the Wndings from the corpus, to see whether any patterns can be established. 3.4.2 ProWciency data The Wgures of interferences from the data of each informant were augmented by some Wndings on overall language use. In the domains of lexicon and morphology, this analysis was conWned to a stretch of 1,000 spoken German words from each interview (the only interview that contained less than 1,000 words was analyzed in its entirety). Hesitation markers, code-switches, and false starts had been eliminated from these stretches of text. This analysis was conducted on the basis of the hypotheses put forward by Andersen (1982). Where the lexicon is concerned, Andersen predicts that: Hypothesis 2a

An LA [language attriter] will have a smaller number and a smaller variety of lexical items available to him than a comparable LC [linguistically competent individual] in the same language.

Hypothesis 2c

What lexicon the LA has retained will be of common, highlyfrequent, unmarked lexical items; the gaps will be of less-common, low-frequency, highly marked items.

As a Wrst step, a type-token analysis was conducted on this corpus of 34,814 words. In order to do this, each word was reduced to its lexicon entry form, in order to ensure that tokens with diVerent morphological markings (e.g. singu-

The study

lar and plural forms of nouns or present and past forms of verbs) would not be counted twice. Proper names and numerals were not considered. In this way, a type-token ratio was established for each informant. In order to test the hypothesis that an attriter’s lexicon will consist of common, high-frequent items, the frequency of all of the content words contained in this type-token analysis in monolingual German was established on the basis of two frequency dictionaries (Meier 1967; RuoV 1981). The frequency values given by these two sources were converted to the same base and averaged for each item, and a mean frequency index was established for the use of content words of each speaker. Within the domain of morphology the same 1,000 word stretch of text was analyzed for case marking on NPs. In the domain of syntax, it was felt that the analysis could not be conWned to only a stretch of text from each interview, since syntactic complexity depends to a large degree on the speech situation and stylistic variation. Each interview was therefore analyzed in its entirety for the frequency of the following syntactic structures: – – –

Verb second placement in XVS structures Discontinuous word order Subordinate clauses

The Wndings gathered from the analysis of lexical, morphological, and syntactical complexity of each speaker’s data described in this section could not be compared against Wndings from a control group, since Köpke (1999) — whose monolingual control group is used as reference point for the Wndings on interferences — has not conducted any such analysis. The analysis of proWciency data will therefore have to be conWned to an intergroup comparison within the sample.

83

Chapter 4

Morphology: NP-inXection

Surely there is not another language that is so slipshod and systemless, and so slippery and elusive to the grasp. One is washed about in it, hither and thither, in the most helpless way; and when at last he thinks he has captured a rule which oVers Wrm ground to take a rest on amid the general rage and turmoil of the ten parts of speech, he turns over the page and reads, ‘Let the pupil make careful note of the following EXCEPTIONS.’ He runs his eye down and Wnds that there are more exceptions to the rule than instances of it. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

The morphological system of German is highly complex and intertwined, both in the domains of np and vp inXection, and the frustration experienced by the L2 learner described in Mark Twain’s essay The Awful German Language has a very clear ring of authenticity about it. Not only are a range of varying syntactic and semantic functions encoded inXectionally, and various functions are conXated into a single morpheme, but the assignment of inXectional categories is frequently based on rules that appear anything but transparent; and Twain’s complaint that “there are more exceptions to the rule than instances of it” is often accurate. As a (comparatively) free word order language, German encodes argument roles, but also number and gender by morphological means, and np inXection depends not only on these categories, but varies according to the deWniteness of the noun. For the purposes of this chapter, two basic types of inXection have to be distinguished: Inherent and relational or contextual inXection. Inherent inXection marks properties whose domain is the inXected word itself (Anderson 1985: 172), i.e. which is not required by the syntactic context (Booij 1996: 2). Inherent inXectional properties may either be required for all instances of a lexeme, e.g. in the case of gender, which has to be marked on all words within that lexeme’s paradigm, or they may contribute further to the meaning of a word and not be required in all instances of its realizations, e.g. in plural

86

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

marking. (Anderson 1985: 172V.; Booij 1996: 2; Stump 1998: 26f.). Relational categories, on the other hand, are dictated syntactically by the function a word occupies within a larger structure: A noun […] may be singular or plural on its own account, as it were, but it can only be a subject or an object, etc., by virtue of its position in some syntactic construction. An indicator of such position is the formal reXection of a relational category. (Anderson 1985: 172)

The paradigm example of a relational category is that of case marking. Another issue to be borne in mind in an investigation of language attrition within the domain of morphology is that inherent inXectional properties are usually triggered by one element within the phrase (the head) and then extended by agreement to the other elements. Anderson (1985: 173f.) has argued that, in a Latin phrase such as bonos ¿ libros ¿ (‘good books’, acc), where both adjective and noun are inXected for accusative, masculine and plural, the adjective can be argued to be part of the object of the sentence in the same way the noun is and therefore carry the accusative marker in its own standing, as it were. On the other hand, there is nothing either inherently masculine or plural about ‘good’, so the adjective acquires these properties only by agreement with the head of the phrase. Agreement can therefore be seen as an asymmetrical category, where one element (the ‘target’) depends on another (the ‘controller’) for some of its morphosyntactic properties (Corbett 1998: 191; Stump 1998: 22). Since there certainly is a fundamental diVerence between inherent and relational inXection, one might hypothesize that language attrition may be inXuenced by this distinction. However, given the nature of the data under observation in the present study, the possibility of drawing any such conclusion appears highly doubtful: The distribution of elements and categories within this kind of free, largely unmonitored discourse type, varies according to style, topic etc., and consequently so does the frequency of opportunities to produce a deviant instance of any of the categories under observation. However tempting it may seem, therefore, to draw quantitative comparisons between the types of ‘mistakes’ observed, such conclusions have to be left to studies which are rigorously controlled both in the nature of the material and in the choice of the subjects. That notwithstanding, there are several factors which may inXuence attrition in the domain of German morphosyntax of the informants:

Morphology: NP-inXection

–

–

The communicative function: Some of the categories that will be investigated in this chapter contribute more to the content of the utterance than others. Structures which carry a comparatively high functional load are, for example, case and plural marking, while gender marking does not make any change in the propositional content of an utterance and therefore has a low functional load. It has been hypothesized that distinctions which contribute more to the content of an utterance will be less vulnerable to attrition, since their loss would result in frequent misunderstandings (Andersen 1982: 97f.). Interlanguage eVects: Some of the categories that will be investigated here are also encoded by morphological means in English (e.g. number and tense) while others are not (e.g. case and gender). It has been hypothesized that L2 grammar will encroach on the L1 system to a higher degree if the corresponding category is also present in L2 (Altenberg 1991).

In an evaluation of the attritional process, these functions will therefore have to be considered.

4.1 Case Every time I think I have got one of these four confusing ‘cases’ where I am master of it, a seemingly insigniWcant preposition intrudes itself into my sentence, clothed with an awful and unsuspected power, and crumbles the ground from under me. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

Cases and case marking in general and the German case system in particular are areas on which more research has been conducted from a theoretical as well as contrastive, acquisitional and attritional perspective than on almost any other feature investigated in this study. The German case system is an especially fruitful area of investigation in order to gain insight into the mechanisms of language acquisition and attrition since 1. it is a grammatical system which encodes syntactic (assignment of syntactic relations such as subject and object), semantic (assignment of semantic roles such as agent, patient, experiencer etc.) and pragmatic (encoding of features such as ego-nearness, saliency etc.) information (Clahsen 1984: 16), in

87

88

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

other words, it is a syntactic-morphological system that serves a cognitive purpose (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 182) 2. it can be shown to be acquired in a Wxed sequence in L1 acquisition (see among others Clahsen 1984; Tracy 1984; Mills 1985; Clahsen, Eisenbeiß and Vainikka 1994). Studies of case marking can therefore give insights into the cognitive principles that govern acquisition and attrition of both L1 and L2. This comprises the cognitive and functional principles that govern case assignment in German, the means used to encode the same information in English, and the sequence of acquisition and loss of case marking.

Cognitive and functional principles in German case marking The most comprehensive account of the cognitive and functional forces governing German case marking can be found in Zubin (1975; 1977; 1979). He establishes that case assignment is based on principles of perception and experience. Since the attention span of human beings is selective and limited, and since information about other human beings is processed more readily than information about non-humans (Zubin 1979: 470f.), features such as topicality, salience, agentivity and what has been termed “ego-nearness” play an important role for grammatical encoding. Within this framework, it is Zubin’s hypothesis that in German the nominative is used to indicate the speaker’s focus of interest, while the oblique (dative and accusative) is used for entities that are not the speaker’s focus of interest (Zubin 1979: 474). ‘Focus of interest’ is a rather broad term that has been linked to such notions as topicality and topic persistence (Givón 1990: 907V.; for a discussion of notions of topicality and related issues see Schmid 1999: ch. 2), agentivity (Zubin 1975: 1) and role- or referential prominence (Schachter 1977). However, neither topicality and the related concepts of role- and referential prominence1 nor agentivity are consistent forces governing the subject selection process: While the entity that carries the highest degree of local salience is often put in the nominative, this is not invariably the case (Zubin 1979: 478) and while the degree of agentivity can determine subject selection, in speciWc cases the agent can be placed in the oblique (i.e. in passive sentences). Ertel (1977) therefore concluded that subject selection is determined by an egocentric bias, a factor which often coincides with the aforementioned features of topicality, since human beings “usually talk about themselves” (Ochs and SchieVelin 1983: 164); and agentivity, which is “a human characteristic par

Morphology: NP-inXection

excellence” (Jordens 1992: 141). It appears that, when there is a conXict here, ego-nearness is the overriding factor in case assignment (Jordens 1992: 141). Zubin has therefore developed the following egocentric scale: Speaker (ego)

>

hearer > other > inanimate person concrete

> abstract

and stated that “[g]iven the choice of focusing interest on one of several entities in an event, the speaker will chose the entity closest to ego on the scale.” (Zubin 1979: 478). The further from the speaker’s ego an entity is in competition with other participating entities, the more likely it is that it will be placed in the accusative, while ‘intermediate’ entities will more likely than not be placed in the dative in German. The entity that is most ego-near will typically be selected as the subject and placed in the nominative (Zubin 1979: 495).

The representation of the functions of German case marking in English Languages which do not have the morphological means of case assignment have to rely on other features to encode the syntactic functions, semantic roles and pragmatic information such as ego-nearness and role and referential prominence which in German are carried by morphology in interaction with the syntactic system. In English — which does not have any morphological diVerentiation between nominative and dative/accusative except in pronouns — these features are encoded by morphosyntactic means such as word order or deWniteness. Except in highly marked contexts, subject, indirect object and direct object are encoded by word order. There is a strong tendency in present-day English to place the subject in sentence-initial and the object in sentence-Wnal position. Since the topical sentence-initial position in unmarked sentences in English is reserved for the subject, and since topicality is strongly linked to referentiality (Givón 1991: 354), another grammatical feature that is linked to the subject function is that of deWniteness (Jordens 1992: 153). The close link which holds in English between the sentence-initial position, the subject function and pragmatic information such as topicality and salience has been discussed in detail and will not be explored further here (for an overview of these notions as well as of marked syntactic structures which exploit this principle see Schmid 1999: ch. 2 and 3). SuYce it to mention that the interaction of such principles as ego-nearness and the subject function appear to operate to the degree that even highly grammaticalized non-canonical sentence structures like wh-clefts which place the relative pronoun refer-

89

90

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

ring to the object of the sentence before the subject in most cases tolerate only inanimate NPs as the focus (Prince 1978: 885). It seems possible, therefore, that entities which successfully compete with the subject for the salient sentence-initial position have to have some non-subject-like characteristic. In other structures, such as Left-Dislocations, this dilemma is resolved by the pronominal copy in the position where the Left-Dislocated NP would appear in an SVO-sentence. If the referent is animate, this pronoun is unambiguously marked for case, making its non-subject status clear.

German case in L1 acquisition Given the complex cognitive functions that case marking encodes it can be assumed that the appearance of morphological case marking in Wrst language acquisition will be linked to or paced by the cognitive development involved in mastering these functions. Semantic roles have been described as higher abstractions over a linguistic level of representation which are not given pre-linguistically as semantic primitives and are therefore diVerentiated only gradually in the process of L1 acquisition (Tracy 1984: 280). This, however, does not explain the broad variation of age at the time case distinctions make their appearance across languages — the fact that, for example, German children appear to productively use all cases only by the end of their third year, while Turkish children have mastered their case system at age two (Clahsen 1984: 14; Tracy 1984: 285; Jordens, de Bot, van Os and Schumans 1986: 167). Three factors are seen as central to why German case marking is acquired relatively late: 1. The German case system is complex and often ambiguous, since case is morphologically encoded together with number and gender. Except for the dative suYx -m there is no suYx which unambiguously and exclusively encodes one case. In addition, there is a large amount of homonymy (the nominative and the accusative are homonymous in the feminine and the neuter in the singular and in all genders in the plural). This complexity may be partly responsible for the relatively late acquisition of German case marking compared with languages that have a more transparent system, such as Turkish (Clahsen 1984: 2, 26; Tracy 1984: 287; Mills 1985). 2. German case marking is most often marked on the pronoun and/or article and on the adjective (if one is present within the NP) and only in rare cases on the noun itself. This means that the acquisition of the dative and the accusative can only start when the child language already contains deter-

Morphology: NP-inXection

miners and pronouns (Tracy 1984: 285; on the acquisition of determiners see Müller 1994; Clahsen, Eisenbeiß and Vainikka 1994).2 3. The cognitive functions the German case system encodes are shared by other features of the morphosyntactic system. In the early stages of L1 acquisition, before the appearance of case distinctions, the subject is invariably placed before the verb while other nominal constituents can appear after the verb. The necessity to morphologically diVerentiate subject and non-subject only arises with the acquisition of V2 and structures such as topicalization, when syntactic relations are no longer determined by verb placement alone (Clahsen 1984: 17; Tracy 1984: 302). This is linked to a cognitive development which allows for more than two arguments for a verb (Tracy 1984: 302) and for a diVerentiation of the semantic functions of these arguments (Clahsen 1984: 21). L1 acquisition of German case marking, which is conditioned by these factors in interaction with the cognitive principles underlying case assignment outlined above, has been shown to proceed in three stages: 1. No case marking: nominal constituents are not marked for case, the determiner and pronominal category are absent 2. Case-neutral marking: unmarked forms are overgeneralized to dative and accusative contexts 3. Case marking: This is the stage where case-marking appears. In stage 3a, the accusative is overgeneralized to dative contexts. This leads to a binary system in which the nominative encodes the subject and the accusative the non-subject. In stage 3b, accusative and dative are diVerentiated correctly and semantic roles are acquired (Clahsen 1984: 14, 21; see also Collings 1990: 39f; Tracy 1984: 285).3 There are diVerent hypotheses on why children overgeneralize accusative forms to dative contexts but not vice versa. Clahsen ascribes this to an overgeneralization of the pragmatic function: On Zubin’s egocentric scale, nominative and accusative occupy polar positions, which is why the accusative is easier to access as the opposite of something already known. The intermediate function of the dative is harder to access and therefore acquired later (Clahsen 1984: 24).

91

92

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

German case in L2 acquisition The acquisition of case marking in German L2, in contrast to L1, does not proceed parallel to some kind of cognitive development. It has therefore been assumed that speakers will draw on their native speaker intuition for the assignment of case roles in situations where they do not have access to the underlying grammatical rules. For native speakers of English, this predicts that the sentence-initial position will be linked to the nominative and the sentenceWnal position to the accusative. It is also predicted that deWniteness will play a role here, since presence or absence of deWniteness are linked to topicality which, in English, is strongly connected to the subject function (Jordens 1992: 153). Accounts of the acquisition of German L2 case marking on the basis of Zubin’s egocentric scale have been carried out by Jordens (1983a; 1983b; 1985; 1992) and Jordens, de Bot and Trapman (1989) who tested for the inXuence of a number of features that were designed to operationalize this scale. Since these studies rely largely on grammaticality judgements, Zubin’s Wrst three categories (speaker/hearer/other person) were conXated to the single criterion of Animacy. This category was then augmented by animate or inanimate entities which imply “an entity that is closer to the speaker’s ego” than any other entity referred to in the sentence (Jordens 1992: 144f.), e.g. part of a person’s body, someone’s property, achievement or activity; a social group that the implied person is a member of; or a human being that the implied person is personally or functionally related to (Jordens 1992: 146).4 In addition to these features which seem to play a cognitive role for the assignment of syntactic and semantic relations across languages, the factor of deWniteness was tested for, which in some languages, like English, is linked to the subject function while in others, like Dutch, it is mainly related to identiWability, i.e. topicality (Jordens 1992: 170). The Wndings presented in these studies show that for both Dutch and English L1 learners of L2 German the factor ‘implied person’ has a strong eVect on the acceptance of nominative vs. accusative in incomplete sentences (headline constructions): Both groups prefer the nominative for entities which do not imply a person that is closer to the speaker’s ego and the accusative for entities which do (Jordens 1983: 119; 1992: 158; Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 196f.). The factor ‘deWnite’ (def), on the other hand, is only signiWcant for English L1 learners of German, who prefer the nominative for deWnite entities and the accusative for indeWnite entities in keeping with the strong link between referentiality and the subject function in their L1 (Jordens 1992: 164f.). In determinerless entities, which are “unspeciWed with respect to referential prominence” (Jordens 1992: 165), case marking is

Morphology: NP-inXection

apparently dependent on the factor ‘± implied person’ (impl) (Jordens 1992: 164f.). For the factor ‘animacy’, no interaction with case marking could be detected (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 198). In addition to these factors, L2 acquirers show a marked preference for the nominative, which was far more pronounced than in similar studies of L1 learners and attriters.

German case in L1 attrition In order to test whether the attrition of German case marking is the reversion of its acquisition (the ‘Linguistic Hypothesis’ based on Jakobson’s regression theory) or is governed by cognitive principles (the ‘Cognitive Hypothesis’) a study of learners and attriters of L1 and L2 German was conducted by Jordens, de Bot and Trapman (1989). The Linguistic Hypothesis predicted that in attrition the case system would Wrst be ‘binarized’, conXating all functions of the oblique into the accusative, and then be further reduced to use of the nominative only. (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 181f.). The Cognitive Hypothesis predicts that L1 attrition will be governed by the cognitive factors of ego-nearness in interaction with syntactic and morphological factors, since “mistakes will occur as a result of the speaker’s tendency toward a one-to-one relation between the cognitive and linguistic systems” (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 183). SpeciWcally it was predicted that postverbal NPs which require the nominative, like rhematic subjects or predicate nominals, would be assigned the accusative, while preverbal entities requiring the oblique, like left-dislocated or topicalized objects, would be placed in the nominative. In addition, the cognitive factors that had been shown to inXuence case marking in L2 learners were tested for L1 attriters. It was established that the factor ±impl inXuences case assignment in L1 attrition in the same way it does for L2 speakers: There is a preference towards the accusative with entities that are +impl and towards the nominative with entities that are — impl (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 191). The factor def, on the other hand, inXuenced case marking diVerently for L1 speakers of German than for native English L2 learners: For deWnite entities, the accusative was preferred while there was no preference for either case in indeWnite entities. (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 197). Overall, these studies have established a tendency for L2 learners and attriters to assign cases largely on the basis of cognitive principles in interaction with intuitions from their L1. L1 attriters, on the other hand, largely base case

93

94

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

assignment on the semantic function of the entities, reserving the accusative for the patient. (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 194).5 Köpke found signiWcant diVerences in the amount of errors made in the grammatical domain between her L2 English group and her monolingual German control group (1999: 188). However, signiWcance levels were not calculated for the speciWc error types, and she only gives absolute Wgures for these. In the domain of case marking, her L2 English group has a total of 11 interferences, which converts to a frequency of 0.65 interferences/1,000 spoken words, while her control group has 7 interferences or 0.45 per 1,000 words (Köpke 1999: 189).

Case marking interferences in the corpus The corpus contained 142 instances of interferences in the domain of case marking, or 0.82 interferences per 1,000 words. 13 of these instances were not well-formed case forms for the items in question and could therefore not be classiWed. The remaining 129 instances were distributed as follows: Table 9. Interferences in the use of cases Case used nom gen dat acc nom/acc*

nom.

Case required gen dat 1

4 5

3 6

9

10

22

26 11 59

acc 26 1 24

51

49 1 31 37 11 129

*These were cases where, due to homonymy of nominative and accusative the case used could have been

either.

The linguistic hypothesis A Wrst observation concerning ‘mistakes’ in case assignment in the sample is that, in contrast to the Dutch L2 learners of German observed in Jordens (1985), who did not produce dative forms in accusative contexts, our informants used all cases except the genitive in all contexts: Nominative in dative contexts: (13) und so sind sie zu unser Haus gekommen ‘and so they came to our house’ (Ernst L., p. 20) (14) mit zwei KoVer ist sie weg ‘she left with two suitcases’ (Liesl R., p. 10)

Morphology: NP-inXection

Nominative in accusative contexts: (15) Sie hat geheiratet ein Mann, der ein Schriftschreiber war ‘she married a man who was a writer’ (Irma M., p. 5) (16) wir hatten großen Respekt vor alle Lehrer ‘we had great respect for all the teachers’ (Erich E., p. 8)

Dative in nominative contexts: (17) Maschinen die den Metzger brauchen ‘machines that butchers use’ (Gertrud U., p.2) (18) und so ist meinem Vater entgangen, daß sie ihn nicht ins Konzentrationslager gebracht haben ‘and so my father escaped being taken into a concentration camp’ (Alice J., p. 6)

Dative in accusative contexts: (19) muß ich auf dem Datum gucken ‘I have to check the date’ (Thea S., p. 4) (20) hat die Lehrerinnen meinen Eltern angewiesen ‘the teachers told my parents to…’ (Berta D., p. 7)

Accusative in nominative contexts: (21) und äh da ich möblierte Herr war, und niemanden hatte den mich versorgte, ging ich ins Krankenhaus ‘and since I was renting a furnished room and had no one to take care of me, I went into hospital’ (Albert S., p. 1) (22) und hatten jeden hundert Dollar- hundert Franken in der Tasche ‘and we each had a hundred dollars — a hundred francs in our pocket’ (Ernst L., p. 29)

Accusative in dative contexts: (23) sondern nur da- von den sprechen, ä- was ähm ich erlebt habe ‘but only talk of what I myself witnessed’ (Max M., p. 4) (24) jeden Tag, um ihn etwas zu kochen ‘every day to cook for him’ (Gertrud U., p. 5)

This would point to the conclusion that there is no overall reduction of the case system where the dative is lost Wrst and a binary system emerges, as the regression hypothesis predicts (Jordens, de Bot, van Os and Schumans 1986: 171).

95

96

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

In order to gain further insight into use of case, a stretch of 1,000 German words from each interview6 was analyzed for case marking (see Table 3, Appendix I). In order to see whether variation within overall case marking could be correlated with attrition in the domain of case marking, the interviewees were classiWed into three groups, according to how many interferences in the domain of case they had per 1,000 German words. The Wrst group comprises those twelve interviewees who had less than 0.42 interferences/1,000 words, the second group of twelve subjects had less than 0.93 and the third group of eleven subjects had between 0.93 and 5.34 interferences. The intergroup comparison shows hardly any variation in the overall use of case. Table 10. Overall use of case by number of interferences nom s.d.

interferences/1,000 words

%

<0.42 <0.93 0.93–5.34

52.81 5.48 54.66 4.73 56.80 6.19 54.69 5.71

gen

dat s.d.

%

s.d.

%

1.20 1.64 0.83 1.24

1.03 1.54 0.95 1.26

23.24 3.59 22.07 3.77 19.89 4.20 21.80 4.10

acc %

s.d.

22.75 21.63 22.48 22.28

4.53 2.07 3.13 3.44

It appears, therefore, that the hypothesis that L1 attrition of case marking is the reverse of L1 acquisition of case marking, progressing through a binarized nominative-accusative system to a one-case system where the nominative alone is predominant, has to be rejected for our sample. This is in accordance with the Wndings of Jordens, de Bot and Trapman (1989) who concluded that L1 attrition of case marking proceeds according to cognitive principles while in L2 attrition the regression hypothesis holds. Since, as was shown above, L1 acquisition of German case marking proceeds analogously to the acquisition of cognitive principles, these Wndings are not surprising: In ‘normal’ (i.e. nonpathological) adult L1 attrition, the cognitive principles underlying case marking are not lost.

The cognitive hypothesis The cognitive hypothesis predicts that case marking in L1 attrition will be governed by cognitive principles and depend on the following factors: 1. DeWniteness: DeWnite entities (+def) will tend to be used in the accusative while there will be no preference for indeWnite (–def) or determinerless (dtl) entities (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 192). 2. Implied person: Entities which imply another person closer to the speaker’s

Morphology: NP-inXection

ego than any other entity in the sentence (+impl) will be marked for the accusative while entities with the factor –impl will take the nominative (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 191). 3. Word order: In V2 sentences (main assertive sentences) entities in preverbal position will tend to be marked for the nominative while entities in postverbal position will take the accusative (Jordens, de Bot and Trapman 1989: 192). Applying the hypotheses of Jordens, de Bot, van Os and Schumans (1986) and Jordens, de Bot and Trapman (1989) to the sample at hand involved some diYculty, since these predictions were made only for the nominative and accusative whereas my data contained interferences in all cases. Table 11 therefore only includes those cases where the nominative appeared in accusative position and vice versa. Table 11. Case interferences: Nominative and accusative nom. vs. acc. acc. vs. nom. +def –def Determinerless

60.00 40.00 0.00

68.18 27.27 4.55

+impl –impl

44.00 56.00

60.00 40.00

pos pre

64.71 35.29

33.33 66.67

These Wgures are based on the 31 instances of nominatives occurring in accusative contexts in the corpus and vice versa.

It is evident that there is indeed a slight preference for the accusative with deWnite NPs, as in the following example: (25) der der ähm besten Bekannte von meiner Familie ist Hans Stern ‘the closest acquaintance of my family is Hans Stern’ (Gertrud U., p. 14)

and that there is also a slight preference for use of the nominative with entities which do not imply another person. It appears from these Wgures that the interferences in the domain of nominative and accusative are governed by the cognitive principles outlined above alone: While Jordens, de Bot and Trapman’s predictions regarding deWniteness and implied person hold for the sample, word order in vs sentences does not appear to be a factor. This is especially interesting in view of the fact that all informants have lived in an English speaking

97

98

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

environment for more than Wfty years: Since English assigns argument roles by sentence structure alone, it might have been expected that word order would become a more important factor, as it has been shown to be in the L2 German of English L1 speakers. If accusative and dative are conXated into a single category — oblique — the same cognitive tendencies appear to hold for cases where the nominative is used in oblique contexts and vice versa. Table 12. Case interferences: Nominative and oblique nom. vs. obl

obl vs. obl

obl vs. nom.

+def -def Determinerless

59.57 40.43 0.00

60.42 22.92 16.67

66.67 22.22 11.11

+impl -impl

34.04 65.96

27.08 72.92

66.67 33.33

pos pre

55.56 44.44

66.67 33.33

84.09 15.91

These Wgures are based on the 119 instances of interferences in the use of the nominative, dative and accusative found in the corpus. Dative and accusative are conXated to the category ‘oblique’. The Wgures for case marking by word order are based on the 86 interferences that appeared in assertive V2 sentences with a Wnite verb.

Since dative and accusative have a cognitive status that is closer to each other than to the nominative, it seems more diYcult to make predictions on what principles will govern interferences where one of these cases is used in the context of the other. However, the fact that dative/accusative case-switching appears overwhelmingly in postverbal position is hardly surprising, since this is the unmarked position for non-subject elements. On the basis of these Wndings and Zubin’s egocentric scale, it should now be possible to make the following prediction: Since the dative is assumed to occupy a mid-position between nominative and accusative, we would expect an analysis which diVerentiates between accusative and dative to yield a similar result as the analyses shown above, with choice of the dative being determined by the factors +def and +impl, but to a slightly weaker degree than choice of the accusative. This, however, is not the case. Table 13 shows clearly that the inXuence of the factors ±def and ±impl have an even stronger eVect for datives in nominative contexts and vice versa than for the accusative:

Morphology: NP-inXection

Table 13. Case interferences: All cases nom. vs. dat.

nom. vs. acc.

acc. vs. dat.

dat. vs. acc.

acc. vs. nom.

dat. vs. nom.

+def –def Determinerless

59.09 40.91 0.00

60.00 40.00 0.00

53.85 19.23 26.92

60.00 20.00 20.00

68.18 27.27 4.55

75.00 25.00 0.00

+impl –impl

22.73 77.27

44.00 56.00

26.92 73.08

27.27 72.73

60.00 40.00

75.00 25.00

pos pre

47.37 52.63

64.71 35.29

72.73 27.27

95.45 4.55

33.33 66.67

100.00 0.00

This is a very surprising Wnding that could give rise to a re-thinking of the cognitive status of the dative in relation to the nominative and accusative. It is beyond the scope of the present study to provide an explanation, since the nature of the data on which it is based does not allow access to the cognitive principles behind those interferences.

Conclusion It has been shown that interferences in the domain of case marking for our subjects is apparently governed by cognitive principles, as was hypothesized by Jordens, de Bot, van Os and Schumans (1986) and Jordens, de Bot and Trapman (1989). SpeciWcally, there appears to be a tendency to prefer use of the oblique for deWnite entities and entities which imply another person. Of interest is the Wnding that word order does not appear to have any inXuence that could be demonstrated. This is especially interesting since it leads to the conclusion that L2 principles have not encroached on the L1 grammar in this domain. It will remain to be seen whether the intergroup comparison can show any diVerences in this area.

99

100 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

4.2 Gender Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

The German gender system would appear to be a prototypical domain for language attrition to occur: It is a highly complex inXectional system with a low degree of transparency, and — unlike the morphological processes of case and plural assignment — the speaker has no choice as to which gender to use once she has selected any given noun, which makes avoidance strategies impossible. Every German noun belongs to one of three genders — masculine, feminine or neuter — and the gender of the (singular) noun controls the form of articles, attributive adjectives, ordinal numbers, pronouns and participles. Nouns, therefore, have ‘gender’ as an inherent and invariable feature which forms part of their lexical entry (‘gender-attribution’, Mueller 1994: 56), while other items get gender by agreement (‘gender-agreement’, Mueller 1994: 56). As an added twist, the form of the adjective depends on whether there is a deWnite article (the ‘weak’ declension’) or an indeWnite article (the ‘strong’ declension) present within the NP. And in addition there is a multiplicity of form and function: Gender is marked together with case and number, and the plural forms of all genders, for example, are very similar to the feminine singular. This highly complex inXectional system is associated with a relatively low functional load. Among the functions of grammatical gender that have been identiWed are the structuring of the lexical system according to semantic principles and enhanced transparency in communication through the narrowing down of referential possibilities (for a more detailed account of the functions ascribed to grammatical gender see below). Since both these functions are stochastic possibilities, not categorical rules, however, it can be assumed that German gender marking cannot be counted among the “morphological distinctions with a high functional load (where loss of distinctions would result in frequent loss of information)” for which it was hypothesized that they would be maintained in the attrition process (Andersen 1982: 97).

Morphology: NP-inXection 101

Views on the principles of the assignment of grammatical gender to inanimates have changed radically within the course of linguistic history. In the 18th and 19th century, iconic principles of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ were assumed to be at the core of grammatical as well as natural gender (the most famous exponent of this theory being Jacob Grimm, cf. Mills 1986a: 7). This view was later abandoned in favor of the theory of complete arbitrariness proposed, among others, by BloomWeld (1933: 280) and Maratsos (1979: 235). Only within the last two or three decades have detailed corpus-based analyses reached the conclusion that gender assignment is governed by an interaction of phonological, morphological and semantic principles.

Structural properties of the German gender system As was noted above, gender is a property of all German nouns, whether they refer to entities with or without natural gender. The German nouns are, however, not evenly distributed across all three genders; it has been estimated that about 50% of all nouns are masculine, 30% feminine and only 20% neuter (Bauch 1971). Among monosyllabic nouns, this tendency is even more pronounced: Köpcke (1982) found that 64.1% of the monosyllabic German nouns are masculine, 21.9 % are neuter and 14 % are feminine (Köpcke 1982: 45). The common assumption that the masculine is unmarked (e.g. Greenberg 1966) is therefore at least distributionally supported by the German noun system. In the acquisition of the rules governing gender assignment, stochastically the maxim “When in doubt, use the masculine” would therefore produce the highest number of correct ‘guesses’. Semantic principles Köpcke and Zubin (1984; 1986; Zubin and Köpcke 1984) have shown that German gender plays a role in the cognitive process involved in categorizing and classifying the surrounding culture (Köpcke and Zubin 1984: 32). The most important observation in this connection is that, within categories, superordinates tend to be neuter. But there are apparently additional, more subtle principles which assign a certain gender to items which share some kind of feature within a lexical Weld. This has been demonstrated for gender assignment to numerous categories, e.g. the Weld of beverages (Köpcke and Zubin 1984: 32) in German. Gender is therefore regarded as a means of structuring lexical Welds into subWelds which can make the lexical accessing process more eYcient (Köpcke and Zubin 1984: 43).

102 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Köpcke and Zubin further state that gender assignment to certain classes of items can be governed by semantic principles beyond the mere structuring of the system. One principle identiWed is that of ‘Gestalt’ which classiWes objects and concepts as masculine or feminine according to perceived shapes or characteristics (Köpcke and Zubin 1984: 35; 38). Obviously such general tendencies are very hard to operationalize and can only be tested in a rigorously controlled experimental setting. For the relatively small and random sample of less than 100 items which were assigned an incorrect gender in my corpus, such a classiWcation has proved impossible. The semantic principle of gender assignment will therefore not be further discussed here.

Morphological principles It is within the domain of morphology that the only categorical principles for German gender assignment have been identiWed: – –

–

Compound nouns take the gender of the last member of the compound (Köpcke and Zubin 1984: 28) Some derivational aYxes determine the gender for the complex noun, e.g. the suYxes : -ung, -heit-, erei, -schaft, and -keit (which form abstract nouns) are associated with the feminine, the diminutive suYxes -lein and -chen and the preWx ge- which means ‘collective’ assign neuter gender (Mills 1986a: 30) Zero-derivations are neuter (Köpcke and Zubin 1984: 29)

In addition, there is an apparent link between gender and plural formation for monosyllabic nouns: Köpcke and Zubin (1983: 171f.) have formulated rules for plural morphology which state that, for example, monosyllabic nouns which take the plural allomorph {/[6]n/} are feminine while {/s/} is associated with masculine or neuter gender.

Phonological principles of German gender assignment The Wrst study of gender assignment to German nouns according to their phonological shape was conducted by Altmann and Raettig (1973). They found that certain word endings were associated or disassociated with certain genders more or less strongly. These Wndings are summarized in Table 14 below. An association or disassociation marked by one asterisk designates a probability of p<.001, two asterisks a probability of p<.0001, while an exclamation mark designates rules for which their corpus contained no exception.

Morphology: NP-inXection 103

Table 14. Association/Disassociation of word-Wnal sounds with gender in German: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Ending

m

f

n

-b -e -be -de -ge -ologe -ie -g -ang -ung -(l)og -h -ich

A* D** D** D* A! D** A** A! D! A! A** A**

D** A** A** A** A** D! A** **D D! A! D! D** D!

D** D D D! D** D! D! D! D**

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ending

m

f

n

-Cich -sch -k -ik -m -ium -n -ion -p -s/ß -Cs -enz

A! A** D** A** D! A** A** A** D!

D! D** A** D** D! D** A! D** D** D** A!

D! D* D** A** A! D! D** D!

Adapted from Altmann and Raettig (1973: 302). ‘A’ means association, ‘D’ means disassociation, ‘C’ designates any consonant.

The link between phonology and gender was further explored by Köpcke (1982), who conducted a study of all monosyllabic present-day German nouns and showed that there are tendencies to assign gender to these nouns based not only on word-Wnal but also on word-initial or word-medial sounds. Based on this analysis, he formulated phonological rules on which speakers rely in order to assign gender to unknown words (see below Table 15). Some of these stochastic rules were tested and found to be valid at the statistically signiWcant level by Köpcke and Zubin (1983) through an experiment where gender had to be assigned to a set of nonsense words. The subjects also had a higher agreement on the gender of nonsense words for which more than one phonological rule coincided (Köpcke and Zubin 1983: 173f.). Table 15. Phonological principles in German gender assignment: Word-initial rules: [T ∧ D /r/ Y] → m [/kn/ Y] → m [/š/ C Y] → m [/d/ Y] → m/n [/r/ Y] → m/n [/t/ Y] → m/n [G ∧ K /r/ Y] → m/n Word-medial rules: (1) [X V+long Y] → m/n

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Example Trog ‘trough’ Knall ‘bang’ Schuh ‘shoe’ Ding (n) ‘thing’ Rad (n) ‘wheel’ Tag (m) ‘day’ Krug (m) ‘jug’

Word-Wnal rules (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Hut (m) ‘hat’

Adapted from Köpcke 1982: 105f. Examples are mine.

[X fric+sibilant /t/] → [X fric-sibilant /t/] → [X nasal (C) (C)] → [X /l/] → [X /l/ C] → [X /r/ stop (C)] → [X C /s/] → [X /š/] →

Example m/f Last (f) ‘load’ f Luft ‘air’ m Baum ‘tree’ m/n Knall ‘bang’ m Kelch ‘cup’ m Start ‘start’ m Hals ‘neck’ m Tisch ‘table’

104 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

None of the phonological rules presented here are deterministic: There are exceptions to all of them, some of which can be explained by a conXict with morphological or semantic principles. It should have become evident, however, that neither the assumption that gender is assigned solely on the basis of iconically motivated aspects of ‘masculinity’ or ‘femininity’ nor the widely held view that gender in inanimates is assigned on a completely arbitrary basis is tenable.

Functional properties of the German gender system Given the complexity and opacity of the German gender system as well as the large number of semantic, morphological and phonological rules, it is hardly surprising that especially L2 learners of German, highly frustrated, often ask themselves “Why bother?” What are the advantages gained by a morphological system that — where grammatical gender does not coincide with natural gender, that is, in most cases — does not appear to provide information towards the content of the utterance? It is not the purpose of the present study to argue for or against a balancing of the cost involved in the acquisition of this system against the advantages gained by its functions. The traditional view on the function of agreement, namely the introduction of redundancy to make utterances more resistant against loss of information due to noise in the communication channel, has more recently been abandoned in recognition of its contribution to keeping track of the referents within the discourse (Corbett 1999: 17). As regards the German gender system, Mills (1986a: 36–39) has pointed out the following functions and the roles this plays within the communicative process: 1. Anticipation of content: The selection of a gender-marked modiWer cues the listener to anticipate a noun with matching gender, thereby reducing the number of possible nouns being referred to 2. Marking of the onset of an NP and cueing the listener to search in the following information for a noun 3. Distinction of singular and plural in nouns with zero plural marking (note that nouns which take the zero plural allomorph are always masculine or neuter, so that the distinction through the plural article die is unambiguous) 4. Lexical structuring 5. Anaphoric reference: Again, the distribution of nouns across three genders can help to disambiguate the referent of anaphoric pronouns 6. Deictic reference to entities which have not occurred explicitly in the previous linguistic context

Morphology: NP-inXection 105

It should be noted that, except for the function of structuring the mental lexicon, all of these functions are communicative functions which are predominantly beneWcial to the recipient of the message through the disambiguation of reference. Given this observation and the assumption that children have to learn to take the informational needs of the listener into account, it seems somewhat strange that gender appears in a target-like fashion in L1 acquisition at a fairly early stage, especially when it is considered that it is mastered at an earlier age than plural marking, which does contribute to the content of the utterance.

German gender in L1 acquisition Where natural gender is concerned, evidence from L1 acquisition suggests that children begin to make the animate-inanimate-distinction on which this is based at around age two, but take longer to acquire the concept ‘female vs. male’ (Müller 1994: 59). At around the same age, they start using grammatical gender markings (Müller 1994: 63). It has also been shown that children from languages which have grammatical gender for inanimates, e.g. German, acquire the natural gender rule at an earlier age than children from languages which do not have that distinction and do not mark gender on articles and adjectives, e.g. English (Mills 1986b: 43). Several studies have tested the interaction of semantic, morphological and phonological features for gender assignment in child language cross-linguistically. The evidence from Czech (Henzl 1975), French (Tucker, Lambert and Rigault 1977; KarmiloV-Smith 1979; Müller 1994), German (MacWhinney 1978; Mills 1986a; Müller 1994), Hebrew (Berman 1981, 1985), Spanish (Cain, Weber-Olsen and Smith 1978; Pérez-Pereira 1991), and Swiss German (Schneuwly 1978) overwhelmingly suggests that intralinguistic clues, i.e. phonological and morphological ones, are more important for children in the determination of the gender of a noun than extralinguistic ones, i.e. visual stimuli which are marked for male or female attributes. An interesting feature of the acquisition of gender marking in German and French L1 acquisition is that the indeWnite article apparently poses much more of a problem than the deWnite article, which is only rarely gender-marked in a non-target-like way (Mills 1986a: 67V.; Koehn 1994: 46; Müller 1994: 71). Mills (1986a: 65) has suggested that in German this may be due to opacity in the input, since the indeWnite article has a multiplicity in form and function and is, moreover, often produced in reduced forms like ‘n, en, or ein’. Müller (1994: 71), on the other hand, assumes that the indeWnite article is initially

106 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

analyzed as a numeral and therefore as having a referential, but no grammatical meaning, whereas the deWnite article is recognized as a functional element (Müller 1994: 75). Since she found behavior with the deWnite and indeWnite articles to diVer in similar ways in both French and German L1 acquisition (as did Koehn 1994), this explanation appears more convincing, as in French neither a standard nor a reduced pronunciation of the indeWnite masculine and feminine article are homophonous.

German gender in L1 attrition: Predictions The data investigated by Köpke contain 8 instances of interferences on gender marking in the data from her L2 English group (0.13 interferences per 1,000 words), and only 2 instances from her monolingual control group (0.13 interferences per 1,000 words) (Köpke 1999: 189). The only other quantitative study of the attrition of German gender is Altenberg (1991), who tested gender in both high- and low-frequency words on two subjects and found that, for one of them, frequency played a role in retention. Unfortunately, she does not give the speciWc items on which gender was marked in a deviant way, so no conclusions to what other factors might have played a role can be drawn from her study. She also states that the gender of all nouns used in her study was unpredictable (Altenberg 1991: 202), but some of the items she gives as examples have predictable genders according to Köpcke’s rules, e.g. Tag (‘day’) would correctly be predicted to be masculine (or neuter) on the basis of his Inlautregel 6, while Pfeil (‘arrow’) would be assigned the masculine according to his Auslautregel 4 (Köpcke 1982: 105f.). Waas (1996: 163) also notes that her subjects often had problems in achieving gender agreement for determiners and nouns in this area, but does not give details. It is therefore not possible to formulate speciWc hypotheses on how gender might be treated in L1 attrition on the basis of these Wndings. However, the theoretical and experimental treatments of German gender outlined above permit the hypothesis that attrition might be inXuenced by the following factors: – – – –

Overgeneralization of masculine and neuter (‘unmarked’ cases) Overgeneralization of morphological principles Overgeneralization of phonological principles Presence/absence of the deWnite article

The following section will therefore see if any or all of these factors apply to the interferences found in the corpus. Since the number of interferences found in

Morphology: NP-inXection 107

the corpus in this domain is rather small, and since no previous studies exist to which these Wndings could be compared, it has to be kept in mind that the outcome of this analysis cannot be regarded as decisive proof of the (un)tenability of these hypotheses in L1 attrition.

Interferences in the corpus The corpus contained 87 misattributions of gender, or 0.50 per 1,000 words — which is a total very similar to that from the free spoken data collected from Köpke’s L2 English group. 15 of these referred to human beings; they will be treated separately below. One further instance could not be clearly classiWed, since within a few clauses, all three genders were used to refer to the same entity (a car): (26) Jedenfalls hatte er einen Wahnsinn mit s- jetzt, wo er die [fem] steuern mußte, nicht. Und da hab ich gesagt, […] ich werd dirs Geld schicken, und du mußt dir einen automatischen Wagen [masc] käufen, nicht. Und das [neut] hat er dann die letzten Jahre gehabt. (Ilse N., p. 12) (Anyway, he was in big trouble, having to steer it, you know. And so I said, I‘ll send you the money, you have to buy an automatic car, right. And he had that for the last years.)

This is a rather interesting example, since the Wrst use of the (feminine) anaphoric pronoun occurs without prior direct reference to the object. It is therefore unclear what triggered the feminine reference. It seems possible, however, that the informant was thinking of the English word ‘car’ and analyzed this as being feminine. Such a hypothesis is, of course, entirely speculative but not totally improbable, since the two other instances of code-switching on ‘car’ found in the corpus were also assigned female gender (interview with Alice L./Paul R.; interview with Margot L.). Clyne (1981: 18) also observed the use of car as a loanword with the feminine. Since gender assignment for English loan words is commonly assumed to work according to an interaction of phonological and semantic principles (Fuller and Lehnert 2000), this choice of the feminine seems surprising: If, as often appears the case, the gender of a German synonym or near-synonym were chosen for this loanword, it would either have to be neuter (das Auto) or masculine (der Wagen). On phonological principles, too, Köpcke’s Inlautregel 1 (Köpcke 1982: 105) predicts that car would be assigned either of these two genders. The remaining 71 instances were distributed as follows:

108 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 16. Interferences in gender marking Gender used

fem

fem masc masc/neut neut Total

– 15 4 16 35

Gender required masc neut 16 – – 4 20

12 4 – – 16

Total 28 19 4 20 71

To get an impression on whether any one gender appears more vulnerable to attrition, overall gender of NPs was counted for a 1,000 word stretch from each interview. Nouns which referred to human beings were not included in this count. Table 17. Distribution of correct and incorrect gender fem n Correct Incorrect

596 28

% 28.8 41.8

n

masc %

1,159 19

56.1 28.4

n

neut %

912 20

44.1 29.9

As far as this small number of ‘mistakes’ allows any conclusion at all, it is that the feminine gender is drastically overrepresented in the incorrect use, while masculines and neuters are underrepresented in comparison to their overall distribution. This points to a general preference of the informants to use the feminine when they were uncertain about the gender of a noun. The preference might be due to the fact that the feminine article is identical with the plural article.

Morphological principles The rather small number of compound nouns or derivational suYxes contained in this corpus of interferences in the domain of gender assignment makes an integrated explanation impossible. However, there does not appear to be a pattern of overgeneralization of morphological principles of gender assignment, barring the following instance: (27) der ja, wie ich Ihnen bereits erzählte, […] einfach diese [fem] Umschwung [masc] nicht bewältigen konnte ‘who, as I told you before, was simply unable to manage these changes’ (Thea S., p. 6)

Morphology: NP-inXection 109

The fact that Umschwung is used in the feminine here may be due to the wordWnal -ung which, as a derivational morpheme, is used to form an abstract noun and assigns the genitive, but is not a grammatical suYx in this case. All other instances of derivational suYxes use gender in a target-deviant way, and — ung seems to be especially vulnerable here; there are four instances of the use of it with the masculine and one with the neuter: (28) Das war der [masc] Kristallnachterfahrung [fem] ‘those were the experiences of the pogrom’ (Bella S., p. 2) (29) und auch noch ne [fem] weißen [masc] äh Kopfbedeckung [fem] ‘and also a white headdress’ (Lola R., p. 14) (30) das ist so mein einer [masc, sg.] mei- meiner [masc] frühsten Erinnerungen [fem, pl] ‘that is one of my earliest memories’ (Liesl R., p. 4) (31) da damals noch äh der [masc] re- allgemeine äh Einstellung [fem] bestand ‘since common opinion back then was…’ (John Herz, p. 18) (32) Mit z- zehn Jahren hab ich äh ein [neut] Prüfung [fem] gemacht äh an der Hochschule ‘when I was ten I took an exam at the high school’ (Berta D., p. 6)

The three other instances of target-deviant use of gender with derivational suYxes all concern the diminutive, which should assign the neuter. In one instance, the gender used parallels that of the un-suYxed noun (ex. (33)) while in another it is probably motivated by natural gender (ex. (34)): (33) Mein Vater packte die kleinen KöVerchen [neut, pl], hat ihn [masc, sg] aber nicht nicht mitgenommen. ‘my father packed a small bag, but didn’t take it.’ (Ruth K., p. 25) (34) eine [fem] englisches [neut] Mädchen [neut] ‘an English girl’ (Gertrud U., p. 8) (35) und meine- einer [masc] von denen ähm Mädchen [neut, pl] mit dem [masc/neut] ich war in Frankfurt ‘and my — one of the girls with whom I was in Frankfurt’ (Gertrud U., p. 10)

In addition, there is one Zero-Derivation which does not receive neuter gender: (36) wir haben auch maybe nicht die [fem] typisch jüdische [fem] äh Aussehen [neut] und so weiter gehabt ‘and we also didn’t have that typical Jewish appearance and so on’ (Elisabeth L., p. 20)

110 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

The target-deviant use of gender with derivational morphology in this small sample does therefore not follow any immediately obvious pattern. However, an interesting observation was to be made within the domain of compound Table 18. Interferences in the gender of compounds 1st El. Alterneut

2nd El. DiVerenz masc

Gloss ‘age diVerence’

Gd. used neut

Interview Charlotte G., p. 7

Eisenneut

bahn fem

‘train’

neut

Theo S., p. 1

Gauleitermasc

konferenz fem

‘Gauleiter conference’

neut

Ruth K., p. 25

Grabneut

stein masc

‘tombstone’

neut

Charlotte G., p. 4

Hakenkreuzneut

kappe fem

‘swastika cap’

neut

Stefan S., p. 7

Klavierneut

geschäft neut

‘piano shop’

fem

Fritz K., p. 9

Kopfmasc

bedeckung fem

‘headgear’

masc

Lola R., p. 14

‘experience in the pogrom’

masc

Bella S., p. 2

Kristallnacht- erfahrung fem

fem

Lebensneut

geschichte fem

‘life story’

neut

Ruth K., p. 15

Lebensneut

kurs masc

‘life course’

fem

Theo S., p. 12

Mädchenneut

schule fem

‘girl’s school’

neut

Berta D., p. 6

Modefem

schule fem

‘fashion school’

masc

Ruth K., p. 4

Professormasc

stelle fem

‘professor’s position’

masc

John Herz, p. 9

Religionsfem

unterricht masc

‘religious instruction’

fem

John Herz, p. 35

Schauspielneut

schule fem

‘acting school’

neut

Ilse N., p. 17

Standesmasc

amt neut

‘registry oYce’

masc

Albert L., p. 17

ZertiWkatsneut

nummer fem

‘certiWcate number’

neut

Margot L., p. 12

Morphology: NP-inXection

nouns which in German categorically take the gender of the last element. The corpus contained 17 instances which violated this rule, but in 12 of these (70.6 %), the gender used agreed with the gender of the Wrst element within the compound (see Table 18). Two of the remaining Wve instances used words on ung as their second element, which, as was shown above, is rather overrepresented in target-deviant use of gender.

Phonological principles In 55 of the 71 tokens contained in the sample, one or several of the phonological rules for gender assignment enumerated above could be applied.7 However, only 16 of these instances (29.1%) could be regarded as overgeneralizations of these principles in cases where the gender of the noun does not follow the rule in target-like German. An example of such an overgeneralization is: (37) oder damals vielleicht war es auch schon deutsch weil das war ne [fem] deutsche [fem] Name [masc] ‘or maybe back then it was German already, since that’s a German name’ (Gretl L., p. 5)

where it is possible that Name is used with the feminine because of the wordWnal -e, which assigns the feminine in roughly 90% of the cases (Koehn 1994: 37). Table 19. Interferences of gender and phonological rules Rule

Word ending target-deviant

A/R(2) A/R(3) A/R(6) A/R(14) A/R(16) A/R(17) A/R(19), K(Aus7) A/R(21) K(Aus2) K(Aus3) K(Aus4) K(Aus5) K(Aus6)

-e -ie -ung -m -n -ion -s/ß -enz [fric-sibilant/t/ nasal (C) (C) -l -l C X /r/ stop -er

15 3 5 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 39

target-like

3 1 1

18 4 6 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 55

3 1 2 1 2 1 1 16

A/R(#) designates a rule or tendency identiWed by Altmann and Raettig 1973, see above Table 11; K(Aus#) designates an Auslautregel as identiWed by Köpcke 1982, see above Table 14. The tendency for items ending on -er to be masculine was pointed out by Koehn (1994: 47).

111

112

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Again, the analysis of the interferences yields no immediately obvious pattern, apart from the observation that almost exactly half of these instances (27 tokens or 49.1%) were target-deviant uses of word-Wnal elements commonly assigning the feminine, like -e (15 tokens), -ung (5 tokens) -ie (3 tokens), -enz (2 tokens) or -ion (2 tokens). Table 20. Natural gender Interference eine [fem] englisches [neut] Mädchen [neut] (‘an English girl’) Das Baby [neut] hat die ganze Zeit wie sie [fem] mit der Mutter war geweint (‘the baby was crying the entire time she was with the mother’) sie würden den [masc] Baby [neut] holen (‘they would fetch the baby’) meine [fem] Großvater [masc] machte die Tür auf (‘my grandfather opened the door’) meine [fem] äh Onkel [masc] hat uns nach Hamburg gebracht (‘my uncle took us to Hamburg’) ich hab nie gedacht daß äh […] diese [fem] Lehrer [masc] ein Nazi sein würde (‘I never thought this teacher was a Nazi’) meine [fem] Vater [masc] ist in Bühler Höhe gestorben (‘my father died in Bühler Höhe’) Mein Vater hatte eine [fem] weitläuWgen [masc] Cousin [masc] in Belgien (‘my father had a distant cousin in Belgium’) ich bin jetzt noch mit seinem [masc] Tochter [fem] in Verbindung (‘I’m still corresponding with his daughter’) ging mein Tante [fem] weg (‘my aunt went away’) sagt mein [masc] Großmutter [fem] (‘my grandmother said’) ein Stiefbruder und ein [masc/neut] Stiefschwester [fem] (‘a stepbrother and a stepsister’) und meine- einer [masc] von denen ähm Mädchen [neut, pl.] mit dem [masc/neut] ich war in Frankfurt (‘and my — one of the girls with whom I was in Frankfurt’) die hab mi- die [fem] hat mich mehr gelehrt wie jedes andere (‘she taught me more than anyone else’) Ich war einer- eines der acht Angehörigen der Intelligence Section (‘I was one of eight members of the intelligence section’)

Gender used fem.

Gender Interview required neut. Gertrud U., p. 8

fem.

neut.

Ruth K., p. 47

masc.

neut.

Thea S., p. 15

fem.

masc.

Victor S., p. 6

fem.

masc.

Lotte A., p. 3

fem.

masc.

Alice J., p. 2

fem.

masc.

Fritz K., p. 42

fem.

masc.

Ernst L., p. 33

masc.

fem.

Hilde W., p. 7

masc. masc.

fem. fem.

Ruth K., p. 48 Ruth K., p. 48

masc.

fem.

Berta D., p. 1

masc.

neut.

Gertrud U., p. 10

neut.

fem.

Ruth K., p. 46

neut.

masc.

Albert S., p. 7

Morphology: NP-inXection

Natural gender The 15 instances of target-deviant use of gender for referents with natural gender do not show any obvious patterns, either. In only three of these cases does the gender (presumably) parallel the sex of the referent (see Table 20, lines 1–3; in the two instances of use of Baby, the sex of the referent could not be determined from the context). The remaining instances are distributed evenly: The feminine was used for masculine referents in Wve cases and the same was true vice versa.8 The neuter was used once for a feminine and once for a masculine referent. Conclusion The analysis of all interferences contained in the corpus within the domain of gender assignment did not conWrm any of the predictions made on the basis of theoretical treatments of German gender assignment. No overgeneralization of any of the morphological or phonological principles identiWed in target-like German usage could be found. The observation that the phonological and morphological markings usually associated with the feminine gender are apparently most vulnerable to attrition is striking, since those are among the principles that apply in a very high number of cases. It should therefore have been expected that the frequency of reinforcement of these particular rules would render them more resistant than others. This, however, was shown not to be the case.

4.3 Plural So, as an added E often signiWes the plural, as the S does with us, the new student is likely to go on for a month making twins out of a Dative dog before he discovers his mistake; and on the other hand, many a new student who could ill aVord loss, has bought and paid for two dogs and only got one of them, because he ignorantly bought that dog in the Dative singular when he really supposed he was talking plural. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

Plural marking is the Wrst of the functions discussed in this chapter which is also marked by inXection on English nouns. However, the German system again has more complexities and irregularities. Whereas English in the vast majority of cases — that is, excepting the few idiosyncrasies such as the -Ø plural in Wsh or irregular forms like foot-feet, mouse-mice etc. — has three

113

114

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

plural allomorphs which are assigned to nouns according to transparent phonological rules based on the root-Wnal consonant (Köpcke 1987: 23), the German system is often unpredictable. Furthermore, the German plural is marked not only on the noun but on articles and adjectives as well, and the form of the plural on these depends on deWniteness of the nouns.

The German system of plural morphology The unpredictabilities within the system of German plural marking are already manifest in the fact that many studies disagree on how many plural allomorphs German actually has. The numbers given vary between Wve (e.g. Clahsen, Marcus, Bartke and Wiese 1996; Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest 1990; Wegener 1992; 1993) and nine (e.g. Köpcke 1987; 1988. For an overview of descriptions of the German plural system see Bartke 1998: 32–40). Köpcke, who assumes the largest number of allomorphs, gives the following overview: Table 21. Overview of plural morphemes in German (Köpcke 1988: 307, his Table 1) pl.-morpheme

masculine

-e

Fisch/Fische ‘Wsh’ Bauer/Bauern ‘farmer’ Geist/Geister ‘ghost’ Park/Parks ‘park’ Adler/Adler ‘eagle’ Bruder/Brüder ‘brother’ Sohn/Söhne ‘son’ Wald/Wälder ‘wood’ der/die sg/pl

-(e)n -er -s -Ø umlaut [+ -Ø, MSS] umlaut + -e umlaut + -er def art

Gender feminine Kenntnis/Kenntnisse ‘knowledge’ Tür/Türen ‘door’ – Mutti/Muttis ‘mom’ – Tochter/Töchter ‘daughter’ Kuh/Kühe ‘cow’ – die/die sg/pl

neuter Jahr/Jahre ‘year’ Auge/Augen ‘eye’ Kind/Kinder ‘child’ Auto/Autos ‘car’ Fenster/Fenster ‘window’ Kloster/Klöster ‘monastery’ Floß/Flöße ‘raft’ Volk/Völker ‘people’ das/die sg/pl

The discrepancies on how many of these forms are to be counted as plural allomorphs are due to the questions of whether or not the Umlaut-plural, which can combine with the allomorphs -e, -er and -Ø, is a separate allomorph (this has been contested by Wiese 1987; Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and

Morphology: NP-inXection

Marcus 1992 and Penke 1998), and whether -e and -Ø are to be counted separately or as variants of a single allomorph in complementary distribution due to schwa-deletion in the same way that has been assumed for -en and -n (Golston and Wiese 1996; Wegener 1994: 225f.). It has also been called into question whether the plural of the deWnite article (die) should be counted as a plural marker. Bartke (1998: 33) disagrees with this analysis, since — according to her — the plural of the determiner does not inXuence the choice of the plural allomorph. It should be noted, however, that the deWnite article is the same in the singular and the plural for feminine nouns (die), which is often assumed to be the reason that these nouns cannot take the -Ø plural without umlaut, since in such cases the singular and plural would be indistinguishable. The frequencies of these allomorphs vary dramatically. The Wgures given by Clahsen, Marcus, Bartke and Wiese (1996: 121), Marcus, Brinkmann, Clahsen and Pinker (1995: 228V.) and Bartke (1998: 43) show some diVerences for the corpora under analysis and for type and token frequencies, but it seems uncontroversial that -(e)n has the highest frequency by far (between 42% and 68%), while -s has the lowest (1% – 8%). The plural allomorphs are assigned to nouns based on gender and word ending. Finding an integrative model to predict plural formation has proved impossible, and all systems put forward so far have to allow for a large number of exceptions (Bartke 1998: 39). The only categorical phonological rule appears to be that feminine nouns ending in /6/ take -(e)n as their plural. Other categorical rules are associated with derivational morphemes; the morphemes ling and -nis, for example, taking the plural -e and the majority of feminine suYxes such as -schaft, -heit, -keit and -ung taking -(e)n (Köpcke 1987: 26; 1988: 306; Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus 1992: 228), which has led to the assumption that it is not the nouns themselves which belong to a speciWc inXectional category but their morphological subparts (Bornschein and Butt 1987: 145). The pseudosuYxes -el, -er, and -en also make the plural allomorph highly predictable on the basis of the gender of the noun (Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus 1992: 228; Köpcke 1987: 26; Russ 1989: 59), but there are already a number of exceptions to these rules. All other patterns to German plural formation are tendencies at best (Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus 1992: 228). Wegener (1992; 1993) has described German plural formation on the basis of ‘markedness’ conditions. Based on the gender of the noun and on these ‘markedness’ conditions, she provides rules for plural formation. She uses the term ‘marked’ to describe nouns with a Wnal syllable which does not “conform

115

116 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 22. Morphological and phonological principles in German plural marking -(e)n Nouns with suYx (a) masc -ling (b) fem -ung/-schaft 96% (c) neut -chen (d) neut -lein 6% Nouns ending in schwa (a) masc/neut 77% (b) fem 94% Nouns ending in a full vowel masc/fem/neut 20% Nouns with a pseudosuYx (a) masc/neu -el 22% (b) masc/neut -er 16% (c) masc -en 1% (d) fem -el 59% (e) fem -er 26% monosyllabic nouns (a) masc 21% (b) fem 66% (c) neut 31%

-e

-Ø

-s

90% 51%

1% 1% 10% 20%

17% 4%

2% 2%

1%

6%

69%

3% 1% 1% 1%

69% 77% 91% 28% 59%

6% 5% 4% 13% 8%

59% 27% 40%

1% 1%

99% 3% 19%

-er

3% 4%

Example Lehrling-e ‘apprentice’ Herrschaft-en ‘dominance’ Brötchen ‘bread roll’ Männlein-Ø ‘little man’ Rabe-n ‘raven’ Truhe-n ‘chest’ Auto-s ‘car’

1%

1% 3%

Hobel-Ø ‘plane’ Rechner-Ø ‘computer’ Garten-Ø ‘garden’ Gabel-n ‘fork’ Tochter-Töchter ‘daughter’

14% 7% Tisch-e ‘table’ 6% 1% See-n ‘lake’ 14% 14% Tier-e ‘animal

Adapted from Köpke 1988: 311, his Table 3.

to the normal pattern of German nouns” or is “somehow phonologically peculiar” (Wegener 1992: 228, my translation) — nouns with a Wnal vowel other than 6 [+C], i.e. an unstressed full vowel (this comprises abbreviations like Uni and acronyms like LKW ‘truck’); borrowed nouns for which the pronunciation of the Wnal syllable has not yet been phonologically adapted (e.g. T-Shirt); nautical terms (e.g. Wrack); and nouns where there is a reason for the preservation of the phonological shape, e.g. onomatopoetica or names (Wegener 1992: 228). According to Wegener, ‘unmarked’ feminines take -(e)n as a plural marker, ‘unmarked’ non-feminines take -e and ‘marked’ nouns take -s without regard of their gender (Wegener 1992: 229f.). The largest number of exceptions to these rules are ‘unmarked’ nouns which take the plural marker associated with the other gender, which she describes as an example of reversal of markedness conditions (Wegener 1992: 231). Wegener’s understanding of ‘markedness’ has been criticized, e.g. by Bartke (1998: 38), since it is not made clear on what linguistic aspects (diachronic, semantic, phonological, distributional etc.) her deWnition is based. Bartke also points out that Wegener’s rules for plural formation have to allow for up to

Morphology: NP-inXection

29.5% exceptions (Bartke 1998: 38). Another issue leading to controversies within the debate on German plural allomorphs is the psycholinguistic status of the -s plural. Based on the observation that the -s plural seems to follow less phonological restrictions than any other German plural allomorph (Bornschein and Butt 1987: 147; Clahsen, Marcus, Bartke and Wiese 1996: 121) and that -s cannot appear inside nominal compounds as a plural marker9 (Clahsen, Marcus, Bartke and Wiese 1996: 122; Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus 1992: 232) it has been argued that -s has the status of a default plural in German. This assumption is based on a dual mechanisms model of inXection which assumes regular and irregular inXection phenomena to be qualitatively diVerent: Within this model, irregular inXection processes are lexically-based, while regular inXection is based on combinatorial rules and therefore extends readily to novel items (Clahsen 1999). Taking the -s plural to be the default form in German would therefore explain the lack of phonological restriction as well as the fact that it is the plural form used with names, newly created expressions and borrowed or foreign words (Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus 1992: 229). This view on the mental representation of default plural allomorphs, for which Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest (1990), Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus (1992), Marcus, Brinkmann, Clahsen, Wiese and Pinker (1995), Bartke (1998) and Clahsen (1999) have provided psycholinguistic evidence, was contested by Wegener (1992; 1993) and Gawlitzek-Maiwald (1994). Among other factors, Wegener gives the low frequency of the -s plural as evidence against its default status (1992: 238) and argues that it is, in fact, restricted to certain phonological environments in marked nouns (see above for her deWnition of markedness).

German plurals in L1 acquisition The complexities and irregularities which lead to these discrepancies in the description of plural marking also make it a very diYcult system to acquire, both for L1 and L2 learners (Köpcke 1987: 23). Studies have established that, although children start using plural forms in most plural contexts at the beginning of their third year, at that stage there are more incorrect than correct forms (Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest 1990: 111). And although the use of plural thus starts at a comparatively early age, acquiring the complete system takes very long: Even six-year-olds do not use plurals in an adult-like way in all cases (Phillips and Bouma 1980: 23; Schaner-Wolles 1988: 163). In the earlier stages of the acquisition process, children apparently tend to use one plural morpheme which they overgeneralize — the morpheme being, in the majority

117

118

First language attrition, use, and maintenance

of cases, one of the plural morphemes with the highest frequency in German, namely -(e)n (Park 1978: 243; Phillips and Bouma 1980: 22; Schaner-Wolles 1988: 166; Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest 1990: 111) or -e (Bartke 1998: 64). Another frequent source for mistakes is the use of singular forms in plural contexts, though these Wndings are problematic in two ways: Many of the studies on L1 acquisition of the plural system use elicited data which, as has been found at numerous occasions, tends to contain more -Ø plurals than spontaneous speech. Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest propose that this may be due either to the experimental design, to (especially very young) children’s not understanding the task or to their concentrating on repeating the stimulus, especially where nonsense words are used (Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest 1990: 112; for a re-interpretation of experimental Wndings on zero plurals in acquisition see Köpcke 1998). On the other hand, it is of course not possible to distinguish between application of the -Ø plural morpheme and the use of a singular form, which may explain why -Ø plurals are used in a target-like way more often than any other plural allomorph (Schaner-Wolles 1988: 165f.). The -s plural and the umlaut + -Ø plural, on the other hand, are apparently most problematic in acquisition (Schaner-Wolles 1988: 172f.). Some of these studies have also tested the default status of the -s plural. Gawlitzek-Maiwald (1994) found counter-evidence for this, while Bartke’s (1998) and Clahsen’s (1999) Wndings provide evidence for its default status. Clahsen, Rothweiler and Woest’s (1990) study furthermore suggests that in dysgrammatic children, the -(e)n plural is assigned a default status which is similar to the one they have assumed for the -s plural (for a discussion of the methods and possible problems with earlier studies see Bartke 1998: 56V.). Unfortunately, none of the studies under discussion have analyzed the acquisition of number agreement with articles and adjectives, although Park cites some evidence suggesting that English children have more diYculty with plural markers if the number agreement has to be made across a noun phrase boundary (Park 1978: 244).

German plurals in L2 acquisition The acquisition of the German plural system in L2 learners was tested by Köpcke (1987) who conducted an experiment on plural marking in nonsense words with L1 speakers and compared these Wndings to the data on L2 learners (English native speakers) of German by Phillips and Bouma (1980). He found that while both groups use all possible plural morphemes, there are some diVerences in their application. Most prominently, native speakers of

Morphology: NP-inXection

German tend to use the -Ø plural for both masculine and feminine nonsense words ending in the pseudosuYx -er, while L2 learners prefer -en for both types. The prediction for L2 learners was that masculine nouns would take the -Ø plural while feminines would take -en (Köpcke 1987: 28, 30f.). Interestingly, the -s plural was used by native speakers in unexpected contexts, e.g. with the neutral derivational suYxes -chen and -lein which require the -Ø plural, while L2 learners, for whom it had been predicted that they might overgeneralize the -s plural from their native language, did not do so. Also, the L2 learners used the umlaut more often than the native speakers, especially in connection with the -Ø plural in feminines on -e and -er (Köpcke 1987: 30–38). Clahsen (1995) reports on plural marking in the L2 acquisition of adult native speakers of Romance languages, and Wnds that while speakers from languages which have a regular plural allomorph -s (Spanish and Portuguese) use the full range of German plural morphology available, native speakers of Italian, which marks plural through vowel changes, do not use the -s plural (Clahsen 1995: 127). He Wnds that L2 learners apparently develop regular plural allomorphs (-n and -s, the latter only being used by native speakers of languages which have a regular -s plural) that can replace other plural allomorphs, and irregular forms which are not overgeneralized. This conclusion is strengthened by the observation that those plural markers which are overregularized do not occur within compounds (Clahsen 1995: 136).

German plurals in L1 attrition In the domain of plural marking, Köpke found 5 mistakes, or 0.30 per 1,000 words, in the data from her L2 English group, and none in the data from the monolingual control group. A further quantitative study of German plural marking in L1 attrition in comparison with gender was conducted by Altenberg (1991), where informants had to give the deWnite article and plural marker for a list of both highand low-frequency words. Altenberg found more mistakes in the domain of plural morphology than in the assignment of gender to a noun and concluded that this was the result of selectiveness in the attrition process due to interlanguage eVects: Since a similarity between L1 and L2 has been hypothesized by some researchers to be a condition for language transfer, the domain of plural marking, which has a corresponding category in English, was aVected more than the domain of gender marking, which has not (Altenberg 1991: 202f.). Unfortunately, Altenberg does not specify which plural markers were used

119

120 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

deviantly, so her Wndings cannot be used as a basis for hypotheses on what L1 attrition will look like speciWcally. Waas (1996) provides some spontaneous speech data on German plural marking in L1 attrition. She observes that the most common strategy found in her data was the omission of plural inXection, but she also cites some instances of misapplication of plural formation strategies, e.g. the overgeneralization of -e or even the umlaut, as in *Wäle ‘whales’ (Waas 1996: 162f.). She does not give any Wgures on the frequencies of these mistakes. Based on these Wndings as well as on the results of Köpcke’s experiments (see above) it can be hypothesized that the attrition of German plural marking will be dominated by the use of the singular in plural contexts (although such forms might, of course, also be interpreted as deviant use of the -Ø plural) and overgeneralization of the most frequent plural allomorphs, i.e. -(e)n and -e. In addition to that the attrition of agreement in plural marking will have to be investigated, although the literature on this does not allow any predictions to be made.

Interferences in the corpus Plural allomorphs The corpus contained only 19 items of deviant pluralization of nouns. In eight of these, it could not be determined whether the allomorph -Ø was incorrectly applied or whether the item appeared in the singular form in a plural context: Table 23. Use of singular/-Ø plural Item

Allomorph used

Allomorph required

Interview

Installateur ‘plumber’ Jahr ‘year’ Klavier ‘piano’ Klavierstunde ‘piano lesson’ Monat ‘month’ Monat Schwierigkeit ‘diYculty’ Vorbereitung ‘preparation’

-Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø

-e -e -e -en -e -e -en -en

Dieter K., p. 9 Albert L., p. 7 Fritz K., p. 9 Berta D., p. 4 Theo S., p. 8 Ernst L., p. 2 Theo S., p. 12 Margot L., p. 4

Of the remaining 11 instances, three contained an overgeneralization of the -s plural. These, however, are all problematic, since two of them have English cognates and could therefore also be instances of single-item code-switching, while the remaining one has a highly unexpected plural form:

Morphology: NP-inXection

Table 24. Deviant uses of -s plurals Item

Allomorph used

Allomorph required

Interview

Akzents (English cognate) Pogroms (English cognate) Museums

-s -s -s

-e -e irregular: Museen

Albert L., p. 16 Erich E., p. 7 Irma M., p. 12

This leaves only 8 instances of incorrect application of the plural allomorph: Table 25. Interferences of plural allomorphs Item

Allomorph used

Allomorph required

Interview

Bekannten ‘acquaintance’ Sekretären ‘secretary’ Verwandten ‘relative’ Verwandten Jahren ‘year’ Kindertransporten zwei Täge ‘day’ Festschrifte

-en -en -en -en -en -en -e + umlaut -e

-e -e -e -e -e -e -e without umlaut -en

Bella S., p. 2 Theo S., p. 7 Gertrud U., p. 11 Fritz K., p. 8 Berta D., p. 7 Erich E., p. 3 Bella S., p. 6 Theo S., p. 12

In addition, there is one deviant pluralization in the following utterance, where the plural allomorph of the noun is overgeneralized to the adjective: (38) ich hab viere Jahre Französisch gelernt ‘I learned French for four years’ (Berta D., p. 6)

This small number of interferences does not allow generalized conclusions. It is interesting, however, that in 7 cases, the use of the plural allomorph parallels the tendency established by Köpcke for L2-learners of German: Except for the case of Jahren, all overgeneralizations of -(e)n appear with masculine nouns and there is one infelicitous use of the umlaut. There is only one case of overgeneralization of one of the stochastic rules of plural formation: The monosyllabic masculine Schrift does not take the -e plural, a rule for which Köpcke has only found about 20 exceptions which form their plural with -en, as Schrift does, and which, moreover, mostly carry the semantic marker ‘animate’ (Köpcke 1987: 25). Interesting though these observations might be, the very small number of tokens of infelicitous application of German plural morphology points towards the conclusion that, overall, the plural morphology of this sample has

121

122 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

undergone hardly any detectable attrition — which, considering that plural morphology is mastered at a very late stage in German L1 acquisition, is an intriguing Wnd in itself. A much larger number of the interferences that have been classiWed in the domain ‘number’ occurred on agreement phenomena.

Number agreement The corpus contained 72 instances of elements which belong together but do not agree in number. The vast majority of these, 57 instances, occurred in the domain of subject–verb agreement and will be discussed in the section on vp morphology below. Within the remaining 15 instances, discrepancies were found in the agreement of adjectives, articles, possessives and the corresponding noun. The following examples illustrate these categories. Agreement adjective — noun: (39) und nicht von ihr sondern von andren äh andren [pl] Lehrerin [sg] ‘and not from her, from another teacher’ (Lola R., p. 9) (40) alle guten [pl] e- äh Munition [sg] ‘all good ammunition (Martin R., p. 6)

Agreement article — noun: (41) das [sg] ZertiWkatsnummern [pl] ‘the certiWcate numbers’ (Margot L., p. 12) (42) die Leute, die den [sg] Briefe [pl] lasen ‘the people who read the letters’ (Gertrud U., p. 9)

Agreement possessive — noun: (43) Er war ein Maler [sg]. Ein Kunstmaler [sg] und äh hatte auch war [sg] in Amerika schon ganz bekannt und ging [sg] dann nach München um dort weiter ihren [pl] Kunst zu studieren, und ist [sg] dort geblieben ‘He was a painter. An artist, he was quite well-known in America, and then he went to Munich to go on studying his art.’ (Fritz K., p. 5) (44) was auch ein Chaiselongue hatte für mein [sg] Schlafmöglichkeiten [pl] ‘there also was a couch for me to sleep on’ (Bella S., p. 1)

The overall distribution of interferences was as follows:

Morphology: NP-inXection 123

Table 26. Interferences in plural congruence Construction adj. – noun art. – noun possessive – noun

# 7 6 2 15

In each of these instances, it was determined from the context of the utterance which of the elements was used in the number the speaker actually intended, and in each case, it was the non-noun (target) element which was used with an incorrect number. This is hardly surprising, if the asymmetrical nature of agreement (see above) is taken into account.

Conclusion The small number of interferences found in the domain of plural morphology in the corpus suggests that this grammatical feature is not very vulnerable to attrition. The total number of interferences described in this section works out to a distribution of 0.25 interferences per 1,000 words, which again is very similar to the Wndings from Köpke’s L2 English group. The instances which were found conWrm that, in those cases where a deviant use of the plural allomorph does occur, it is most often the overgeneralization of one of the more frequent allomorphs -(e)n and -e. The fact that most misapplied plural forms were found in the agreement of other items with the noun suggests that it is agreement rather than inXection which is aVected by attrition, and the large numbers of mistakes in the domain of subject-verb agreement conWrms Park’s observation that agreement across the boundary of an NP is more problematic than agreement within the NP (Park 1978: 244). 4.4 Conclusion A straightforward comparison of the morphological variables considered here, in order to assess the degree of ‘attrition’ each of them has suVered, is diYcult. Spontaneous spoken data make Wndings on interferences among the individual morphological domains that were considered in the previous sections hard to compare, since the number of occasions in which speakers could have made a mistake has to be taken into account:

124 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

– – –

Case marking depends on the total number of NPs Gender marking depends on the total number of singular NPs Plural marking depends on the total number of plural NPs

In order to establish the relative frequencies of the types of interferences investigated in the previous sections, a stretch of 1,000 words from each interview was therefore analyzed for occurrence of these elements (see Table 1, Appendix I). This yielded the following distribution: Table 27. Distribution of singular and plural NPs over a stretch of 1,000 words from each interview

sg pl

n

%

2,963 966 3,929

75.41 24.59

If these Wgures are taken as a point of reference for the amount of interferences found in each individual domain in the above sections, i.e. if the number of interferences on case marking are divided by the total number of NPs, the interferences on gender by the total of single NPs and the interferences on plural by the total of plural NPs, the distribution of interferences is as follows: Table 28. Absolute and relative distribution of NP interferences

Case Gender Plural

n absolute

n relative

142 87 91

0.04 0.03 0.09

The previous sections have also established the rates of acquisition for these features. On the basis of the literature discussed, the following acquisitional pattern can be established (lines mark the time period from the onset of a feature in L1 acquisition to the time when the acquisition is completed):

Morphology: NP-inXection

Table 29. Acquisitional patterns Age 1;6–2;0 2;0–2;6 2;6–3;3 3;4-3;8 5;0 6;0

Stage

Case

Gender

Plural

I II III IV V

These Wndings do suggest that there is a correlation between acquisitional sequences and the amount of interference in L1 attrition on the morphological variables under investigation in the previous section: Those variables that are completely acquired at a relatively late stage (e.g. plural morphology) appear to be more vulnerable to mistakes than those that are acquired relatively early (e.g. gender). The converging evidence of the previous two tables speaks strongly for a reconsideration of the regression hypothesis in further research. Interlanguage eVects for L1 attrition of German morphology under L2 inXuence of English, on the other hand, are hard to establish, since inXectional morphology is far more restricted and regular in English than German. Interlanguage eVects and intralinguistic simpliWcation are therefore hard to distinguish.

125

Chapter 5

Morphology II: VP inXection

…and after the verb — merely by way of ornament, as far as I can make out — the writer shovels in ‘haben sind gewesen gehabt haven geworden sein,’ or words to that eVect. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

The German system of verb phrase inXection contains less morphological irregularities and unpredictabilities than the system of noun phrase inXection, but it still is anything but straightforward. Again, the morphological system can be divided into inherent and relational categories (Anderson 1985; ThieroV 1992: 11). In relational categories, morphological marking is triggered by agreement with the properties of some other element or word in the clause; in the system of VP inXection, this refers to the categories of number and person which are dependent on the properties of the subject of the clause (ThieroV 1992: 11). Inherent categories are those categories of inXection which do not exhibit a syntactic relationship with the subject of the sentence; i.e. the domains of tense and mood. Aspect is also commonly subsumed under this heading, but since aspect is not morphologically encoded in Standard German it will not be treated here. A third category that has been mentioned in connection with VP inXection is that of voice, which KuryPowicz (1964: 29) has included under the heading “syntactical transformation”. Voice will be included in this section, although it should be borne in mind that this classiWcation is somewhat controversial: Since the active and passive voice are not interchangeable within the syntagma of a sentence in the same way as is true for the other inXectional categories treated here, their status as an inXectional category has been called into doubt (ThieroV 1992: 13).

128 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

5.1 Tense

The German temporal system German is commonly assumed to have six tenses: Two synthetic tenses which are formed by suYxation of the (Present or Preterite) verb stem, namely Present and Preterite, and four analytic or periphrastic tenses which are formed with an auxiliary and a participle or inWnitive form of the main verb, namely Perfect, Pluperfect, Future I and Future II (Comrie 1995: 148; Eisenberg 1994: 115): Table 30. The German tenses (adapted from Fox 1990: 179) Synthetic tenses: Periphrastic tenses: aux + past part aux + inf aux+past part+inf of aux

ich mache (pres)

ich machte (pret)

ich habe gemacht (perf) ich hatte gemacht (pl.perf) ich werde machen (fut I) ich werde gemacht haben (fut II)

Whether the two forms labeled as ‘Future I’ and ‘Future II’ here are to be considered tenses has been called into question for German as well as other languages. A commonly held view is that they should more accurately be classiWed as moods, assigning the Future auxiliary werden the status of a modal auxiliary (Comrie 1995: 148). This view is based on the observation that Future II is used extremely rarely with Future reference, and most often refers to an action that the speaker assumes has taken place in the past (ThieroV 1992), as in the following (constructed) example: (45) A: Ich glaube, ich hab den Herd heute morgen nicht ausgeschaltet. B: Keine Sorge, Achim wird ihn bestimmt ausgeschaltet haben. (‘I think I forgot to turn oV the stove’ — ‘Don’t worry, Achim will certainly have turned it oV.’)

For Future I it has been stated that, in German, it always contains a modal component, that utterances which are placed in this tense have an element of uncertainty or hypotheticalness, while events the realization of which is not to be called into question are expressed in the Present (Gelhaus 1975: 127; Vater 1975: 100). ThieroV (1992: 132) challenges this assumption, citing several instances of utterances which employ the Future although there is no uncertainty about whether or not the event will actually take place, e.g.: (46) In wenigen Minuten werden wir auf dem Rhein-Main-Flughafen landen. Ich bitte Sie, das Rauchen einzustellen und sich anzuschnallen.

Morphology II: VP inXection 129

‘In a few minutes, we will be landing at the Rhein-Main airport. Will you please extinguish your cigarettes and fasten your seatbelt.’ (his ex. (52), my translation) (47) ‘Der Kanal wird gebaut werden, daran gibt es keinen Zweifel.’ Für diese Worte erhielt Ministerpräsident Franz Josef Strauß viel Beifall […] ‘The channel will be built, there is no doubt about that. Prime minister Franz Josef Strauß was much applauded for these words.’ (his ex. (80), my translation)

There are, however, also instances of utterances which refer to a future event but in which Future I is unacceptable or yields a diVerent meaning than the Present, e.g.: (48) Trinken wir schnell noch ein Bierchen? ‘Wanna go for a beer?’ (ThieroV 1992: 132, his ex. (83))

ThieroV concludes that the acceptability or optionality of Present and Future in utterances with Future references remains to be investigated (1992: 132). What seems clear is that, unlike in English, the German Present tense can be used in many — or even most — cases where Future reference is to be expressed (for constraints on this see Comrie 1995: 149; ThieroV 1992: 98; 125f.); and the occurrence of sentences like (49) Ich ruf [pres] dich morgen/dann/nächste Woche an. ‘I’ll call you tomorrow/next week’

is a common source of mistakes for German L2 learners of English (Schulz 1999: 39f.). Note, however, that unlike many other Indo-European languages, German does not have a go-future, and sentences which use go with an inWnitival complement invariably convey a sense of spatial motion, not of future imminence (except for the one carried by the conversational implicature). Other possible uses of the Present include utterances which refer to a habitual or ‘timeless’ state (this has been called the ‘atemporal’ use, cf. ThieroV 1992: 90) as in ex. (50): (50) Heidelberg liegt am Neckar. ‘Heidelberg is on the Neckar’ (Fox 1990: 183)

and utterances with Past reference, especially in narratives (Bamberg 1991: 263; ThieroV 1992: 90; Watzinger-Tharp 1994: 14).

130 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

The major source of controversy in the description of the German tense system is the distinction between synthetic (Preterite) and periphrastic (Perfect) past. Unlike in English, there is no clear aspectual diVerence between synthetic and periphrastic past in German, although many descriptions have attempted to establish a link between the Preterite and ‘progressiveness’ on the one hand and the Perfect and ‘completion’ on the other (for an overview of these studies see ThieroV 1992: 160f.). More recent attempts at classiWcation have often treated the diVerence between Preterite and Perfect as a matter not of aspect but of style, the former being the unmarked one in formal or written speech, the latter being used most frequently in informal and colloquial speech (Born 1984: 240; Admoni 1982: 185). A common assumption in this context is that the Preterite has been all but lost in colloquial spoken German (Born 1984: 240) especially in the Southern German varieties which are claimed only to retain it in auxiliaries (Comrie 1995: 148f.; Fox 1990: 188; Hentschel and Weydt 1994: 100f.). A quantitative study of the use of the tenses in the spoken German of the Nürnberg area (Watzinger-Tharp 1994) serves, however, to put this statement which has often been repeated but apparently seldom empirically veriWed slightly into perspective: While it is true that the Preterite was used with (modal) auxiliaries in about 90% of the cases (Watzinger-Tharp 1994: 15), the total of the Preterite forms make up more than 20% of the Wnite verb forms in her corpus, which contrasts with 25.3% of Perfect forms (Watzinger-Tharp 1994: 14). Still, it seems clear that the Preterite is dispreferred in spoken language: A quantitative analysis of a corpus of written texts yielded 38% of Preterite forms which contrast with only 5.5% of Perfect forms (Gelhaus 1975). That notwithstanding, it seems true that the Perfect can, in most cases, be substituted for the Preterite without any ensuing change in meaning (note, however, that there may be a change in style or register involved) but not vice versa (Wunderlich 1970: 141). On the basis of this substitutability and its constraints, Comrie proposed a schema of analysis of the German past tenses in which the Preterite conveys past time reference which explicitly does not carry relevance to a non-past reference point, while the Perfect is neutral with respect to continuing relevance. The only situations in which the perfect would be excluded within this framework of analysis, i.e. not substitutable for a Preterite form, is a situation where the speaker wants to exclude the possibility of relating the situation through continuing relevance to the present (Comrie 1995: 152; 160). Although this would provide a tempting solution to the

Morphology II: VP inXection

puzzling problem of German past tenses, some of Comrie’s examples do not seem convincing to me. He quotes the sentence (51) Nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg ist Kleve immer mehr zu einer Klinkerstadt geworden. (Comrie 1995: 154, his (9). ‘Since the Second World War Kleve has become more and more a city of clinker brick.’ Comrie’s translation)

as describing a development whose results still hold and are currently visible, and claims that substituting the Perfect in this example would change its interpretation. Similarly, in the following example (52) Am 30. September 1956 übernahm Ehepaar Klören das Hotel. Sie brachten das Gebäude auf den neuesten Stand und gaben ihm eine elegante Note. (Comrie 1995: 156, his ex. (12). ‘On 30 September 1956 Mr. and Mrs. Klören took over the hotel. They completely modernized the building and gave it an elegant note’. Comrie’s translation)

Comrie argues that the Preterite is licensed by the fact (yielded from the subsequent context) that the hotel ceased to exist in 1971 and that the use of the Perfect would change the meaning of the sentence, cueing the listener to expect its continued existence. The way native speakers of German interpret these sentences appears to vary. Some of the people I asked judged them in a way that diametrically opposed that of Comrie, while others agreed that his interpretation was the more likely one. None of them, however, shared his opinion that the Preterite excludes the possibility of present relevance, and all described their intuitions as tendencies at best.1 The statement that the Preterite designates an action which has been completed in the past has been challenged before, e.g. by ThieroV (1992: 122) and Wunderlich (1970: 139), who gives the following sentence in evidence of the non-completive potential of the Preterite: (53) Wir kamen über die Autostrada nach Florenz, das in einem breiten Tal lag. ‘By the Autostrada we reached Florence, lying in a broad valley.’

It appears, therefore, that the constraints on using Perfect and Preterite, like the constraints on using the Present to express future reference, remain to be investigated.

Tense and inXection The main complexities involved in the system of German verb morphology are in the distinction between ‘weak’ (regular) and ‘strong’ (irregular) verbs.

131

132 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

The Present forms for both types are formed by aYxation of the Present stem: mach-en (‘do’) — ich mach-e, while the Future I is formed by the auxiliary werden, which is inXected for person, and the inWnitive of the main verb: ich werde machen. The Preterite of weak verbs is formed by insertion of -t- between the verb stem and the inXection for person: ich mach-t-e, and for the Perfect, the present form of the auxiliary haben or sein is combined with the participle, which is formed with the preWx ge- and the suYx -t: ich habe gemacht. The Pluperfect is formed in a similar way, but uses the Preterite form of the auxiliary (ich hatte gemacht), while the Future II takes the future auxiliary werden, the participle of the verb and the inWnite of the auxiliaries haben or sein (ich werde gemacht haben). Among the weak verbs are all low-frequency verbs, verbs which are derived from other word classes, onomatopoeia, nonsense words etc., and this pattern is therefore classiWed as the regular or default pattern of inXection (Clahsen 1999). The Preterite of the strong verbs is formed with a stem alternant of the verb, as in stehlen (‘steal’) ich stahl, while the participle (which is used with Perfect, Pluperfect and Future II) is formed with the preWx ge-, yet another stem alternant and the suYx -en (ich habe gestohlen/ich hatte gestohlen/ich werde gestohlen haben) (Eisenberg 1994: 115f.). There are three types of strong verbs: Those in which the stem vowel of the participle is identical with that of the Present (essen – aß – gegessen, ‘eat’), those in which it is identical with that of the Preterite (schreiben – schrieb – geschrieben, ‘write’), and those in which it is diVerent from both (singen – sang – gesungen ‘sing’), while the vowels of the present and Preterite stems are never identical. In the vast majority of cases, all stem alternants contain the same consonants, there are only twelve verbs like gehen – ging – gegangen ‘go’ and leiden – litt – gelitten ‘suVer’ for which this is not true (Halle 1953: 50). In addition, there is a small class of 13 ‘mixed’ verbs which have a stem alternant but otherwise follow the inXectional pattern of the weak verbs, e.g. bringen – brachte – gebracht (‘bring’). For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that (as is true for many other languages) the inXectional pattern of some auxiliaries and modal auxiliaries is highly irregular and does not follow any of the patterns described here (Halle 1953: 50). An exhaustive discussion would however be beyond the scope of this study. The German system of vowel alternation in irregular verbs therefore seems not unlike the English one. There is, however, a signiWcant diVerence in the

Morphology II: VP inXection

frequency of regular and irregular verbs: While in English, regular verbs account for 95% of the verb types and even among the 1,000 most frequent verbs, 86% are regular, in German the type and token frequencies of verbs requiring the past participle aYx -n (strong verbs) and those requiring the aYx -t (weak and mixed verbs) are similar (Clahsen 1999).

Auxiliaries Unlike in English, which has only one auxiliary to form the periphrastic past tenses, have, German verbs can form those tenses with either sein ‘be’ or haben ‘have’. There is some controversy in the search for underlying regularities as to which verbs take sein or haben as an auxiliary in forming the periphrastic tenses. The only uncontroversial Wnding is that transitive verbs take haben (Ich habe … gemacht) (Eisenberg 1994: 116; ThieroV 1992: 173). In intransitives, the choice of the auxiliary has commonly been assumed to be determined by Aktionsart, in that duratives like schneien ‘snow’ and reden ‘talk’ take haben while punctual verbs like ankommen ‘arrive’ take sein. It has, however, been pointed out that the description of the Aktionsart of German verbs is controversial and contradictory (Eisenberg 1994: 117), which has led Wunderlich (1985: 204V.) to hypothesize that the auxiliary is determined not by Aktionsart but by the choice of agent or theme as subject agentive in intransitives. However, this classiWcation, too, seems problematic, as was pointed out by Eisenberg (1994: 118f.), since it is hard to understand why, e.g. blühen ‘Xower’ and schlafen ‘sleep’ are classiWed as agentive verbs while their inchoative forms erblühen and einschlafen are thematic verbs. Eisenberg therefore suggests that haben is the unmarked choice for tense formation, and that the choice of sein is partly determined by ergativity (Eisenberg 1994: 119). He has to admit, however, that this parameter, too, cannot explain the choice of the auxiliary in all cases (Eisenberg 1994: 119). Less problematic is the auxiliary which is used to form the passive forms of verbs: Those are, in all cases, formed by werden ‘become’ which is inXected for tense and person and takes the participle form of the passivized verb: es wird gemacht (pres), es wurde gemacht (pret), es ist gemacht worden (perf) etc. Tense in L1 acquisition One main diYculty in the acquisition of (both L1 and L2) German tenses are the vowel changes in irregular verbs. As in some other cases of the acquisition of irregular inXectional processes, what has been called a ‘U-shaped’ sequence of development (Marcus 1995: 275) has frequently been observed both in the

133

134 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

acquisition of English and German irregular past tense forms: Irregular forms of are used correctly at a very early stage both in the synthetic and in the periphrastic past, then the regular inXections are overgeneralized to irregular verbs before irregulars and regulars are correctly diVerentiated and inXected (Clahsen 1999; Marcus 1995: 275; Kuczaj 1977: 598; Mills 1985: 168). Interestingly, both in English and in German overregularizations appear almost exclusively in irregular verbs: A typical error in German child language would be a participle such as *gekommt for gekommen (‘come’), but forms like *geschneien instead of geschneit (‘snow’) are rare (Clahsen 1999). In English this pattern could arguably be due to the low frequency of irregular verbs, but the similar type and token frequencies of regular and irregular verbs in German exclude the possibility of the acquisitional pattern being a mere distributional eVect. Together with other psycholinguistic evidence on the representation of German past participles, this acquisition process has therefore been regarded as evidence for a dual mechanism model of inXection, where regular inXection can be decomposed into stem and aYxes while irregular inXection is lexicallybased (Clahsen 1999; Pinker and Prince 1988). Data on the acquisitional process of the past tense auxiliary are relatively few. MacWhinney (1978: 54) reports that auxiliaries only enter child language after age 3;0 and the studies cited by Mills (1985: 169f.) suggest that the selection of the correct auxiliary is not an especially problematic task in L1 acquisition. All misapplications that were observed, however, concerned the overgeneralization of haben to verbs requiring sein, while overgeneralizations of sein were not reported (Mills 1985: 157; 170). The use of the passive, too, is reported to appear only relatively late. Between the age of 4;0 and 6;0, passives appear to be used with increasing frequency, but only in agentless constructions (Mills 1985: 156; 201). Interestingly, a frequent error in passive formation before 6;0 appears to be the use of the auxiliary sein instead of werden (Grimm 1983; Mills 1985: 201).

Tense in L2 acquisition In literature on German tense in L2 acquisition, especially for L1 speakers of English, the main points of concern are the acquisition of stem alternants of strong verbs (Bauer 1971; Born 1984; Halle 1953; Ulvestad 1956) and the Preterite/Perfect distinction (Banks 1982; Watzinger-Tharp 1984), suggesting that acquisitional diYculties in L2 German are based on two things: a. irregularities/unpredictabilities of the inXectional system (strong verbs)

Morphology II: VP inXection

b. functional diVerences between the L1 and the L2 system (the aspectual diVerence carried by English synthetic and periphrastic past which is lacked by the — mainly stylistic — diVerence in the application of German synthetic and periphrastic past) However, since all these studies treat the German tense system mainly from a didactic and not experimental point of view, they do not present actual quantitative Wndings of errors in the L2 acquisition of the German tense system and can therefore only tentatively be used as a basis to establish hypotheses on possible sources of mistakes in its attrition. The attrition of L1 German tense marking is mentioned only in passing by Seliger and Vago, who found instances of strong verbs being inXected according to the weak inXectional pattern in the speech of a German native speaker who was living in an English environment (Seliger and Vago 1991: 11).

Tense in L1 attrition The only study to investigate tense and subject–verb agreement in German L1 attrition is Köpke (1999). Her data contain 0.47 interferences per 1,000 words for the L2 English speakers, and only 0.06 for the monolingual control group. Interferences in the corpus Strong, mixed, and weak verbs From the discussions on German tense marking summarized above, it can be hypothesized that interferences in the domains of tense and mood will come from various sources. Based on the Wndings from the acquisition of German, it can be predicted that the inXection of strong verbs will be more problematic than that of weak verbs, but the role of ‘mixed’ verbs has not been investigated in this context. The corpus contains a total of 25 verb forms which follow the inXectional pattern of another verb category or show a misapplication in the vowel alternation of strong verbs. Only 5 of these occur with the Preterite forms of the verbs. The analysis of a stretch of text of 1,000 words from each interview on the other hand, revealed that 46.9% of the Wnite verbs used were in the Preterite while only 27.7% were in the Perfect (see Table 5, Appendix I). This suggests that the small number of errors with the Preterite is not due to an overall reduced frequency of this tense. It is therefore at least possible that these forms are less vulnerable to attrition than past participles. Since the small number of interfer-

135

136 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

ences in this domain does not permit any generalized conclusions, this hypothesis will not be pursued further here and remains to be investigated. The inXection of strong verbs is deviant in 10 cases. In half of these, the inXectional pattern used is that of weak verbs. Table 31. ‘Weak’ inXection of strong verbs Form used

Form required

Interview

gefahrt [part] ‘drive’ geleidet* [part] ‘suVer’ gelügt [part] ‘lie’ geschobt [part] ‘push’ werften [pret] ‘throw’

gefahren gelitten gelogen geschoben warfen

Bella S., p. 6 Theo S., p. 12 Theo S., p. 13 Gertrud U., p. 12 Bella S., p. 2

*Note that this is one of the twelve verbs where the consonants of the past forms are not identical with the Present.

In 5 more cases, vowel alternation is present and the correct perfect participle suYx -en is used, but the stem vowel is alternated incorrectly. Interestingly, in 3 of these cases (getranken, sproch and wirfen) the vowel used is correct in some other inXection of the verb: Table 32. Incorrect vowel alternation in strong verbs Form used

Form required

Interview

eingestagen [part] ‘climb on’ eingestanden [part] getranken [part] ‘drink’ sproch [pret] ‘talk’ wirfen [pret] ‘throw’

eingestiegen eingestiegen getrunken sprach warfen

Ruth K., p. 47 Ruth K., p. 46 Gertrud U., p. 3 Fritz K., p. 1 Bella S., p. 2

In 8 cases, the verb in question belongs to the ‘mixed’ class, and all but one of these follow the inXectional pattern of weak verbs, i.e. the vowel alternations are dropped: Table 33. Deviant inXection of ‘mixed’ verbs Form used

Form required

Interview

erkennt [part] ‘recognize’ gekennt [part] ‘know’ verbrennt [part] ‘burn’ beibrach [pret] ‘teach’ wißten [pret] ‘know’ willten [pret] ‘want’

erkannt gekannt verbrannt beibrachte wußten wollten

Ruth K., p. 43; Theo S., p. 11 Gertrud U., p. 8 Gertrud U., p. 7 Bella S., p. 6 Charlotte G., p. 23 Theo S., p. 9

Morphology II: VP inXection 137

In one more instance of missing vowel alternation the suYx -en, which marks the participle of strong verbs, is chosen: gewissen ‘know’ appears instead of gewußt (Irma M., p. 42). Where the diYculties with the inXection of weak verbs are concerned, there are two cases where the problem appears not to be the inXectional pattern but the verb stem: The forms *diskussiert ‘discuss’ instead of diskutiert and *beerdet ‘buried’ instead of beerdigt are probably due to an incorrect lexical retrieval of the verb stem as such. But in the remaining 5 instances, the participle is formed with the strong verb suYx -en or in one case (two tokens) with a change in the stem vowel (note that both instances are from the same interview and occur within 13 clauses of each other). Table 34. ‘Strong’ inXection of weak verbs Form used

Form required

Interview

gebeten ‘pray’ geretten ‘save’ gestückt ‘put’ gewohnen ‘live’

gebetet gerettet gesteckt gewohnt

Charlotte G., p. 24 Gertrud U., p. 5 Gertrud U., p. 12 (2x) Gertrud U., p. 3

Since the inXection of weak verbs apparently has suVered only for two informants, the hypothesis that strong and mixed verbs will be most vulnerable to attrition is conWrmed by these Wndings. Overall, however, the number of interferences in this domain is surprisingly small, and furthermore only six of the informants made that type of mistake at all. It therefore appears that the inXectional patterns of strong, weak, and mixed verbs are highly resistant to attrition.

Periphrastic forms The rules on how diVerent forms of the main verb are combined with one or more (modal) auxiliary or auxiliaries appear to be more problematic than the inXectional rules by which the Preterite or participle forms of the verb itself are formed: A total of 50 interferences was found in this domain. Most prominently, the periphrastic past was used with an incorrect auxiliary in 19 cases. In 11 of these haben is overgeneralized as predicted (see ex. (54)), in 7 sein is used where haben would be appropriate (see ex. (55)) and in one case the modal auxiliary kann is used instead of haben (see ex. (56)). (54) da hab ich dann weiter von einer Fabrik zur andren gegangen ‘so I went on from one company to the next’ (Ruth K., p. 32)

138 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(55) sie haben Klavier gespielt, sie sind […] Sport getrieben ‘they played the piano, they exercised’ (Emma B., p. 5) (56) kann bis heut noch nicht Englisch gelernt ‘hasn’t learned English to this day’ (Hilde W., p. 14)

Although the sample of seven tokens of overgeneralizations of sein is not very large, this is an interesting Wnd, since it not only goes against the tendencies established in German L1 acquisition (note however that there is only very little data to support these Wndings, see above) but cannot be ‘blamed’ on L2 inXuence either, since English does not use be as an auxiliary to form periphrastic tenses. In addition, there are seven cases in which the auxiliary is missing from the periphrastic construction, four of which would require sein (see ex. (57)) and three haben (see ex. (58)): (57) but sehen Sie wir Ø [aux] nach Lüttich gezogen [Part.] ‘but you see we moved to Lüttich’ (Ernst L., p. 4) (58) nachdem sie geheiratet [Part.] Ø [aux] da haben sie in Aachen auch ne Metzgerei gehabt ‘and after she got married they also had a butcher’s shop in Aachen’ (Berta D., p. 2)

A similar pattern can be found in the choice of auxiliary with the passive: There are 34 cases where the auxiliary sein is chosen instead of the passive auxiliary werden, e.g.: (59) So, ich habe so einen Ehrendoktoranden bekommen, es ist nicht so genannt aber hinter Ihnen ist die […] Plak- das Plakat, das davon spricht. ‘so I got a honorary doctorate, that’s not what it’s called here, but there behind you is the announcement’ (Theo S., p. 11) (60) der älteste war nach Kanada geschickt ‘the eldest son had been sent to Canada’ (Gertrud U., p. 13)

and one case where the auxiliary is missing from the passive construction: (61) als meine Mutter nach Hause kam hat sie keine ganze Tasse mehr gehabt in der Wohnung, alles Ø [aux] aus dem Fenster schmissen ‘when my mother came home she didn’t have a single cup left whole, everything had been thrown out of the window’ (Margot L., p. 11, note that in addition to dropping the auxiliary the informant omitted the participle preWx ge-)

Morphology II: VP inXection 139

It is interesting to note that the number of misapplications of the passive auxiliary is so much higher than that of interferences with the auxiliary in the periphrastic past; especially since the passive voice is less frequent in spoken German than the active. Since both the overregularization of haben as a past auxiliary and of sein as a passive auxiliary are found in German L1 acquisition, and both might equally be due to interlanguage eVects, the pivotal factor in this case could be the sequence of acquisition: Passive constructions are acquired relatively late by L1 learners of German. However, both types of interference could also be the outcome of interlanguage eVects. In addition to these misapplications of the auxiliaries, there is a total of 24 cases where the inXectional patterns of more than one tense are mixed up or some part of a periphrastic construction is missing. These instances are hard to categorize and classify, since they do not follow any observable pattern. They include the use of an inWnitival form in participle constructions and vice versa, as exempliWed by ex. (62) and (63); the formation of the Preterite with either an auxiliary, an inWnitival form, or the past participle preWx ge- (see examples (64), (65), and (66) respectively), periphrastic past constructions where the participle is dropped (see ex. (67)) and Present constructions where the copula is missing (see ex. (68)). (62) und da habe ich drei Tage geweint äh nach der weggehen [inf] ist ‘and I cried for three days after he left’ (Gertrud U., p. 2) (63) ich würde schrecklich gerne gewissen [part] ‘I would really like to know’ (Irma M., p. 4) (64) Ostfriesland ist kein Bezirk, sondern eine Landschaft, eine historische Landschaft, ich glaube es ist [aux] seit vierundvierzig an Preußen kamen [pret] ‘Ostfriesland isn’t a district, it’s just seen as an entity historically, I think it joined Prussia in forty-four’ (Albert S., p. 10) (65) die war [pret] damals fünfzig sein [inf] ‘she was Wfty at the time’ (Thea S., p. 15) (66) Bevor wir uns rumgedrehten [pret] ‘before we’d turned around’ (Gretl L., p. 27) (67) Die Tochter ist [aux] neunzehnfünfzig Ø [part]. ‘the daughter was born in Wfty-nine’ (Hilde W., p. 11) (68) so, das Ø [cop] meine Schwester, die in Amerika- die in äh Monte Carlo lebte

140 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

‘so that was my sister, who lived in America- er, in Monte Carlo’ (Ilse N., p. 15)

A last interesting observation concerns not the occurrence of a phenomenon, but the lack of it: In no case were the German equivalents of the English (quasi) auxiliaries go and do used deviantly. This is a rather surprising Wnding in view of the fact that the development of grammaticalization and ‘auxiliarization’ of to be going to has been described as “a fairly general (or near-universal) development” in terms of the language change typology (Danchev and Kytö 1994: 69f.). The rise of do-support to mark questions, negations, and emphatic uses, too, is a language change phenomenon that is widely observed (Stein 1990: 275).

Use of tenses Where the application of tense is concerned, the classiWcation of interferences is problematic: Since e.g. the underlying regularities which dictate the application of Preterite vs. Perfect or Present vs. Future I — especially in spoken language — are problematic, ‘mistakes’ in these domains were not considered, and misapplications of the tenses were limited to the use of past tenses when the reference was clearly to the present and vice versa. This excludes all misapplications except switches within sentences or uses with a tense adverbial, e.g. (69) Mein Brief zum Beispiel hat […] Wochen gedauert [perf], bis der […] ankommt [pres] ‘my letter, for example, took weeks to get there’ (Hilde W., p. 9) (70) denn man muß [pres] aYdavit- Geber haben damals ‘because then you needed someone to give you an aYdavit’ (Alice J., p. 4)

The corpus contained 38 instances where the use of a certain tense was felt to be deviant. 13 of these are problematic, since they involve the use of the Pluperfect in Preterite or Perfect contexts, e.g.: (71) und ich hab [perf] dann am neunten November mein Visum bekommen, aber ich das war [pluperf] nicht in Kraft getreten bis Mitte J- Dezember ‘and so I got my visa on November 9th, but that wasn’t valid before midDecember’ (Alice J., p. 5)

Here, the Pluperfect is used to refer to an event which is not located earlier in time than the event referred to in the Perfect. Although this use of the Pluperfect is unacceptable in Standard German, it is used frequently in the local dialect of the Düsseldorf area, as exempliWed by the following exchange:

Morphology II: VP inXection

(72) A: Axel und Tina haben [perf] doch in Schwarz geheiratet, oder? B: Nee, Tina hatte [pluperf] ein dunkelrotes Kleid angehabt. ‘Axel and Tina got married in black, didn’t they?’ — ‘No, Tina, was wearing a dark red dress’ (Conversation overheard on 12/20/1999)

The misapplications of the Pluperfect will therefore not be considered for this investigation. The remaining 25 instances are distributed as follows: Table 35. Misapplication of tenses Tense used

Tense required

n

pres pres pres pret fut II

pret perf pret/perf pres fut I

20 1 1 2 1

Obviously, the vast majority of these cases concern the overgeneralization of the Present to situations where a past tense would have been required. The use of the Present with past reference is often acceptable in spoken German, especially in narratives. However, utterances which are clearly anchored in the past, e.g. by the mentioning of a deWnite point in time or by a temporal adjective, require the use of a past tense, e.g.: (73) inzwischen ist [pres] dann am neunten November die Kristallnacht und ich hab [perf] nicht für zwei Wochen gewußt, wo meine Eltern sind ‘In the meantime November ninth was the pogrom, and for two weeks I didn’t know where my parents were’ (Alice J., p. 5) (74) zuerst wenn ich ähm wenn wir zuerst von England nach Deutschland gehen [pres] ähm wir kamen [pret] zur ähm nach Frankreich ‘the Wrst time when went from England to Germany, we Wrst came to France’ (Gertrud U., p. 10)

Another context in which the use of the Present with past reference is deviant is when there is a switch between tenses in the narration of events which clearly belong in the same (past) time frame, e.g.: (75) ein Soldat, ein ein berühmter Soldat, der ähm in Antio gefangengenommen war [pluperf], verweigert [pres] die Aussage, der andere verweigerte [pret] sie ni- sich sie nicht ‘one soldier, a famous soldier who was taken prisoner at Antio, refused to make a statement, another one didn’t refuse’ (Albert S., p. 9)

141

142 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(76) Ich hatte [pret] wenige Freunde, aber die ich habe [pres], ein oder zwei, waren [pret] sehr gute Freunde ‘I didn’t have many friends, but those I had, one or two, were very close friends’ (Theo S., p. 1)

A closer look at the verbs which were used in those instances (see below Table 36) provides some insight into why the Present may have been used infelicitously in these utterances: Almost two thirds of the 22 cases where the Present was used with past reference contain a verb which also has (modal) auxiliary function — namely haben, sein or dürfen (‘to be allowed to’). It is possible that the potential for carrying past time reference of these verbs interfered with the speaker’s judgement in these cases. Table 36. Verbs used with infelicitous tense Verb haben ‘have’ sein ‘be’ dürfen ‘may’ ankommen ‘arrive’ arbeiten ‘work’ gehen ‘go’ unterrichten ‘teach’ verweigern ‘refuse’ wohnen ‘live’ machen ‘do’ müssen ‘have to’ zugeben ‘admit’

pres vs. past

pret vs. pres

fut II vs. fut I

10 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 22

2

1 1

The fact that the vast majority of misapplications of tense occur in the use of the Present with past time reference suggests that speakers have no problem of exploiting the past potential of the Present, but there may be some uncertainties where the constraints on that potential are concerned. Since the Present is derived directly from the verb stem and not marked further for tense, and since it can carry time references that include the present, the past, the future and the atemporal use, it may occupy a status that is related to an ‘unmarked’ one; which might explain the large number of overgeneralizations compared to the other tenses.

Morphology II: VP inXection 143

5.2 Number, Person German verbs have to agree in number and person with the subject. This inXectional system has been described as relatively transparent, since there are two conjugational patterns which are only slightly diVerent and can account for all Wnite forms in all full verbs (Eisenberg 1994: 110, see Table 37). Table 37. Person and number inXections in German (adapted from Eisenberg 1994: 110) pres

pret weak

1st 2nd 3rd

sg

pl

sg

pl

strong sg pl

-e -st -t

-en -t -en

-e -est -e

-en -et -en

-Ø -st -Ø

-en -t -en

Again, there are some (modal) auxiliaries which diVer from this pattern. They will not be discussed here.

Number and person in L1 acquisition The acquisition of number in subject–verb agreement has been studied by Clahsen and Penke (1992). They found that, while the 2nd and 3rd person verb inXections -t and -st are apparently agreement markers from the time they appear in child language, the stem forms of verbs (-Ø) and inWnitive (-n) forms of verbs are not used as agreement markers before acquisition stage IV (Clahsen and Penke 1992: 187). Since they have shown that there is a correlation between the correct application of these forms and the use of V2 structures, they argue that subject–verb agreement is a function of the acquisition of properties of lexical and morphological items which are a crucial prerequisite for the acquisition of the syntactic structure of the adult language (Clahsen and Penke 1992: 182). Interferences in the corpus The corpus contained 57 cases of non-agreement between subject and verb. All of these occurred either in the 1st or 3rd person, singular or plural, no interferences could be found on the 2nd person.3 Since these forms are often identical, the vast majority of mistakes occurred in the domain singular vs. plural. The tendency to mark nouns correctly for number while non-noun elements deviate from the intended number also asserted itself here: From the context of

144 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

each utterance it was evident that the subject only disagreed in 5 of these cases with the number the speaker had intended to use, e.g.: (77) es gab nur zwei Zimmer [pl] in unserm Haus, das [sg] nicht zerstört waren [pl] ‘there were only two rooms in our house that hadn’t been destroyed’ (Gertrud U., p. 12) (78) daß ich [1sg] die Leiter runtergefallen sind [1pl] ‘so that I fell down the ladder’ (Ernst L., p. 37)

In all other cases, it is the verb which is incorrectly marked for number, e.g.: (79) dann war [sg] da natürlich die beiden Rabbiner [pl] ‘and then, of course, there were the two rabbis’ (Margot L., p. 14) (80) Ich hab die Erfahrung gemacht, ä- kurz nach Kriegsende, wenn die oYziellen Daten [pl] für umgebrachte Juden als achten Mai neunzehnhundert ähm fünfundvierzig gegeben wurde [sg] ‘and I learned shortly after the end of the war when the oYcial dates of death for Jews who had been murdered were given as the eighth of May nineteen-forty-Wve’ (Bella S., p. 4)

It appears therefore that problems with number agreement are least pronounced for nouns, while verb inXection seems to be especially vulnerable. This tendency even holds if the eight instances of -Ø plural marking or singular in plural contexts listed in the previous section were to be counted as singulars and included in this addition: The wrong number would still be assigned to non-noun elements in almost 80% of the cases. Other than in Clahsen and Penke’s (1992) corpus, however, the deviant verb forms cannot, in most cases, be counted as inWnitives. This was easy to determine, since the nature of the data predetermines that most verb forms are in the past, where the plural is not identical with the inWnitive, as it is in the present. One instance of misuse of the plural form in the present was with sein, which also has a diVerent form in the plural (sind). Only two of the 52 instances were therefore ambiguous between an inWnitival and an inXected form. The remaining 50 forms were perfectly evenly distributed between plural forms in singular contexts and vice versa (see Table 38). Apparently, the singular does not have a ‘basic’ status like the one that was argued to apply to the Present in the previous section. A closer look at the sentences in which the interferences in subject–verb agreement occurred may,

Morphology II: VP inXection 145

Table 38. Use of verb forms pers used

pers req.

pl

1sg 3sg

pl sg

sg pl/inf pl/inf

cond 2 2

3sg 1pl 3pl

past 5 17 22

pres

1 1

5 20 25

1 4 20 25

1sg 3sg 2

47

1 4 20 25 1 1 2

1 1 2

3

52

however, provide some explanations for half of them: In 13 of the 57 cases of missing subject–verb agreement, the number agreement may have been triggered by the object with which the verb agrees, as in the following examples: (81) wenn ich [sg] äh äh Freundinnen [pl] von der Schule mitgebracht haben [pl] ‘when I brought friends home from school’ (Ilse N., p. 2) (82) wo man [sg] die Listen einsehen konnten [pl] ‘where you could check the lists’ (Margot L., p. 12)

More interesting from a cognitive perspective are the four examples in which a plural verb occurs with a singular noun which implies a collectivity of people (‘company’, ‘[political] party’, ‘family’), as in ex. (83) and (84) below, and the 11 instances where a singular verb applies to an enumeration of people, as in ex. (85) and (86) below. (83) wie sechs Monate später die Fabrik [sg] wieder aufgemacht gemacht haben [pl] ‘and when the company reopened six months later’ (Ruth K., p. 13) (84) Also es war einer [sg] da es war ein ein eine Firma [sg] da, eine PelzWrma [sg], die [sg/pl] äh mich d- die [sg/pl] mir ne Lehre gegeben hätten [pl] ‘and so there was a company, manufacturing furs, who would have taken me on as an apprentice’ (Albert L., p. 4) (85) Also wurde [sg] mein Vater und ich interniert, nicht meine Mutter. ‘and so my father and I were interned, my mother wasn’t’ (Albert L., p. 6)

146 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(86) obwohl ihr Vater und ich versuchte [sg], mit ganzem lieben Willen, sie überreden ‘even though her father and I tried with all our love to convince her’ (Bella S., p. 6)

It appears therefore that what governs non-agreement of number inXections for subject and verb is not an intralinguistic principle like unmarkedness of the singular vs. markedness of the plural, but textually or extralinguistically motivated factors. 5.3 Conclusion The total number of interferences in the domain of verb phrase morphology within this corpus reach a frequency of 1.31 per 1,000 words. This is an interesting Wnd, since it is the Wrst domain to be compared with Köpke’s data where there is a very perceptible diVerence between the data from this study and the data from her L2 English group: In this domain my informants made almost three times as many mistakes as hers. In the inherent domains of verb morphology, the attrition found in the corpus appears to conWrm the hypotheses that were drawn on the basis of existing studies on the German temporal system and its L1 and L2 acquisition. It was seen that — despite its similar distributional frequency in German — strong verb inXection is apparently more vulnerable than weak verb inXection. Of interest is the comparatively high number of mixed verb interferences in the corpus. This suggests that, while irregular inXection is less stable than regular inXection, where both principles are mixed there is the highest chance that eventually inXection will conform to just one or the other principle. In the domain of tense application, it might be hypothesized that the Present has an ‘unmarked’ status that is applied when past formation runs into problems. This might be due to the language production mechanisms being temporarily overridden by other tasks, but the nature of the data under observation does not provide conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis. Where relational categories, i.e. number and person, are concerned, it has again been shown that the deviant element is in the vast majority of cases the target, not the controller. This supports the Wndings from the section on NP morphology. In order to establish the relative distributional frequency of the variables considered in this section, it not only has to be taken into account that VP

Morphology II: VP inXection 147

morphology depends on the total number of Wnite verbs. In addition to this – Auxiliaries depend on the total number of periphrastic tenses – Verb inXection depends on the total number of past tenses The distribution of tenses, as found in a stretch of 1,000 words from each interview (see Table 5, Appendix I) was as follows: Table 39. Distribution of constituents over a stretch of 1,000 words from each interview

pres pret perf pqp fut

n

%

1,069 2,196 1,298 90 30 4,683

22.8 46.9 27.7 1.92 0.64

The analyzed stretches of text therefore contained a total of 3,584 past tense forms, but only 1,418 periphrastic tenses. If these Wgures are correlated with 25 interferences in the domain of inXection, but 50 misapplications of the auxiliary, it is evident that the proportion of mistakes on auxiliaries is far higher. Moreover, if the Wndings on VP morphology are combined with the Wndings on NP morphology established in the previous chapter, a clear picture emerges: Table 40. Absolute and relative distribution of interferences Case Gender Plural VP inXection Auxiliaries

n absolute

n relative

142 87 91 25 50

0.04 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.03

Table 41. Acquisitional patterns Age 1;6–2;0 2;0–2;6 2;6–3;3 3;4–3;8 5;0 6;0

Stage I II III IV V

Case

Gender

Plural

Finiteness / Agreement

Auxiliaries

148 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

The two variables which are described as being acquired earliest — gender and agreement–also have the least frequency of interferences in relation to their overall use. Case and auxiliaries have an intermediate position both in the acquisitional process and in the relative frequency of interferences, while plural marking is acquired last and has the highest frequency of ‘mistakes’ here. These Wndings do suggest that for German inXectional and relational morphology, the regression hypothesis cannot be entirely rejected.

Chapter 6

Syntax

An average sentence, in a German newspaper, is a sublime and impressive curiosity; it occupies a quarter of a column; it contains all the ten parts of speech — not in regular order, but mixed; it is built mainly of compound words constructed by the writer on the spot, and not to be found in any dictionary — six or seven words compacted into one, without joint or seam — that is, without hyphens; it treats of fourteen or Wfteen diVerent subjects, each enclosed in a parenthesis of its own, with here and there extra parentheses… (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

A fundamental distinction between English and German is that English relies on word order to assign syntactic functions while in German this is achieved mainly by morphological means; in other words, English is a rigid word order language while German has comparatively free word order. While variations from the canonical SVO-order in English are restricted to few instances and governed by syntactic, semantic and pragmatic principles, many sentence constituents in German can be permuted relatively freely (Bergs 1998; Kirkwood 1969: 88, 92; Lenerz 1977: 27f.; Schmid 1999). In free word order languages of this type, we typically Wnd three types of rules (Daneš 1967: 500): 1. ‘functional rules’ which clearly assign a syntactic function 2. ‘concomitant rules’ which, when violated, do not assign diVerent syntactic functions but lead to an ungrammatical or less acceptable structure 3. ‘weak rules’ which state the ‘unmarked’ order in which certain elements normally appear but which can be overruled by certain conditions (e.g. by certain aspects of the Topic-Focus structure of a sentence) ‘Weak rules’ in German apply predominantly to the order of nominal sentence constituents,1 the unmarked order for these being S-IO-DO. A permutation of these elements, even to the extent that an object is scrambled across the subject to initial position, is often permissible, although restrictions that are mainly

150 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

related to semantico-pragmatic principles like the givenness status of elements and to Heavy Argument Shift have been pointed out (Baerentzen 1992: 114; Bergs 1998; Grewendorf 1980: 29; Hoberg 1975: 68V.; Lenerz 1977). Concomitant rules in German apply, for example, to the position of empty or reXexive pronouns like es and sich (Lenerz 1977: 27), but could also be argued to cover elements like negators and certain adverbials. Where such rules are not observed, it is next to impossible to draw lines between acceptable, slightly odd and decidedly unacceptable structures. Despite all attempts to quantify notions like ‘topicality’ (and despite useful taxonomies like the one provided by Prince (1981)), the ‘given’ status of any element within a discourse cannot be established by easily operationalizable factors like the number of clauses since it was last mentioned; since more elusive phenomena like cognitive salience play a more important role (Schmid 1999: ch.2). I would like to illustrate this dilemma with some examples from my corpus. Sentences (87) through (91) are all instances where the unmarked SIO-DO-order has not been observed. My own feeling is that sentence (87) would sound slightly ‘better’ if DO and IO were reversed (which is why it was included in the corpus of interferences in the Wrst place), but that it still is an almost perfectly natural sentence. Sentences (88) through (90) are, again in my opinion, less natural while I don’t think example (91) would occur in native discourse. (87) es war wohl so, m- daß ähm wir alle [subj] äh wirklich nur ein paar Schritte [do] den Studenten [io] in dieser Richtung voraus waren ‘and in truth we all were only a few steps ahead of the students in that matter’ (Max M. , p. 3) (88) da haben sie einfach […] d- die Pension [do] ihm [io] ausgezahlt ‘so they paid him his pension’ (Ruth K., p. 13) (89) ich weiß nicht, ob meine Mutter irgendwas [do] mir [io] gegeben hat, was Gold war ‘I don’t know whether my mother had given me anything gold’ (Emma B., p. 14) (90) Da hab ich mich dann später dran erinnert als ich mal das Buch [do] mir [io] angesehn hab ‘I remembered that later when I looked at the book’ (Irma M., p. 13) (91) danach besonders ist mir [io] es [subj] klar und klarer geworden ‘and it was really after that that I realized this more clearly’ (Bella S., p. 6)

Syntax

The fact that these assessments are based exclusively on my own judgement and that other speakers might disagree with some or all of them only serves to prove my point that it is next to impossible to provide clear-cut rules that would allow to objectify such ratings. I will therefore not consider interferences that concern word order in what has been called the Mittelfeld of German sentences in this study and exclusively look at instances that violate ‘functional’ word order rules. In other words, this study of interferences in the domain of German word order will be conWned to verb placement.

6.1 German sentence types and verb placement You observe how far that verb is from the reader’s base of operations; well, in a German newspaper they put their verb away over on the next page; and I have heard that sometimes after stringing along the exciting preliminaries and parentheses for a column or two, they get in a hurry and have to go to press without getting to the verb at all. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

The various German sentence types have been discussed extensively, and a comprehensive overview would be beyond the scope of this study. The discussion here will therefore be conWned to the basic types of assertive sentences, and additional complications will be explained in the course of the analysis where they become relevant. Where German verb placement is concerned there is a distinction between main and subordinate clauses. In main assertive clauses, the verb always occupies the second position.2 The Wrst position (Vorfeld) can be Wlled with any constituent, but may not contain more than one element (Auer 1993: 193), although the element may consist of more than one item. The Vorfeld can, for example, contain subordinate clauses, as in ex. (92): (92) Wie weiter zu erfahren war [sub], verfolgt [v] Schäuble seit einiger Zeit die Idee, eine unabhängige Institution zu bilden, die über Konsequenzen aus der SpendenaVäre nachdenkt. (All examples in this subsection are from Süddeutsche Zeitung, 15./16.1.2000)

or complex constituents, as in ex. (93):

151

152 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(93)

Nach Schäubles Eingeständnis, selbst eine Spende in Höhe von 100 000 Mark von dem in Kanada lebenden Geschäftsmann Karlheinz Schreiber angenommen zu haben, und der sich daraus ergebenden Glaubwürdigkeitskrise [pp] hätten [vfin] die genannten Persönlichkeiten ihre Zustimmung zur Mitarbeit erklärt [vinf].

The sentence-initial position is often occupied by the subject (Hoberg gives a frequency of 50% for subject-initial main clauses (Hoberg 1975: 76)), but except for (unstressed) pronominal dative and accusative complements and adverbial conjuncts, all constituents can appear in preverbal position (Hoberg 1975: 76). It is sometimes stated that the predicate which forms the discontinuous structure called Satzklammer (see below) is excluded from this position (Hoberg 1975: 76; Duden-Grammatik 1984), but this can be demonstrated not to be the case by sentences like (84): (94) Betont [vinf] wurde [vfin] in Parteikreisen, dass es sich bei der Kommission um ein “Beratungsgremium” handle.

In addition to this verb second rule there is the so-called Particle rule which places the non-Wnite part of the verb in auxiliary constructions in sentence Wnal position in main clauses (Jordens 1988a: 152) — the Satzklammer (‘sentence bracket’). Such discontinuous structures occur with past participles (see ex. (95)) or inWnitives (see ex. (96)) in periphrastic constructions, or with separable verb particles (see ex. (97)) (95) Doch das letzte Wort ist [vfin] für die Anrechnung ohnehin noch nicht gesprochen [vinf]. (96) Ost hatte erklärt, Schäuble solle [vfin] entweder den Partei- oder den Fraktionsvorsitz abgeben [vinf]. (97) Auch die Vorsitzende der Jungen Union, Hildegard Müller, wies [vfin] Rücktrittsforderungen zurück [vinf].

In subordinate clauses, the sentence-initial position is occupied by a subordinating conjunction or a relativizer, and the Wnite verb appears in sentence-Wnal position: (98) Auch Generalsekretärin Angela Merkel kündigte an, dass [subordinator] es in Kürze Statut- und Kompetenzänderungen in der CDU geben [vinf] werde [vfin].

Syntax

It should be remarked that for some subordinating conjunctions, most notably weil, in recent years a tendency to appear with V2 instead of verb-Wnal placement has been observed. The debate on this issue is controversial: While from a linguistic point of view semantic and pragmatic diVerences between weilclauses with main and subordinate word order have been pointed out (see among others Keller (1995); Uhmann (1998)), prescriptive grammarians often view this tendency as just one more instance of a degenerating language (for an overview of this discussion see Uhmann (1998: 93f.)). Since weil with main clause word order is clearly used quite frequently in contemporary spoken German (and it is not clear since when this has been the case, see Uhmann (1998: 132V.)), instances of this have not been counted as deviant in the analysis of the corpus. The strong predisposition for (part of) the verb to appear in sentence-Wnal position both in main and subordinate clauses has led to a long-standing and unresolved debate on whether German is to be considered a language which is basically SOV.3 Generative approaches usually assume an underlying order of the type Topic – Comp – S – O – V, from which the Wnite verb is moved to the sentence-initial comp position, unless that position is blocked by a complementizer (i.e. only in main clauses), and another element is moved to the TOPIC position which precedes the verb (Du Plessis, Solin, Travis and White 1987: 58; The position that German is basically SOV is also held by — among others — Clahsen and Muysken 1986: 95; Jordens 1988a: 149; te Velde 1992: 339f). From a typological point of view, based on Greenberg’s notion of implicational universals, on the other hand, it has been argued that German has mixed word order, i.e. SVO in main and SOV in subordinate clauses, since it behaves more like SVO than like SOV languages in many respects (Comrie 1981: 82; Erdmann 1990). A unifying account of these debates is given by Louden (1992).

6.2 Verb placement in English For Modern English, the basic SVO word order has never seriously been called into doubt. Most of the German sentences illustrated above do not, therefore, have a corresponding structure in present-day English. The exception are structures of the type X-vfin-S-[vinf], a sentence structure that, for English has been called subject-verb-inversion (SVI) or simply inversion.4 SVI in English can exchange the positions of lexical verb and subject, as in (99), or of (modal) auxiliary and subject, as in (100):

153

154 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

(99) Along one wall stood [vfin] a massive wooden bench [s] with a vice bolted to the front of it. (Schmid 1999: 54, ex. (11)) (100) Kate knew that not for many nights would [vfin] she rid [vinf] herself of that scene […] (Schmid 1999: 100, ex. (21))

Inversion in English has been shown to be a device that can achieve both pragmatic/stylistic eVects and enhance the functions of information and discourse management (see among others Birner 1992; Dorgeloh 1997; Stein 1995). It is discourse-based in the sense that the acceptability of inversions can depend on the information status of the fronted element. These again are pragmatic restrictions that are very hard to quantify (for a discussion see Schmid 1999: ch. 3), and interlanguage eVects in the violation of these restrictions in L1 attrition of German would therefore be very hard to prove. However, there is one basic syntactic distinction between English and German VS phenomena, that might prove relevant to the study of L1 attrition of German: Since English uses word order to assign argument roles, full verb inversions are only acceptable with intransitive verbs, since intransitive sentences contain no competing NPs and the postverbal subject is still unambiguously identiWable (Dorgeloh 1997: 33). German, on the other hand, makes no distinction between transitives and intransitives in VS constructions. It will have to be seen whether unacceptable XSV constructions in German are inXuenced by this discrepancy. If this could be shown to be the case, it would be a strong argument in favor of interlanguage eVects in this area. Overall, mistakes in the ordering of subject and verb could also be ascribed to the speaker’s falling back on the S-V order which, as was remarked above, has the highest frequency in German main clauses and could therefore be described as ‘unmarked’ on a distributional basis. If, however, a correlation between infelicitous X-S-V orders and transitivity can be made, it seems reasonable to assume that this is an eVect of the grammatical system of the L2 (English) encroaching on the L1 (German) which does not make any such distinction.

6.3 German word order in acquisition Most of the research that has been conducted on the acquisition of German word order was motivated by questions in the generative tradition, such as whether or not L1 and L2 learners possess a language acquisition device (LAD) and have access to principles of Universal Grammar (UG). In this context,

Syntax

evidence for or against diVerent processes of L1 and L2 acquisition was looked for. Clahsen (1982; 1984; 1988) and Clahsen and Muysken (1986; 1989) have argued that L1 learners possess this LAD and have access to innate move alpha rules from the beginning, while L2 learners do not. Du Plessis, Solin, Travis and White (1987), arguing on the basis of a diVerent analysis of underlying German word order, found evidence supporting the view that UG is still available in L2 acquisition, i.e. that parameters can be reset (Du Plessis, Solin, Travis and White 1987: 73). Jordens (1988a, 1988b, 1988c), on the other hand, contested Clahsen and Muysken’s view on UG in L1 acquisition, claiming that the analysis of their data was faulty, and arguing that there was no conclusive evidence showing that L1 learners (of German and Dutch) have access to innate principles. In his view, stages of L1 acquisition of word order are mainly due to the nature of the input (e.g. Jordens 1988c: 63). Clahsen and Muysken subsequently defended their position against Jordens’ criticism (Clahsen and Muysken 1989: 17f., footnote 4). It is not the purpose of this study to give an integrated account of these diVerent positions or to join one or the other acquisitional camps. The following sections will therefore be conWned to presenting the Wndings of these studies, while theoretical conclusions derived from them will not be gone into (for an overview of the discussion see Clahsen and Muysken 1989).

German word order in L1 acquisition The earliest and, to this date, most comprehensive study of L1 acquisition of German sentence structures is Clahsen (1982). His observations, which were corroborated by Mills (1985), indicated that the acquisitional process is divided into four stages. Stage I:

The constituents do not appear in Wxed linear order; all verbal elements can appear in second or Wnal position, but the sentence-Wnal position is preferred. (Jordens 1988b: 137 points out that at this stage, particle elements like darauf, an, um, raus are not yet separated.)

Stage II: Non-Wnite verbal elements are conWned to sentence-Wnal position, Wnite verbs still appear both in second and Wnal (preferred) position Stage III: Finite verbs are in second position, non-Wnite parts appear in discontinuous word order. Stage IV: Embedded clauses are used with the Wnite verb in Wnal position from the time they Wrst occur (Clahsen 1982, see also Clahsen and Muysken 1986: 97f.; Clahsen 1988: 53f.; Collings 1990: 37).

155

156 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

One crucial factor in the acquisition of German sentence types is the distinction of Wnite and non-Wnite verb elements. The recognition of what is and what is not a Wnite verb is a necessary prerequisite for verb second placement and the acquisition of discontinuous verb structures (Jordens 1988b: 132f.). The acquisition of these sentence types (stage II and III) therefore takes place at the same time as Wniteness markers on verbs are acquired (Clahsen 1988; Clahsen and Penke 1992; see the section on VP inXection above). This acquisitional sequence has been discussed in terms of parameter settings, but this debate will not be gone into here. In summary, it can be said that the structure of the target language is apparently recognized by L1 learners at a very early stage (Clahsen and Muysken 1986: 103), and few mistakes are made: Clahsen (1982) found that, when his subjects started to actually use embedded structures — i.e. had discovered the main/subordinate clause distinction — they always did so with the verb in sentence-Wnal position, and incorrect sentences of the XSV type have also not been observed in the speech of L1 learners (Du Plessis, Solin, Travis and White 1987: 61).

German word order in L2 acquisition The two major steps that are necessary in child language for the acquisition of the three basic structures — VS, X-Vfin-S-Vinf (discontinuous word order) and verb Wnal in embedded clauses — are the acquisition of the Wnite/inWnite distinction and of the main/embedded clause distinction (acquisition of an INFL category and Wxing of a COMP parameter). It is not surprising that these correlations do not hold in L2 German, since adult learners are able to make both these distinctions at the beginning of the acquisition process. A crucial diVerence between the acquisition of L1 and L2 German is that in L2 there is no preference for sentence-Wnal placement of Wnite verbs: Native speakers of various languages (Romance, Turkish, and English) tend to start out with the assumption that German is SVO and then progress through various stages (Clahsen, Meisel and Pienemann 1983; Du Plessis, Solin, Travis and White 1987; for an overview of the research see Clahsen and Muysken 1989: 12f.). It is important to note that these stages can apparently be distinguished by means of implicational scales (Clahsen 1984: 224), i.e. the presence of any element which is acquired at a later stage implies the presence of all elements acquired earlier. Various studies have proposed models for the L2 acquisition of German word order which vary only slightly (Clahsen and Muysken 1986; Clahsen 1984;

Syntax 157

Clahsen 1988; Clahsen, Meisel and Pienemann 1983; Du Plessis, Solin, Travis and White 1987). In principle, the model proposed by Clahsen (1988: 58) sums up the major factors which most researchers seem to agree on: Stage I:

SVO, adverb preposing

Stage II: PARTICLE [i.e. discontinuous word order]; extraposition of subject Stage III: Subject-verb inversion, ADV VP (adverbials can be placed optionally between the subject and the Wnite verb) Stage IV: V END (= verb Wnal in subordinate clauses).

It therefore appears that the sentence structures that will be investigated in this study — V2, discontinuous word order, and V Wnal — are acquired in the same order in L1 and L2. However, in L1 acquisition the preferred word order is SOV while in L2 acquisition it is SVO. It will have to be seen whether the instances of deviant word order from the corpus point towards a preference for either of those word orders, and whether an implicational scale can be established (the way it has been for L2 learners) in such a way that the loss of one feature presupposes the loss of another, but not vice versa.

German word order in L1 attrition The problem of German syntax in L1 attrition is mentioned by Waas, who claims that word order “caused a particular and recurrent problem” for all of her subjects (1996: 165). However, the amount of mistakes she found is not quantiWed, and moreover she mentions lack of ‘inversion’ as a particular problem, but the example she gives deviates on placing an adverbial after vinf in a dwo-structure, not on V2 placement. Håkansson (1995), who studied the loss of the V2-rule in Swedish found no attrition whatsoever in this domain. Köpke’s (1999) data combines all instances of word order that was felt to be ‘deviant’ by the judges under the domain of syntax. At a total of 5.2 interferences per 1,000 words, her L2 English group does not have signiWcantly more interferences than the monolingual control group.

6.4 Interferences in the corpus The structures under investigation in the present section are far more easily avoided by an insecure speaker than the morphological phenomena treated

158 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

above. If any nominal element is used at all, for example, gender marking on determiners and other elements is obligatory; while other morphological features are dependent on the extralinguistic situation described — if more than one occurrence of a referent is being referred to, plural is obligatory. In contrast to that, word order variation is, to some extent, dependent on the choice of the speaker. It is, in theory, perfectly possible to stick to SVO for the entire duration of a narrative without any resulting deviant constructions. Furthermore, the use of certain sentence structures is dependent to a large degree on style, which may vary during the course of a narrative. It is therefore doubtful whether a simple correlation of the amount of ‘mistakes’ with the total amount of German words used within an interview would give any meaningful insights into the attrition process. For the present section, therefore, the strategy of converting the number of interferences to a frequency per 1,000 words has been abandoned. Instead, an analysis of the entire length of each interview for correct as well as incorrect occurrences of each of the sentence structures under observation has been conducted. 6.4.1 Verb-subject structures in main clauses In the next place, I would move the Verb further up to the front. You may load up with ever so good a Verb, but I notice that you never really bring down a subject with it at the present German range — you only cripple it. So I insist that this important part of speech should be brought forward to a position where it may be easily seen with the naked eye. (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

Over the entire corpus 5,050 sentence structures which require the subject to appear in postverbal position (vs-structures) were counted. In 103 of these, the verb does not appear in second position. In other words, the V2-rule was observed in 4,947 cases and violated in 103. Of these, 77 cases are instances of more than one element (X+subj) before the Wnite verb (see ex. (101) and (102)), while in 26 cases the verb appears sentence-initially in an ungrammatical way (see ex. (103) and (104)). (101) und dann den nächsten Tag [pp] mein Vetter und seine Familie [subj] kamen [vfin]. ‘and then the next day my cousin and his family came’ (Gertrud U., p. 12)

Syntax 159

(102) dann als ich ankam [subordinate] meine Kusine und ihr Mann [subj] haben [vfin] gesagt… ‘then when I arrived my cousin and her husband said…’ (Berta D., p.13) (103) das erste Mal nachm Krieg mit meinem Mann und [conj] hab [vfin] ich [subj] sogar versucht, meine Freundin zu erreichen ‘the Wrst time was after the war with my husband, and I even tried to call my friend’ (Lotte A., p. 10) (104) von Köln aus bin ich hierher, aber [conj] bin [vfin] ich [subj] erst nach Düsseldorf. ‘from Cologne I came here, but Wrst I went to Düsseldorf’ (Ilse N., p. 15)

In addition there were 83 cases where the subject was not placed after the verb after sentence initial so, as in the following example: (105) So wir [subj] arbeiteten [vfin] zusammen sehr erfolgreich. ‘so we worked together very successfully’ (Dieter K., p. 8)

These have not been classiWed as mistakes in this domain, since it was supposed (based among other things on intonation patterns) that here the element used is not the German conjunction so, but the English discourse marker which does not require postverbal position of the subject — in other words, these instances were classiWed as single-item code-switching. A look at the types of verbs used yields instances of interferences both with lexical verbs and with (modal) auxiliaries: (106) Ich hatte ein Rad mit dem [prep. obj.] ich [subj] bin [aux] immer von Hause zur Schule gefahren [vinf] ‘I had a bike that I used to go to school from home’ (Theo S., p. 3) (107) wenn Kinder in einem sehr frommen Haushalt aufwachsen [sub. cl.], die nächste Generation [subj] will [mod. aux] nichts davon wissen [vinf] ‘when children grow up in a very religious household the next generation doesn’t want any of it’ (Margot L., p. 14) (108) und die gingen dann und dann [prep] ein anderer [subj] kam [vfin] zurück vom Operationssaal ‘and then they went, and then someone else came back from the operating theatre’ (Lola R., p. 14)

However, there is a discrepancy between the correct and incorrect use of these verb types: While full verbs and (modal) auxiliaries are each used in approximately half the number of the correct cases, auxiliaries seem to be overrepre-

160 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

sented in the incorrect ones, as the following comparison shows. Table 42. Verb types in VS-structures Correct Auxiliary Full verb Total

n

%

2407 2540 4947

48.66 51.34

Incorrect n % 64 39 103

62.14 37.86

This is an unexpected and puzzling Wnding, since German does not make any distinction between full and auxiliary verbs as regards V2 placement. However, auxiliary verbs take an inWnitival complement (participle or inWnitive) which, according to the rules of discontinuous verb placement, has to be put at the end of the clause. The overrepresentation of incorrect VS-structures with auxiliaries and modals might therefore be due to this added complexity in verb placement. As was explained above, in German main clauses nearly all elements can be topicalized, triggering VS word order. The corpus contained instances of topicalized objects, prepositional phrases, temporal markers, discourse markers, adjective and adverbial phrases, participles and subordinate clauses, as the following (correct) examples illustrate: (109) Erfolg [do] kann [vfin] ich [subj] nur haben als Musikantiquar. ‘I’ll only be successful in rare books on music’ (Albert S., p. 18) (110) … und dem [io] konnt [vfin] ich [subj] nicht widerstehen ‘and I couldn’t resist that’ (Albert S., p. 4) (111) In Deutschland [pp] ist [vfin] man [subj] doch im April in die Schule gekommen. ‘In Germany school started in April’ (Emma B., p. 2) (112) Neunzehnhundertsechsundvierzig [temp. marker] wurde [vfin] ich [subj] als Apotheker angestellt. ‘In nineteen-forty-six I got a job as a pharmacist’ (Hans L., p. 3) (113) Akademisch [adj] war [vfin] die Schule [subj] sehr gut ‘Academically, the school was very good’ (Walter O., p.3) (114) geboren [participle] war [vfin] er [subj] in Bocholt. ‘He was born in Bocholt’ (Stefan S., p. 1)

Syntax

(115) Wenn es unterdrückt ist [sub], ist [vfin] es [subj] vielleicht besser, es wird nicht rausgelassen. ‘If it’s been repressed it might be better if it isn’t let out’ (Walter O., p. 1)

A look at the use of diVerent preposed elements in correct and incorrect applications of the V2-rule yields the following Wgures: Table 43. Percentages of correct and incorrect VS structures by preposed element Preposed element Conjunction Preposition/temporal DO subordinate clause other Total

Total

Incorrect

n

%

n

%

2,040 1,319 533 397 761 5,050

40.39 26.12 10.55 7.86 15.08

33 39 2 12 17 103

32.04 37.86 1.94 11.65 16.5

What is apparent here is that violations of the V2-rule are overrepresented in cases where the fronted element is a PP or a temporal marker or a subordinate clause — this last observation suggesting that rules which extend beyond clause boundaries may be more vulnerable to attrition than clause-internal rules. On the other hand, sentences which start with a conjunction are used with an infelicitous preverbal subject less often than their overall distributional frequency. Most prominently underrepresented among the incorrect cases, however, are sentences in which the fronted element is also a nominal sentence constituent, i.e. a direct object, possibly because two unrelated NPs — the subject and the direct object — ‘weigh’ more heavily than an NP and another constituent. This last observation needs to be taken into account in the analysis of the eVects of transitivity on V2 placement. As was noted above, subject-verb inversions in English are only possible with intransitive verbs, while German makes no distinction between transitives and intransitives in VS structures. Therefore, all sentences from the corpus which require the subject to appear after the verb were analyzed for whether they contained a direct object (DO) or an indirect object (IO) without a direct object; all remaining instances were classiWed as intransitive (this includes sentences with a prepositional object). The distribution was as follows:

161

162 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 44. Transitivity in VS sentences with full verbs Total Trans. Intrans

Incorrect %

n

%

n

2,188 2,862 5,050

43.32 56.67

31 72 103

30.09 69.90

Overall, it can be seen that incorrect transitive sentences are under- rather than overrepresented. This is probably related to the fact that, as was shown above, vs-structures are most stable when the preposed element is a direct object (which, of course, is only possible with transitive verbs, since intransitives per deWnition do not take a direct object). It was shown that the direct object was preposed in 10.55% of all 5,050 cases (see Table 43 above), i.e. in 533 sentences or 26.24% of the transitive cases, which may account to some extent for the diVerence in distribution of correct and incorrect applications observed here. In order to see whether transitivity plays any eVect at all in the attrition of V2 placement, the informants were categorized into three groups according to how many interferences they had in this domain per 1,000 words. The Wrst group contained those informants who had made no mistakes at all, the second group contained those informants who had up to 0.2 mistakes and the third group those who had 0.3–1.8 mistakes. The distribution was as follows: Table 45. Transitivity in VS structures Interferences /1,000 words (VS)

Correct Trans Intrans

Incorrect Trans Intrans

0 mistakes 0.17–0.83 0.85–4.2 Total

47.96 42.42 38.90 43.33

– 35.48 27.78 30.10

52.04 57.58 61.1 56.67

– 64.52 72.22 69.9

It seems clear from these Wgures that language attrition and transitivity in the domain of VS structures interact to some degree: Those informants who make more overall mistakes in this domain use less vs-structures with transitive verbs. The fact that intransitives are overrepresented to an even higher degree among the incorrect than among the correct structures, however, seems puzzling. These Wndings suggest that an interlanguage eVect for this rule might be operating. The nature of the data on which the present study is based does not, however, provide conclusive evidence for this; further studies will have to investigate it in a more rigorously controlled environment.

Syntax 163

6.4.2 Discontinuous word order The Germans have another kind of parenthesis, which they make by splitting a verb in two and putting half of it at the beginning of an exciting chapter and the OTHER HALF at the end of it. Can any one conceive of anything more confusing than that? These things are called ‘separable verbs.’ (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

The corpus contained 6,475 instances of structures that require discontinuous word order. In 84 of these, the Vfin–X – Vinf structure was not applied. Of these deviant utterances, 65 are auxiliary-past participle structures (see ex. (116)), 16 are modal auxiliary/inWnitive structures (see ex. (117)), and 3 are structures involving a separable particle (see ex. (118)). (116) Und ich bin gelaufen in meinen- oVenen Arme meiner Mutter ‘and I ran into my mother’s open arms’ (Bella S., p. 2) (117) vielleicht darf ich äh erwähnen äh unsere Schulerfahrungen ‘and may I mention our experiences in school’ (John Herz, p. 3) (118) wie wir nix hatten kam es vor wie as a Millionär oder so, nicht, wir uns vorstellen ‘since we didn’t have anything that sounded like being a millionaire, at least that’s what we imagined’ (Ilse N., p. 8)

The distribution of these three sentence types correlates almost exactly with the distribution of correct sentences with discontinuous word order: Table 46. Correct and incorrect uses of discontinuous word order Correct past part inf part

n

%

n

4,792 1,305 294 6,391

74.98 20.42 4.60

65 16 3 84

Incorrect % 77.38 19.05 3.57

It would appear, therefore, that none of these three structures are particularly vulnerable to attrition in comparison with the others. However, the average length of the deviant sentences is slightly longer than that of the correct ones: The correct structures average 5.2 words between Vfin and Vinf, the incorrect structures have a mean length of 6.6 words. This tendency to ‘lose track’ of verb

164 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

placement when there is more intervening lexical material is hardly surprising, and a similar tendency can be shown for subordinate clauses (see below). As a next step, an analysis of the (modal) auxiliary verbs used in DWO structures with past participles and inWnitives was conducted. It was found that, while the distribution of modal auxiliaries was very similar in correct and incorrect structures, there was a notable diVerence in the use of the tense auxiliaries haben and sein: While haben is perceptibly underrepresented in the incorrect usage, sein appears to be the most problematic of all verbs. 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Correct Incorrect

haben 55.39 46.91

sein werden können 19.88 4.23 8.40 29.63 6.17 4.94

sollen müssen dürfen 1.28 4.53 0.87 3.70 2.47 1.23

wollen Other 3.81 1.62 1.23 3.70

Figure 3. Distribution of auxiliaries in correct and incorrect dwo structures

A possible explanation for this phenomenon is to be found in the argument structures of the verbs which typically take haben vs. sein to form their periphrastic tenses. As was pointed out above, while there is no categorical rule for intransitive verbs, transitive verbs invariably take haben as an auxiliary. In other words, all verbs which take non-prepositional objects form the periphrastic past with haben. A look at what types of constituents were ‘framed’ by the Wnite and inWnite parts of the verb within the corpus shows that discontinuous word order is applied more systematically when the ‘framed’ element is a nominal constituent. The types of DWO structures were classiWed into the following categories:

Syntax 165

Table 47. Constituents ‘framed’ in dwo structures Type

Framed constituent(s)

+ obj obj + subj subj + subj – obj subj – obj +

ADJP ∧/∨ PP DO ∧/∨ IO DO ∧/∨ IO ∧ ADJP ∧/∨ PP S S ∧ ADJP ∧/∨ PP S ∧ DO ∧/∨ IO Subj. ∧ DO ∧/∨ IO ∧ ADJP ∧/∨ PP

As the following graph shows, incorrect structures are overrepresented in all combinations where a non-nominal constituent (ADJP and/or PP) is among the ‘framed’ elements. The least vulnerable structures appear to be those where only the subject occurs between Vfin and Vinf, while structures which only frame a non-nominal constituent are vastly overrepresented in the incorrect usage. Further to this very clear tendency in those cases where discontinuous word order has not been applied correctly in structures ‘framing’ more than one constituent, it is almost invariably the non-nominal constituent that appears outside of the Vfin–Vinf bracket.

60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 + % incorrect 57.14 25.52 % correct

Obj.

Obj. +

Subj.

Subj. +

Subj. Obj.

Subj. Obj. +

11.90

9.52

1.19

9.52

4.76

5.95

23.03

12.86

11.78

10.81

11.84

4.15

Figure 4. Distribution of correct and incorrect DWO structures by ‘framed’ constituent

166 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

This tendency strengthens the observation made in the previous section on VS structures, namely, that nominal constituents apparently ‘weigh’ more heavily as a trigger for word order structures that are not SVO. This may explain the overrepresentation of incorrect structures with sein, which are invariably intransitive and thus do not have nominal constituents other than the subject. To my knowledge, studies on the acquisition of German word order have not, so far, taken this factor into account. 6.4.3 Subordinates …Wnally, all the parentheses and reparentheses are massed together between a couple of king-parentheses, one of which is placed in the Wrst line of the majestic sentence and the other in the middle of the last line of it — after which comes the verb (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language)

The corpus contains 78 instances of subordinate clauses in which the verb was not placed in clause-Wnal position. In 71 of these, the word order was main clause word order, 66 of which were SV (see ex. (119) and (120)) and 5 were xvs (see ex. (121)). (119) ich hatte Glück gehabt, daß [comp] ich [subj] hatte [vfin] Geld auf der Sparkasse in Innsbruck ‘I was lucky, I had some money in the bank in Innsbruck’ (Dieter K., p. 5) (120) daß [comp] der Kindertransport [subj] war [vfin] nur für Kinder ‘that the Kindertransport was only for children’ (Ruth K., p. 30) (121) daß [comp] da und da ist [vfin] jemand [subj] festgenommen worden ‘that someone had been arrested somewhere’ (Hans L., p. 3)

In 6 more cases, the comp – X [vinf] vfin structure was observed, but an element from the Mittelfeld was extraposed to a postverbal position, resulting in an ungrammatical structure as in ex. (122): (122) mich mal geschnappt wie [comp] ich [subj] gestohlen [vinf] hab [vfin] Essen [obj] aus der SS Küche ‘he caught me once stealing food from the SS kitchen’ (Ernst L., p. 37)

Finally, one subordinate clause did not contain a Wnite verb:

Syntax 167

(123) daß [comp] das letzte Mal Ø [vfin], daß sie ihre Mutter sieht ‘that this would be the last time she saw her mother’ (Margot L., p. 11)

Overall, the corpus contained a total of 3,971 subordinates (i.e. 3,893 cases in which the verb-Wnal rule was observed). To get an impression of what might have caused the deviant structures, two things were taken into account: – –

the number of words which occurred between comp and vfin the type of subordinator

This count resulted in the Wnding that the mean number of words in the deviant cases was slightly higher than in the correct ones: While the sentences in which the verb-Wnal rule was observed had a mean length of 6.19 words, the deviant clauses averaged a length of 7.65 words. This Wnding, which is not very surprising, points to the conclusion that the speakers had more problems of ‘keeping track’ of their Wnite verbs in sentences which contained more elements. More interesting are the Wndings for the application of verb-Wnal according to the type of subordinator:

70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Correct

ind. quest.

rel

daß

temp cond caus

24.22 26.55 20.98 12.20 7.96

Incorrect 0.00

14.10 60.26 11.54 7.69

conc

misc

5.96

1.44

0.69

3.85

2.56

0.00

Figure 5. Percentages of correct and incorrect use of verb-Wnal by subordinator

168 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

These results suggest that verb-Wnal placement is least vulnerable to attrition in indirect questions and relative clauses, but very much more so in daß-clauses. For the other types of subordinators, the proportion of deviant uses parallels their overall distribution. 6.4.4 Conclusion The Wndings from this section suggest that an implicational scaling, based on the order of acquisition of the sentence structures under observation, is not possible. Table 48. Distribution of correct and incorrect sentence structures vs Correct Incorrect

dwo

n

%

n

%

4,947 103 5,050

97.96 2.04

6,391 84 6,475

98.7 1.3

Subordinates n % 3,893 78 3,971

98.04 1.96

The overall distribution of correct and incorrect sentence structures shows no discernible eVect; no one structure appears to have been used incorrectly to a much larger degree than any other. This suggests that — unlike for the morphological variables — there is no apparent rate of loss of these syntactical structures which parallels the rate of acquisition. L1 attrition in the domain of syntax is therefore apparently not determined by regression, i.e. by an unlearning process in reverse order of the original acquisitional sequence. On the other hand, the fact that the majority of interferences that were found in this domain show a trend towards use of SVO structures suggests that interlanguage may be a more important factor here. The assumption that these interferences occur because speakers map their sentences on English word order gains some support from the Wndings on VS structures and transitivity outlined above. In conclusion, it can thus be stated that the Wndings on L1 attrition of morphology in the data on which this study is based can be explained on the basis of the regression hypothesis. The Wndings from the domain of syntax, on the other hand, are apparently the outcome of an interlanguage eVect. It is possible that this diVerence is linked to the fact that two diVerent linguistic levels that are involved. It is equally possible that typological diVerences between L1 and L2 are responsible for these Wndings. However, determining that is beyond the scope of this study.

Chapter 7

Predictor variables

7.1 Independent variables For the purpose of the intralinguistic analysis presented in the previous sections, the corpus was treated as a homogenous set of data, and no intergroup comparisons between informants were made. A further step in the analysis is to look at the extralinguistic factors that play a role in the attrition process. To this end, informants were grouped by independent (extralinguistic) variables in order to make intergroup analyses of the dependent (linguistic) variables possible. The independent variables to be looked at are: – Age at the time of emigration (ageemi). To test the inXuence of this factor, informants were divided into two groups: One that was less than seventeen years old at the time of emigration (ageemi1) and one that was seventeen years and older (ageemi2). Table 49. Distribution of factor ageemi n ageemi1 ageemi2

–

18 17 35

mean age 13.17 22.53 17.72

s.d. 2.95 4.39 6.00

Interim use of the language. This factor is mainly based on the self-report data gained from the questionnaires. These data are divided into four subgroups: Use of German with parents (lgpar), with siblings (lgsib), with partner or spouse (lgspo), and with children (lgchi). Each of these factors has three possible values: Always or frequently (a/f), Seldom (s), and Never (n). As was pointed out above, self-report data are to be interpreted with care. The study therefore includes the native language of the partner or spouse of the informant (natlgs) as a further independent variable. While selfreport data are based on subjective assessments of a large variety of situa-

170 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

tions over a long time-span, the native language of the spouse is an objectively deWned factor which does not change over the course of time. Since all those informants who did marry at all married a native speaker of either English or German, this variable has three values: English (e), German (g) or No Spouse (n). It was hoped that by the juxtaposition of self-report data with the actual opportunity to use German, the reliability of these data could be assessed to some degree. Table 50. Distribution of factor natlgs n natlgse natlgsg natlgsn

–

%

8 22.86 21 60.00 6 17.14 35

mean age at emigration 16.00 13.00 20.14 17.72

The time at which the informant emigrated from Germany (emigra). Based on the historical classiWcation established above (see Chapter 2), it was decided to divide the sample into three groups: emigra1, comprising those informants who emigrated between January 1933 and September 1935; emigra2, comprising those who emigrated between October 1935 and October 1938; and emigra3 who left between November 1938 and the outbreak of World War II on Sept. 1st 1939.

Table 51. Distribution of factor emigra

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

n

%

7 14 14 35

20 40 40

mean age at emigration 16.29 17.29 18.86 17.72

In order to establish possible interactions between these independent variables, a correlation analysis was carried out. This analysis was unable to establish signiWcant correlations between most of the factors, suggesting that they are relatively evenly distributed.

Predictor variables

Table 52. Correlations between extralinguistic factors

ageemi natlgs lgpar lgsib lgspo lgchi

emigra

ageemi

natlgs

lgpar

lgsib

lgspo

n.s. n.s. n.s. .411* n.s. n.s.

– .484** n.s. -.508** -.657** -.532**

– n.s. n.s. -.595** -.418*

– .615** n.s. n.s.

– .542** n.s.

– .396*

*:p < .05; **: p < .005 (two-tailed)

It is evident from these Wgures that there is hardly any interaction between the ‘objective’ extralinguistic factors date of emigration, age at emigration, and native language of the spouse. The only signiWcant correlation to be found exists between ageemi and natlgs, where the distribution of the factors is as follows: Table 53. Distribution of factors ageemi and natlgs

ageemi1 ageemi2

n

natlgse mean age

n

natlgsg mean age

7 1 8

13.33 20.00 16.00

7 14 21

14.14 23.14 20.14

n

natlgsg mean age

n

4 2 6

12.25 19.00 13.00

18 17 35

mean age 13.17 22.53 17.72

The hypotheses for these two factors were that younger informants (ageemi1) would have a higher degree of attrition than informants in ageemi2, and that informants whose spouse was a native speaker of English (natlgse) would have a higher degree of attrition than natlgsg informants. If these two ten-

Table 54. Distribution of self-report data a/f

lgsib s

n

ageemi1 ageemi2

0.00 46.15 53.85 33.33 50.00 16.67

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

40.00 40.00 20.00 18.18 54.55 27.27 0.00 44.44 55.56

natlgsn natlgse natlgsg

a/f

lgspo s

n

7.69 53.85

7.69 30.77

84.62 15.38

– 0.00 43.75

– – 0.00 100.00 25.00 31.25

a/f

lgchi s

0.00 7.69 16.67 41.67

n 92.31 41.67

0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 11.76 35.29 52.94

171

172 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

dencies can be established in the statistical analysis, they would have to be expected to compound each other, and not cancel each other out on the basis of this correlation. In addition, there is some interaction between those ‘hard’ extralinguistic factors and the ‘subjective’ self-report data (see Table 54). Most prominently, informants who were younger when they emigrated (ageemi1) report less use of German than those who were older (ageemi2) in all domains where signiWcant eVects could be determined. Again, since both the factor of having emigrated at a younger age and the factor of restricted (reported) use of German were hypothesized to be conductive to language attrition, these factors can be expected to compound and not cancel out each other. For emigra3, the only signiWcant correlation is language use with siblings. Again, the group that was expected to have the highest degree of attrition (emigra3) reports the lowest amount of use of German with siblings. The fact that there is a signiWcant interaction between the native language of the partner or spouse and the reported language use with him or her as well as with the children is hardly surprising, since it is to be expected that the preferred language of interaction within the family will not be German if one spouse does not speak that language. All informants who were married to an English speaker reported they ‘never’ spoke German to him or her, nor with their children.

7.2 Dependent variables In order to establish the impact of these extralinguistic (independent) variables on language attrition of the sample under observation, a statistical analysis of the Wndings from the corpus was carried out. The dependent variables that were tested can be classiWed into two groups: ‘Interference data’ and ‘ProWciency data’. 7.2.1 Interference data The ‘Interference data’ comprise the linguistic factors that were discussed in some details in the previous sections. Each of the variables — Case (case), Gender (gen), Plural (plur), verb phrase morphology (vp), verb-subject structures (vs), Discontinuous Word Order (dwo), and Subordinates (sub) — was converted to a frequency of interferences per 1,000 German words per

Predictor variables 173

informant (see Table 1, Appendix I). A correlation analysis established that there was signiWcant interaction between all of the morphological variables except case and gender, but among the syntactic variables, only vs and sub showed a signiWcant correlation (see Tables 6 and 7, Appendix I). This suggests that attrition of morphology is a rather holistic phenomenon, aVecting diVerent inXectional domains at a similar rate, while the diVerent syntactic phenomena are more independent of each other. A preliminary test revealed that these data are not normally distributed across the sample. There are various instances of outliers, i.e. informants who have an extremely high number of interferences in one particular domain. For the purpose of the statistical analysis, these Wgures have been eliminated. These outliers are, however, consistent with the initial hypothesis: The vast majority occurred in the data from informants from ageemi1, natlgse, and emigra3 (see Tables 8, 9 and 10, Appendix I). The fact that the data are not normally distributed made a parametric test (ANOVA) for the interference data impossible. In view of the fact that the dependent variables can be represented in a rank order, the nonparametric Jonckheere-Terpstra-Test was chosen for the statistical analysis of the impact of each of the extralinguistic variables. It had been hoped that the more Wne-tuned classiWcations that were the outcome of the previous sections might also be statistically analyzed to provide a deeper insight into the process of attrition. Unfortunately, when making intergroup distinctions, the number of tokens left for most of the dependent variables within subWelds of any one of these larger domains was too small to make such an analysis viable. ‘Hard’ statistics were therefore only available for the larger groups of variables, and the Wne-tuned analysis to be given in the subsequent sections for those factors where overall statistical signiWcance has been established will have to remain purely descriptive. 7.2.2 ProWciency data The Wndings on interferences or ‘mistakes’ made by the informants were further augmented by a detailed analysis of the ‘correct’ linguistic material as it was present in the interview. The dependent variables gathered on the proWciency of each informant include: –

The type-token frequency of content words within a stretch of 1,000 words from each interview (ttf)

174 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

– – – – – –

The mean frequency of these words, rated on the basis of two frequency dictionaries of German (meanfr) The distribution of nominative, dative, and accusative NPs over a stretch of 1,000 words from each interview (nom, dat, acc) The total use of xvs structures in each interview (converted to a frequency per 1,000 words) (vs/1,000) The total use of discontinuous word order structures in each interview (converted to a frequency per 1,000 words) (dwo/1,000) The total use of subordinate clauses in each interview (converted to a frequency per 1,000 words) (sub/1,000) A subjective rating of the ‘native-likeness’ of each speaker’s spoken German by 13 native speakers, who were asked to rate each speaker on a scale of 1 to 3 after having listened to an excerpt from the interview. These ratings were averaged to a ‘grade’ for each informant. (rating)

(For a more detailed description of these variables and the methodology employed in establishing and assessing them, see above.) It is evident that these data can be classiWed into lexicon (ttf, meanfr), morphology (case) and syntax (vs, dwo, sub). A correlation analysis was able to establish highly signiWcant correlations between all variables within these domains with the exception of dat and acc (see Table 11, Appendix I). In contrast to the interference data, all of the dependent variables among the proWciency data are normally distributed, as revealed by KomogorovSmirnov testing. The normal distribution of the proWciency data allowed a parametric test (GLM) to be performed on the data.

7.3 Analysis of the interference data 7.3.1 Results The statistical analysis of the interaction of extralinguistic variables and interference data for the sample under observation yielded the following results:

Predictor variables

Table 55. Interference data (Jonckheere-Terpstra-Test; Asymp. Sig. 2-tailed)

ageemi Language use

natlgs lgpar lgsib lgspo lgchi

emigra

case

Morphology gen plu

vp

vs

n.s. .002** n.s. n.s. .003** .042* .001**

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .050*

.018* .022* n.s. .006** n.s. .006** .002**

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .033* .031*

n.s. .005** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .047*

Syntax dwo n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .042*

sub n.s. n.s. n.s. .023* n.s. .014* n.s.

*:p .05; **: p < .01

It is apparent from these Wgures that the domain of morphology seems to be more vulnerable to the inXuence of extralinguistic factors than the domain of syntax, where hardly any signiWcant interactions have been established. The following sections will discuss these outcomes in more detail.

The factor ageemi Except for the domain of verb phrase morphology, the statistical analysis was unable to determine any signiWcant eVects of the factor ageemi on the amount of interferences present in the corpus. This Wnding is particularly striking if it is taken into account that the factor ageemi signiWcantly interacts with the factor natlgs and the self-report data. Not only were the informants in ageemi1 younger at the time when they emigrated, they also report to have used German far less than the informants in ageemi2. The results for this factor therefore seem to conWrm the Wndings made by other studies. This strongly suggests that grammatical features, once learned, are resistant to attrition independently of the length of time elapsed between the completion of the acquisitional process of that feature and the onset of attrition. The factor language use The overall connection between the self-report data and the interference data is rather spurious. The apparently rather randomly distributed Wndings might be due to some extent to the fact that the groups are unevenly distributed across informants and data, and some of the groups are extremely small.

175

176 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 56. Distribution of self-report data Always/Frequently Seldom Never –

lgpar

lgsib

13 3 4 15

4 12 9 10

lgspo 8 5 13 9

lgchi 2 6 17 10

That notwithstanding, with the exception of the factor lgchi, the overall distribution of interferences (see Table 12, Appendix I) conWrms the hypothesis that reduced language use will lead to a higher degree of attrition in every instance. Overall, the most inXuential factor from the self-report data appears to be language use with children, which shows a signiWcant eVect on two of the morphological and two of the syntactic variables. However, this factor is rather elusive, since only two subjects (a married couple) stated that they used German ‘frequently’ with their daughter (no informant claimed ‘always’ to have spoken German). These two subjects have a larger number of mistakes per 1,000 words in almost all domains than the informants who reported ‘seldom’ use of German with their children (for a complete overview of selfreport data and interferences see Table 12, Appendix I). For the purpose of the analyses presented in this section, the group lgchia/f will therefore not be considered. The factor lgpar is not signiWcant for any one of the linguistic variables. This is an interesting observation, since as was pointed out above language attrition is commonly assumed to take place within the Wrst ten years of emigration. For most of the informants who emigrated within the context of their family, the parents were the closest contact they had with their native language — especially if it is taken into account that the native language tends to be used more with the previous generation than with the own generation. For this reason, it is a rather startling Wnding that lgsib is in fact signiWcant for two of the linguistic variables, verb phrase morphology and subordinate clauses. An interesting pattern emerges from a comparison of the factors lgspo and natlgs: While the reported use of German with partner or spouse is only signiWcant for one linguistic variable — case — the native language of the spouse is signiWcant for all morphological variables except gender. This Wnding does suggest that self-report data are in fact a rather unreliable guide to the assessment of actual language use, and that — whether or not the informant really does not want to use a language any longer — the simple fact of being

Predictor variables 177

around another native speaker of the same language on a daily basis may be an important factor in language maintenance. I would like to underscore this point by a closer look at two of the informants, Ruth K. and Gertrud U. Both of them came to England on a Kindertransport early in 1939, both of them lost their parents to the genocide. In the interviews and questionnaires, both express a very profound distaste for the German language and state that they ‘never’ used it either to their husbands or to their children. Ruth K. goes on to say: I was physically unable to speak German […]. When I visited Germany for 3 or 4 days in 1949–I found myself unable to utter one word of German although the Frontierguard was a dear old man. I had to speak French in order to answer his questions! (Ruth K., questionnaire; her emphasis)

This statement is corroborated by her husband: My wife in her reply to you will have told you that she could and did not want to speak German because they killed her parents. So we never spoke German to each other not even intimately. (Fritz K., questionnaire; his emphasis)

Both informants underscore their identiWcation with the English language and their country of emigration. Gertrud U. in her questionnaire wraps up this extremely complex issue in a single sentence: “America is my country, and English is my language.” However, the actual data from the two interviews show that Gertrud U. makes vastly more ‘mistakes’ in every domain except gender marking than Ruth K. Table 57. Comparison of two informants

Ruth K. Gertrud U.

case

Morphology gen plu

vp

vs

0.93 2.21

1.28 1.10

1.75 6.19

0.35 4.20

0.00 1.10

Syntax dwo sub 0.23 1.10

0.58 2.65

This might, of course, be at least partly the outcome of a personal predisposition or ‘talent’ for languages. However, such an interpretation is unlikely in view of the fact that Gertrud U. worked as a translator for most of her professional life (while Ruth K. was in the fashion business). It appears, therefore, that the factor natlgs is a more accurate guide in determining language attrition than self-report data. Further to the observation that the informants whose partner is a native speaker of English have more

178 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

mistakes in almost any domain than those whose partner is a native speaker of German (see Table 12, Appendix I), another very interesting observation is to be made for natlgs: The group of informants who never married at all (natlgsn) behave in a very similar way to those who are married to a German speaker, and they even seem to do considerably better than natlgsg on most syntactic variables. While it is intuitively understandable why daily contact with a native speaker should be conductive to language maintenance, it is hard to imagine a reason for this latter Wnding. Possibly some of the unmarried informants kept closer links to their immediate families than those who had their own family. It appears therefore, that language use — especially when it is assessed on the basis of self-report data — is not consistently predictive of language attrition for the sample under investigation. Such data show up only with apparent randomness as signiWcant independent variables for the amount of interferences found in the data. The fact that the native language of the partner or spouse of the informant shows a consistent and signiWcant inXuence for morphological features, while reported language use with the partner does not, underscores this and must lead to the conclusion that self-report data should be taken with a great deal of caution. Since the distribution of groups across the language use data is so uneven, a more Wne-tuned analysis of the interference data was not possible.

The factor emigra The factor emigra is certainly the most surprising and spectacular of the independent variables considered in this study. The outcomes of the statistical analysis presented above clearly show that emigra is a signiWcant factor on all morphological variables and on all syntactic variables except subordinate clauses. No other independent variable inXuences the interference data this consistently. Since it has also been shown that emigra does not signiWcantly interact with any of the other independent variables except lgsib, it must be concluded that the factor ‘Date of emigration’ is the most important predictor variable for the sample under investigation. The following table shows that the amount of interferences found for each group is indeed stratiWed in the way initially predicted: All interferences are least frequent in the data from emigra1 and most frequent in the data from emigra3:

Predictor variables 179

Table 58. Interferences by factor emigra

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

case

Morphology gen plu

vp

vs

0.42 0.48 1.31

0.24 0.45 0.53

0.58 0.77 1.35

0.20 0.45 0.58

0.10 0.18 0.38

Syntax dwo

sub

0.26 0.38 0.44

0.12 0.34 0.35

The following sections will look at interferences from the individual domains and try to see whether any patterns can be established.

Case marking The Wnding that emigra3 has almost three times as many interferences in the domain of case marking than the other groups is augmented by the observation that of 13 instances of the use of a form which was not a well-formed instance of any case for the noun in question, 12 occurred in the data from this group. As has been discussed above, one of the predictions on attrition in the domain of German case marking is that it will proceed inversely from acquisition, i.e. that the dative will be lost Wrst and replaced by overgeneralized use of the accusative. We would therefore expect the dative to be overrepresented among interferences where a deviantly used case appeared in a position where the dative is required, and underrepresented among those instances that infelicitously overgeneralize the dative in the material from the restricted language use groups. Table 59. Required cases by emigra

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

nom

gen

dat

acc

4.35 11.11 6.33

8.07 14.81 5.06

43.48 37.04 49.37

43.48 37.04 39.24

Evidently, all emigration groups tend to use the nominative correctly. emigra1 and emigra2 both made an equal number of mistakes in cases which required the dative and the accusative, while emigra3 does have a slightly higher proportion of interferences in cases that require the dative.

180 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 60. Used cases by emigra

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

nom

dat

acc

45.45 37.04 50.63

27.27 33.33 20.25

27.27 29.63 29.11

This tendency is borne out by the Wgures on the cases that were used infelicitously: emigra1 and 2, again, treat the dative and the accusative in a very similar way, while emigra3 overuses both the nominative and the accusative. These observations might be taken as support for the hypothesis that language attrition does, indeed, proceed via a two-case (nominative and accusative) system towards a system that exclusively uses the nominative. However, the tendencies are very slight, and the proWciency data on actual (felicitous) use of case marking will have to be looked at for corroborating evidence.

Gender assignment Gender is the only morphological variable that was tested for which is signiWcantly inXuenced only by emigra. Given the apparent ‘randomness’ of German gender assignment, this Wnding might suggest that structures and operations which are more clearly rule-based are easier to retain in the process of language attrition than features that are to a large degree intuitive. This hypothesis is somewhat strengthened by the Wnding that none of the factors inXuencing the acquisition and assignment of German gender which were discussed above — deWniteness, phonological or morphological principles etc. — showed up in any conclusive pattern for emigra or any other of the extralinguistic variables. The fact that none of the other extralinguistic variables shows up signiWcant for gender marking is interesting, since it suggests that grammatical features that are not present in the second language may indeed be less vulnerable to attrition than grammatical features that are morphologically marked in L2 (as was predicted by Altenberg (1991)). Plural The diVerences in the domain of plural marking are striking across emigration groups: emigra3 has almost four times as many interferences here as emigra1, and more than twice as many as emigra2. However, the extremely

Predictor variables

small number of interferences in the domain of plural morphology that the corpus contained in the Wrst place makes any more Wne-tuned intergroup comparison impossible.

Verb phrase morphology Interferences in the domain of verb phrase morphology show signiWcant diVerences for Wve out of seven extralinguistic variables that were tested for. Since, however, the structure of the data in this particular Weld is very fragmented, comprising elements that are acquired at a relatively early age (e.g. irregular verb forms) and elements that are acquired very late (e.g. tense and passive auxiliaries), a more Wne-tuned analysis of this factor is impossible. However, the Wnding that verb phrase morphology is signiWcant for Wve out of seven of the extralinguistic variables is interesting in view of the fact that this was also the only domain where there was a startling and perceptive diVerence between the data from this study and the data collected by Köpke from her L2 English group. It is at least theoretically possible that this diVerence is the outcome of a much longer period of non-use of German by the informants for this study, in comparison with Köpke’s (with a maximum of 44 years and a mean of 29.4 years since emigration, Köpke 1999: 150). This would suggest that verb phrase morphology is aVected by a prolonged period of nonuse in a way that could not be established for any other of the linguistic factors. Verb-subject structures The section on verb-subject structures above has established three tendencies for interferences on vs structures: –

–

–

deviant uses of the V2-rule are overrepresented in cases where the fronted element is a PP or a temporal marker or a subordinate clause, they are underrepresented when the fronted element is a nominal sentence constituent the comparison between the correct and incorrect use of full-verb and auxiliary vs-sentences showed that auxiliaries are overrepresented in deviant structures attrition of the verb-second rule is linked to transitivity

A look at preposed elements in correct and incorrect vs-structures reveals an astonishing picture:

181

182 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

70.00% 60.00% 50.00% EMIGRA1 EMIGRA2 EMIGRA3

40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% prep + temp

other

DO

sub

conj

Figure 6. Correct vs-structures by preposed element and emigration group

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% EMIGRA1 EMIGRA2 EMIGRA3

30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% prep + temp

other

DO

sub

conj

Figure 7. Incorrect vs-structures by preposed element and emigration group

While there is no perceptible diVerence in what constituents are felicitously preposed, it is evident that emigra1 underuses the V2-rule mainly in structures where a subordinate clause is fronted. emigra2 and emigra3, on the other hand, have a surprising tendency to (infelicitously) put the verb in third

Predictor variables 183

position when the Wrst position in the sentence is taken up by a conjunction. All groups tend to apply the V2-rule correctly when the fronted constituent is an NP. 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Incorrect Correct

EMIGRA1

EMIGRA2

EMIGRA3

30%

60.71%

68.18%

29.24%

45.08%

49.58%

Figure 8. Correct and incorrect use of vs structures with auxiliaries

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Incorrect Correct

EMIGRA1

EMIGRA2

EMIGRA3

40%

35.71%

27.27%

52.63%

56.69%

53.74%

Figure 9. Transitivity in correct and incorrect vs structures

184 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

A look at vs-structures with main and auxiliary verbs reveals that those emigration groups who have the largest total number of mistakes in this domain also have more interferences with the V2-rule in constructions that contain auxiliaries. While the total number of correct as well as incorrect structures with auxiliaries in emigra1 is surprisingly low, emigra3 shows a clear overrepresentation of aux-vfin-[x]-vinf structures. On the other hand, while the distribution of correct transitive and intransitive structures is very similar across the emigra groups, transitive structures are slightly underrepresented in the incorrect material from emigra3. This Wnding is a conWrmation of the puzzling outcome of the among-group analysis conducted above: While it suggests that the transitivity-intransitivity distinction does indeed inXuence language attrition of German word order, it is the reverse of what had been predicted.

Discontinuous word order It has been shown above that, while the overall distribution of incorrect and correct instances of dwo seems largely independent of the sentence type — auxiliary plus past participle; modal auxiliary plus inWnitive; or separable particle — there is a diVerence in the length of these sentences, in that utterances where more material intervenes between Vfin and Vinf tend to go wrong more often than shorter utterances. A look at the distribution of sentence structures among the emigra groups conWrms that the proportions of the three types of dwo remain surprisingly stable even considering the comparatively small number of incorrect tokens across the emigration groups. Table 61. Distribution of correct and incorrect dwo-structures Past % emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

76.92 86.36 62.96 77.38

Incorrect Part. %

Inf. %

Past %

0.00 2.27 7.41 3.57

23.08 11.36 29.63 19.05

64.87 76.96 78.25 74.98

Correct Part%

Inf%

9.79 3.52 2.99 4.60

25.34 19.53 18.76 20.42

There is a slight variation in the average length of both the correct and the incorrect dwo-structures between emigration groups. However, the structures used by emigra2 are shorter than those of emigra3.

Predictor variables 185

Table 62. Average length of dwo-structures

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

Incorrect

Correct

8.85 5.93 6.52 6.57

5.49 5.13 5.20 5.23

It has been established above that incorrect instances of dwo are to some extent inXuenced by the constituent that is ‘framed’ by Vfin and Vinf: A nominal constituent seems to force the application of dwo to a greater extent than a non-nominal constituent. This trend is reinforced across emigra: While for all emigration groups, nominal elements are underrepresented among the constituents ‘framed’ by the incorrect structures, this trend is clearly most pronounced in the data from emigra2, followed by emigra3. Table 63. Distribution of correct and incorrect dwo structures by framed constituents

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

non-nom.

Incorrect nom. + nom. non-nom.

non-nom.

Correct nom. + non-nom.

nom.

38.46% 72.73% 40.74% 57.14%

30.77% 6.82% 33.33% 19.05%

26.35% 25.53% 24.98% 25.48%

32.95% 25.57% 27.46% 27.85%

40.70% 48.89% 47.56% 46.67%

30.77% 20.45% 25.93% 23.81%

7.3.2 Discussion The Wnding that the factor emigra outweighs every other factor in inXuencing language attrition is the most signiWcant and very intriguing outcome of the present study. It suggests that it is in fact possible to maintain a language over an extremely long period of emigration, regardless of the age of the speaker at the time of emigration, or the opportunity for language use. This Wnding is illustrated by the case of Walter O. Of all the informants who participated in this study, he was the youngest at the time of his emigration in 1934. In his questionnaire, he reports having used German ‘always’ with his parents, but ‘seldom’ with siblings and ‘never’ to his wife or children (his wife being English). Yet, of all informants, he has overwhelmingly the lowest number of interferences with exactly one ‘mistake’ in the domain of case marking and none in any other. He is also one of only three informants who every one who was asked to listen to the tapes and ‘rate’ classiWed as clearly a native speaker.

186 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

The fact that the interference data are most inXuenced by the independent variable emigra suggest that psychological factors — wanting or not wanting to be perceived as a member of a certain speech community — play a role in language attrition. If this were to be the case, it is to be assumed that intergroup diVerences would show up to a more perceptible degree on interference data than on proWciency data, since it is far more easy to ‘mask’ proWciency by convincing oneself that one is experiencing problems with the rules of a language than by actually using a reduced linguistic repertoire.

7.4 Analysis of the proWciency data 7.4.1 Results The statistical Wndings for the proWciency data are much less startling than those for the interference data: Table 64. ProWciency data

ageemi Language use

natlgs lgpar lgsib lgspo lgchi

emigra

Lexicon ttf meanfr

vs

Syntax dwo sub

Morphol. Rating case

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s. .023 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .01 (acc)

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s. .005 .03 n.s. n.s. n.s. .002

7.4.2 Discussion One of the most interesting and suggestive results to be drawn from the statistical analyses is that, while there are some clear patterns to what extralinguistic factors inXuence the amount of mistakes informants have made, such correlations cannot be established for the proWciency data. Although there are signiWcant intergroup diVerences in the interference data from the domains of morphology and syntax, no diVerences in lexical richness, and virtually no diVerences in morphological complexity were established for any of the independent variables.

Predictor variables 187

This Wnding is especially startling for the lexical domain. The hypothesis that a language attriter’s lexicon will be reduced to a comparatively small number of high-frequent lexical items at an early stage of the attritional process is one of the most common and wide-spread assumptions in the literature on language attrition. However, this study has established that speakers from those groups of informants that have received a signiWcantly lower rating of how native-like they sounded and made signiWcantly more mistakes in almost any domains than any other group do not use less types (as measured over a stretch of 1,000 words); and nor are the lexical items they use more common or more frequent in non-attrited speech. The only conclusion allowed by this Wnding is that the acquisition of a second-language vocabulary does not ‘cannibalize’ the Wrst language lexical repertoire, even as it falls into disuse. The Wnding from the domain of morphology is also interesting, since the hypothesis that those groups who made signiWcantly more mistakes in the domains of case marking would use less datives and more accusatives, since their system would evolve towards a two-case system, clearly had to be rejected: emigra1 has the highest percentage of accusatives together with the lowest number of interferences on case marking. The signiWcant Wnding in this area can therefore not be taken to be an indication of a progression towards a two-case system in language attrition, as had been predicted by some of the literature, especially since it is paralleled not by a reduction in the use of the dative, but the nominative. It has to be concluded that, notwithstanding any and all of the tendencies pointed out for interferences on case marking in the previous sections, overall (felicitous) use of case marking does not signiWcantly diVer across groups in the way that was predicted. The only signiWcant Wnding in the syntactical domain, namely for the inXuence of natlgs on dwo structures, is puzzling as well. For this independent variable no signiWcant diVerences for the interferences on dwo were established, suggesting that the diVerences in the amount of actual use of this structure are not related to problems with this syntactical structure as such.1 Since the correlation analysis of the proWciency data established a highly signiWcant negative correlation between dwo and sub (see Table 11, Appendix I), a low amount of dwo structures could be indicative of a more hypotactic overall text with comparatively many subordinate clauses, and thus only indirectly be inXuenced by the structure of dwo at all. However, it is natlgsn who has the lowest amount of dwo structures,

188 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

while natlgsg has the highest. Where the interference data are concerned, these two groups have been shown to behave in similar ways across all linguistic features, while natlgse is the group with the highest amount of deviant structures.

7.5 Native speaker ratings The only factor included in what has been called ‘proWciency data’ here that is inXuenced to a signiWcant degree by the extralinguistic variables natlgs, lgpar, and emigra, is the rating of the informants’ speech by other native speakers. Interestingly, while natlgs and emigra are two of the three dependent variables which have the most wide-spread eVect on the interference data, lgpar is not signiWcant for the interference data on any of the independent variables. A look at the factors on which the judges were asked to base their ratings reveals that nearly all factors are similarly distributed across the groups. Table 65. Native speaker ratings Rating

Accent

Fluency

Lexicon

Sentence structure

natlgsn natlgsg natlgse

1.44 1.73 2.36

1.44 1.58 2.20

1.55 1.67 2.13

1.55 1.76 2.27

1.27 1.66 2.09

lgpara/f lgpars lgparn

1.53 2.15 2.19

1.40 2.03 2.08

1.62 1.95 2.10

1.64 2.10 2.17

1.44 2.10 1.90

emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

1.30 1.77 2.13

1.32 1.63 1.96

1.52 1.74 1.88

1.45 1.90 1.98

1.29 1.63 1.96

For emigra, the most inXuential factors appear to have been accent and sentence structure, it is in these domains that the diVerences between the groups are maximized. For natlgs, all factors appear to have had equal weight in the overall assessment. Interestingly, the group which has received the lowest overall rating (albeit by a very Wne margin) in lgpar does slightly better in the domain of ‘sentence structure’ than the group which was rated second. The fact that two of the dependent variables which were systematically signiWcant for the interference data but hardly signiWcant at all for the proW-

Predictor variables 189

ciency data are also signiWcant for the native speaker ratings suggests that these ratings are based on a perception of deviancies, not of overall proWciency. This is not a very surprising Wnding, especially considering the small amount of data the judges were exposed to.

7.6 Conclusion This section has established the inXuence of extralinguistic (dependent) variables on linguistic (independent) variables in language attrition. Two types of linguistic variables were considered: Interference data, that is, the amount of deviancies from morphological and syntactical rules which occurred in the data from each individual, and proWciency data, which was based on an overall assessment of lexical, morphological, and syntactical complexity of the nondeviant data from each informant. Three hypotheses were tested, namely: Hypothesis 1 (Age): Informants in ageemi1 will have more interferences and a reduced lexical and grammatical repertoire compared with informants in ageemi2. Hypothesis 2 (Use) Informants who report little use of German in emigration or are married to a native speaker of English will have more interferences and a reduced lexical and grammatical repertoire compared with informants who report more use of German or are married to a native speaker of German. Hypothesis 3 (Identity) Informants who emigrated at a later date will have more interferences and a reduced lexical and grammatical repertoire compared with informants who emigrated at an earlier date. The tests for the interference data revealed that the null hypothesis on ageemi could not be rejected. For language use, the Wndings were somewhat conXicting, but particularly in the morphological domain, there were several linguistic variables for which the null hypothesis could be rejected. The identity null hypothesis was rejected on six of the seven linguistic variables, pointing to emigra being overwhelmingly the most important extralinguistic factor for the interference data. The analysis of the proWciency data, on the other hand, did not show up any systematically signiWcant eVects of any of the extralinguistic variables, and none of the null hypotheses pertaining to the linguistic repertoire could consis-

190 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

tently be rejected on more than one of the dependent variables. These Wndings suggest very strongly that what is aVected by prolonged non-contact with the L1 is only actual and momentary control. The deeper linguistic repertoire — including the range and breadth of the lexicon–appears to remain untouched by any systematic process of ‘erosion’ or ‘attrition’. This strongly supports hypotheses that what is aVected in ‘language attrition’ is merely online accessibility of certain morphosyntactic rules, as opposed to underlying competence. Since the data on which this study is based were gained from informants who had lived in the country of emigration for a minimum of sixty years, in many cases having extremely limited contact with their native language, we have to consider the possibility that a language once learned can easily survive close to a lifetime of non-use.

Conclusion

This study has investigated whether there are any changes in individual varieties of L1 German after a period of sixty years of emigration, that is, sixty years of close and intensive language contact with English. This analysis was based on two sets of observations: Interference data and proWciency data. The intralinguistic investigation of the interference data has yielded some interesting results. It was shown that there are apparently diVerent forces at work in the evolution of the English-German contact variety found in the sample. In the domain of morphology, the amount of interferences found for each of the features under investigation increased proportionally for those features that are acquired relatively late in the process of German L1 acquisition. This Wnding suggests that at least on the level of morphology, Jakobson’s regression hypothesis will to some extent correctly predict the outcome of a language loss situation. In the syntactic domain, on the other hand, no such distributional eVect could be discerned. Mistakes occurred proportionally almost evenly on the three features under investigation. Since the overwhelming majority of these mistakes consisted of a deviant use of an SVO structure, it is likely that the driving force in the evolution of the contact variety under investigation is interlanguage, i.e. that verb placement is motivated by inXuence from the English L2. The analysis of the inXuence of extralinguistic variables on the interference data yielded a result that was both unequivocal and startling: The factor emigration date clearly outweighed every other factor. There was a cline between the emigration groups in the amount of mistakes on every one of the seven linguistic variables under investigation, and in six of seven cases, those diVerences were statistically signiWcant. In addition, the speech of informants from emigration group 3 were perceived as signiWcantly less ‘native-like’ than informants from emigration group 1 by native speaker judges who listened to excerpts from the interviews. These Wndings speak very strongly for the importance of attitudes in language loss and language maintenance. It appears that what is at the heart of language attrition is not so much the opportunity to use the language, nor yet the age at the time of emigration. What matters is the speaker’s identity and self-perception. We therefore have to consider the possibility that language

192 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

attrition may be dependent to a very large degree on how the speaker wants to be perceived. Someone who wants to belong to a speech community and wants to be recognized as a member is capable of behaving accordingly over an extremely long stretch of time. On the other hand, someone who rejects that language community — or has been rejected and persecuted by it — may adapt his or her linguistic behavior so as not to appear to be a member any longer. In this context, it is a further and no less startling Wnding that signiWcant inXuences of any one of the extralinguistic variables could only be established for the interference data. For the proWciency data, which describe the speakers’ actual repertoire, virtually no inXuence could be detected. In other words, the speech from emigration group 3 who made signiWcantly more mistakes on virtually all linguistic features and were perceived as signiWcantly less nativelike by native speaking judges than any other group was lexically just as rich and morphologically and syntactically just as complex as that from emigration group 1. This suggests that even for that group the full range of the linguistic repertoire is still there, and that the larger number of ‘mistakes’ that occur are the outcome of perceived insecurities, not of actual loss of knowledge. How deep such insecurities can go is illustrated by the case of Gertrud U. Her interview, which is about forty minutes in length, contains a full, Xuent, rich, and very moving account of the story of her life. Some hesitations and ‘fumblings’ notwithstanding, it is a perfectly comprehensible narrative every step of the way. Yet when she received the questionnaire and the covering letter asking her permission to use her interview in the present investigation some months later, she wrote in reply: “I’m glad you wrote the letter in English, too. I would have had to send it to my brother to translate, if you had not.” The Wndings from this study suggest that such insecurities on the part of even long-term emigrants are unfounded. The fact that the full range of the repertoire is still there suggests that full proWciency can be reactivated — if the speaker so chooses.

Notes

Notes to Chapter 1 1. Language change without shift will not be treated here. 2. Preston (1982), in a reply to Andersen, criticized some of his points in an attempt to simplify the framework and make it more lucid and easier to work with. However, most of the research done since has apparently been based on Andersen’s unmodiWed hypotheses. This study will therefore — while recognizing the validity of Preston’s arguments — disregard them for the sake of consistency. 3. Note that this study does not use the term interference to imply an interlanguage eVect. 4. Useful frameworks for such analyses could be found in the 4-M model by Myers-Scotton and Jake (2000) as well as in the typology of borrowing supplied by Muysken (1999). 5. A comprehensive overview of these issues is beyond the scope of this study. Detailed outlines can be found in Ammerlaan (1996: Chapter 1) and Köpke (1999: 83–85). 6. A full discussion of the grammatical system in language contact is beyond the scope of this study, and the reader is referred to Wilkins (1996), who provides a detailed outline of competing theories. A recent attempt to account for evidence found in language contact and creolization studies on the basis of phonological, morphological, and functional principles is Muysken (1999).

Notes to Chapter 2 1. Tendencies of assimilation and acculturation were not, of course, the only reactions towards anti-Semitic attitudes that gained in strength. From the late 19th century onwards, the Zionist movement criticized assimilatory tendencies and argued that Jewish emancipation had failed and was doomed to fail. The only remedy for discrimination and segregation was seen in the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine (Griese 1997: 142). The phenomenon of Zionism in its complexity is beyond the scope of this study and will not be discussed further here. 2. Throughout this study, quotes from the interviews which form the data base will be referenced with the alias name of the interviewee and the number of the page in the transcript on which the quote occurs. If the quote contains an exchange between informant and interviewer, informants will be designated by ‘I’ and interviewers by ‘Q’.

194 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Notes to Chapter 3 1. A city at approx. 30 kilometers from Düsseldorf. 2. Three of the judges were Ph.D. students in English linguistics, eight were students or graduate students of English literature and language, and two were not professionally interested in language or linguistics.

Notes to Chapter 4 1. ‘Role prominence’ refers to “the individual whose role in an event the speaker views as central” (Schachter 1977: 296); while ‘referential prominence indicates that “the speaker assumes that the hearer knows the intended referent” ’ (Schachter 1977: 282) and would therefore seem to conXate with common notions on givenness or topicality. 2. The genitive, which is marked through the suYx -s on the noun, is acquired at an earlier age (Tracy 1984: 285). 3. Interestingly, in child language the nominative seems to be used predominantly for human beings, while the accusative and dative are largely reserved for inanimates (Clahsen 1984: 22). 4. In Jordens 1983: 111, the criterion ‘implied person’ was deWned as being closer to the agent, not closer to an entity that is closer to the speaker’s ego. 5. Note, however, that follow-up studies on this project yielded no detectable L1 attrition in the domain of case marking (Kees de Bot, p.c.). 6. The stretches of texts were taken from the middle of the interviews in order to make sure that case marking was neither inXuenced by a warm-up nor by a fatiguing eVect. The only interview which contained less than 1,000 words (Arthur L.) was analysed in its entirety. 7. Since Köpcke’s rules were drawn up on the basis of monosyllablic nouns, only the wordWnal rules were taken into account for polysyllabic nouns in the sample. 8. An interesting observation is that both these sets of Wve misattributions contain three instances of word-Wnal -er which is often interpreted as a marker for the masculine, cf. Koehn 1994: 47. 9. Clahsen, Rothweiler, Woest and Marcus argue that, when -s does appear on the non-head element of a compound, it is to be analysed as a linking morpheme, not as a plural marker (cf. Betten-verkäufer vs. *Puddings-hersteller (examples adapted from Bartke 1998: 46)). Wegener (1992: 238) argues against the analysis of -s in compounds as a linking morpheme, giving Chips-herstellung and Shrimps-cocktail as counter examples.

Notes 195

Notes to Chapter 5 1. Dankward Schmid, Gisela Schmid, SteY Schmid, Frank Sparing, Michaela Zitzen, Simone Pesch, Lynn Wallisch, Theresia Bernstein, Dieter Stein. 2. The participle gewissen appears twice within a few clauses in the data from this informant. Since the second instance is used in a context where an inWnitival form is required, it is not counted among the interferences within the domain of verb inXection but under the periphrastic constructions discussed below. 3. This is hardly surprising, if the text type is considered: in an autobiographical narrative, the 2nd person would only appear in reported speech, especially since the interviewer is consistently addressed in the deferential Sie-Form which takes the 3rd person pl. inXection.

Notes to Chapter 6 1. At this point, the discussion will be restricted to NPs. The position of verbal elements within this framework will be considered below. 2. Verb-initial interjections of the type “Geht [Vfin] das schon wieder los!” will not be considered here. 3. Similar debates can be found for Dutch and Scandinavian languages, as well as Old English (see e.g. Breivik and Swan 1994). 4. It should be pointed out that labelling VS-phenomena in German ‘inversions’ is problematic in regard of the typological uncertainties about German word order discussed above. If German is accepted to be basically SOV, the position of the subject after the verb is due to a transformational rule which moves the verb from sentence-Wnal position to the front, not to an inversion which exchanges the position of subject and verb in an underlying SVO sentence, as it has been assumed by typological approaches. Since a resolution of these positions is beyond the scope of this study, the term ‘Subject-Verb-Inversion’ will not be used for VS phenomena in German here.

Note to Chapter 7 1. Since of the three syntactic variables under investigation, DWO is the Wrst to be acquired, a reduction in the use of this structure parallel to a signiWcant increase in interferences would be a Wnding that would be extremely hard to explain, if it were not accompanied by similar developments on the other syntactic variables.

References

Admoni, Wladimir. 1982. Der deutsche Sprachbau. München: Beck. Allen, Cynthia. 1997. “Middle English case loss and the ‘creolization’ hypothesis.” English Language and Linguistics 1 (1): 63–89. Almalech, Mony and Polina Bentov. 1997. “First language attrition by speakers of Bulgarian in Israel.” Sapostavitelno Ezikoznanie/Sopostavitel’Noe Jazykoznanie/Contrastive Linguistics (SoWa, Bulgaria) 22 (3): 55–59. Altenberg, Evelyn P. 1991. “Assessing First Language Vulnerability to Attrition.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 189–206. Cambridge University Press. Altmann, G. and V. Raettig. 1973. “Genus und Wortauslaut im Deutschen.” Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 26 (3–4): 297–303. Ammerlaan, Tom. 1996. ‘You get a bit wobbly…’ Exploring Bilingual Lexical Retrieval Processes in the Context of First Language Attrition. Ph.D. Dissertation Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Andersen, Roger W. 1982. “Determining the linguistic attributes of language attrition.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 83–118. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Appel, René and Pieter Muysken. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Arnold. Arendt, Hannah. 1959. Rahel Varnhagen. Lebensgeschichte einer deutschen Jüdin aus der Romantik. München: Piper. AschoV, Diethard. 1998. “Die Juden in Antike und Mittelalter.” In Geschichte der Juden im Rheinland und in Westfalen, Michael Zimmermann (ed.), 15–78. Köln: Kohlhammer. Auer, Peter. 1993. “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 21 (3): 193–222. Baerentzen, Per. 1992. “Die deutsche Wortstellung in kontrastiver Sicht.” Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 20 (2): 111–126. Bailey, Charles-James N. and Karl Maroldt. 1977. “The French lineage of English.” In Langues en Contact – Pidgins – Creoles. Languages in Contact, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), 21–53. Tübingen: Narr. Bamberg, M. 1991. “Narrative activity as perspective taking: The role of emotionals, negations, and voice in the construction of the story realm.” Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 5 (4): 275–90. Banks, Leslie. 1982. “Perfect or imperfect in German?” Modern Languages 63 (4): 232–236. Bartke, Susanne. 1998. Experimentelle Studien zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Pluralmorphologie und lexikalische Komposition im unauVälligen Spracherwerb und im Dysgrammatismus. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bauch, H. J. 1971. “Zum Informationsgehalt der Kategorie des Genus im Deutschen, Englischen und Polnischen.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock 20 (6): 411–418.

198 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Bauer, Eric W. 1971. “Predictability classes of the strong verb system in modern German.” In Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association: Proceedings and Papers of the Thirteenth Congress Held at Monash University 12–18 August 1970, J. R. Ellis (ed.), 246–247. Melbourne: AULLA and Monash U.. Benz, Wolfgang. 1994. “Das Exil der kleinen Leute.” In Das Exil der kleinen Leute. Alltagserfahrungen deutscher Juden in der Emigration, Wolfgang Benz (ed.), 9–45. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Bergs, Alexander. 1998. Subjekt-Objekt Inversion im Mittelfeld aus generativer und funktionaler Sicht. MS, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. Berko-Gleason, Jean. 1982. “Insights from child language acquisition for second language loss.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 13–23. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Berman, Ruth A. 1981. “Language development and language knowledge: Evidence from the acquisition of Hebrew morphophonology.” Journal of Child Language 8: 255–371. Berman, Ruth A. 1985. “The acquisition of Hebrew.” In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data, Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), 255–371. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Best, Otto F. 1973. Mameloschen. Jiddisch — Eine Sprache und ihre Literatur. Frankfurt a. M.: Insel. Birner, Betty J. 1992. The Discourse Function of Inversion in English. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation. BloomWeld, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. Bolonyai, Agnes. forthc. “L1 attrition of verbal morphology in bilingual children and adults”, to appear in: Second Language Research Forum. Bolotin, Naomi. 1995. “A crosslinguistic study of the age factor in second language acquisition.” In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Dawn MacLaughlin and Susan McEwen (eds), 119–129. Vol. I Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Booij, Gert E. 1996. “Inherent vesus contextual inXection and the split morphology hypothesis.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Gert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–16. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer. Born, Renate. 1984. “The German strong verbs in Wrst and second language acquisition: a hierarchy for their introduction.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 22 (3): 239–252. Bornschein, M. and M. Butt. 1987. “Zum Status des s-Plurals im gegenwärtigen Deutsch.” In Linguistik in Deutschland, Akten des 21. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Groningen, Werner Abraham and R. Arhammar (eds), 135–154. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bot, Kees de. 1991. “Language attrition: competence loss or performance loss.” In Sprache und Politik, B. Spillner (ed.), 63–65. Frankfurt — New York: Peter Lang. Bot, Kees de. 1996. “Language loss.” In Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. I, Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary and Wolfgang Wölck (eds), 579–585. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Bot, Kees de and BertWeltens. 1991. “Recapitulation, Regression, and Language Loss.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 31–51. Cam-

References 199

bridge University Press. Bot, Kees de and Michael Clyne. 1989. “Language reversion revisited.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 167–177. Bot, Kees de and Michael Clyne. 1994. “A 16 Year Longitudinal Study of Language Attrition in Dutch Immigrants in Australia.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15 (1): 17–28. Bot, Kees de, Paul Gommans and Carola Rossing. 1991. “L1 Loss in an L2 Environment: Dutch Immigrants in France.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 87–98. Cambridge University Press. Boyd, Sally. 1986. “Using the present to predict the future in language contact: The case of immigrant minority languages in Sweden.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 99–115. Dordrecht: Foris. Breakwell, Glynis M. 1983. “Identities and conXicts.” In Threatened Identities, Glynis M. Breakwell (ed.), 189–213. New York: John Wiley. Breivik, Leiv Egil and Toril Swan. 1994. “Initial adverbials and word order in Early Modern English.” In Studies in Early Modern English, Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 11–43. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cain, Jacqueline, Maria Weber-Olsen and Rosslyn Smith. 1987. “Acquisition strategies in a Wrst and second language: Are they the same?.” Journal of Child Language 14 (2): 333– 352. Caramazza, Alfonso and Edgar B. Zurif. 1978. “Comprehension of complex sentences in children and aphasics: A test of the regression hypothesis.” In Language Acquisition and Language Breakdown: Parallels and Divergencies, Alfonso Caramazza and Edgar B. Zurif (eds), 145–161. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Clahsen, Harald. 1982. Spracherwerb in der Kindheit: eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tübingen: Narr. Clahsen, Harald. 1984. “The Acquistion of German Word Order: A Test Case for Cognitive Approaches to L2 Development.” In Second Languages: A Cross Linguistic Perspective, Roger W Andersen (ed.), 219–242. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Clahsen, Harald. 1988. “Parametrized grammatical theory and language acquisition: A study of the acquisition of verb placement and inXection by children and adults.” In Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition, Suzanne Flynn and Wayne O’Neil (eds), 47–75. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Clahsen, Harald. 1995. “German plurals in adult second language development: Evidence for a dual model of inXection.” In The Current State of Interlanguage, Lynn Eubank, Larry Selinker and Michael Sharwood Smith (ed.), 123–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clahsen, Harald. 1999. “Lexical entries and rules of language: a multidisciplinary study of German inXecton.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6): 991–1013. Clahsen, Harald, Gary Marcus, Susanne Bartke and Richard Wiese. 1996. “Compounding and inXection in German child language.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij

200 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

and Jaap van Marle (eds), 115–42. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer. Clahsen, Harald, Jürgen Meisel and Manfred Pienemann. 1983. Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr. Clahsen, Harald and Martina Penke. 1992. “The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simonecorpus.” In The Acquisition of Verb Placement, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), 181–223. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Clahsen, Harald, Monika Rothweiler and Andreas Woest. 1990. “Lexikalische Ebenen und morphologische Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb des deutschen Pluralsystems im Rahmen der Lexikalischen Morphologie.” Linguistische Berichte (Supp. 3): 105–126. Clahsen, Harald, Monika Rothweiler, Andreas Woest and Gary F. Marcus. 1992. “Regular and Irregular InXection in the Acquisition of German Noun Plurals.” Cognition 45 (3): 225–255. Clahsen, Harald and Pieter Muysken. 1986. “The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners — a study of the acquisition of German word order.” Second Language Research 2 (2): 93–119. Clahsen, Harald and Pieter Muysken. 1989. “The UG paradox in L2 acquisition.” Second Language Research 5 (1): 1–29. Clahsen, Harald, Sonja Eisenbeiß and Anne Vainikka. 1994. “The seeds of structure. A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking.” In Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, Teun Hoekstra and Bonnie D. Schwartz (eds), 85–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Clark, John L. D. 1982. “Measurement considerations in language attrition research.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 138–152. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Clyne, Michael. 1967. Transference and Triggering. Ovservations on the language assimilation of postwar German-speaking migrants in Australia. The Hague: Martinus NijhoV. Clyne, Michael. 1968. “Decay, preservation and renewal: Notes on some Southern Australian German settlements.” AUMLA 29: 33–43. Clyne, Michael. 1973. “Thirty years later: some observations on ‘refugee German’ in Melbourne.” In Lexicography and Dialect Geography. Festgabe für Hans Kunath, H. Scholler and H. Reilly (eds), 96–106. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Clyne, Michael. 1981. Deutsch als Muttersprache in Australien: Zur Ökologie einer Einwanderersprache. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Collings, Andreas. 1990. “The acquisition of morphology and syntax in German child language.” In Two First Languages. Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), 24–45. Dordrecht: Foris. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Comrie, Bernard. 1995. “German Perfect and Präteritum: Speculations on meaning and interpretation.” In Grammar and Meaning, F. R. Palmer and John Lyons (eds), 148– 161. Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. 1998. “Morphology and agreement.” In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 191–205. Oxford: Blackwell.

References 201

Corbett, Greville G. 1999. “Agreement.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), 12–18. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dalton-PuVer, Christiane. 1995. “Middle English is a creole and its opposite: On the value of plausible speculation.” In Linguistic Change under Contact Conditions, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 35–50. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Danchev, Andrei. 1992. “The evidence for analytic and synthetic developments in English.” In History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen/Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (ed.), 25–41. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Danchev, Andrei. 1997. “The Middle English creolization hypothesis revisited.” In Studies in Middle English Linguistics, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 79–108. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Danchev, Andrei and Merja Kytö. 1994. “The construction be going to + inWnitive in Early Modern English.” In Studies in Early Modern English, Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 59–77. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Daneš, Frantisek. 1967. “Order of elements and sentence intonation.” To Honor Roman Jakobson, vol. 1, 499–512. Paris: The Hague. Davies, Alan. 1986. “Language loss and symbolic gain: The meaning of institutional maintenance.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 117–127. Dordrecht: Foris. Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 1997. Inversion in Modern English. Form and Function. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dorian, Nancy C. 1982. “Language loss and maintenance in language contact situations.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 44–59. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1991. “The sociolinguistic and patholinguistic attrition of Breton phonology, morphology, and morphonology.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 99–112. Cambridge University Press. DuPlessis, Jean, Doreen Solin, Lisa Travis and Lydia White. 1987. “UG or Not UG, That Is the Question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken.” Second Language Research 3 (1): 56– 75. Eckert, Brita (ed.). 1985. Die jüdische Emigration aus Deutschland 1933–1941. Die Geschichte einer Austreibung. Frankfurt am Main: Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH. Edwards, John. 1985. Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Eisenberg, Peter. 1994. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler. Els, Theo van. 1986. “An overview of European research on language attrition.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 3–18. Dordrecht: Foris. Erdmann, Peter. 1990. “German as a SOV Language?” Kwartalnik NeoWlologiczny 37 (1): 19– 28. Ertel, S. 1977. “Where do subjects of sentences come from?.” In Sentence Production: Developments in Research and Theory, S. Rosenberg (ed.), 129–139. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1973 [1954]. “IdentiWcation and bilingualism.” In Language Acquisition

202 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

and Communicative Choice, Susan Ervin-Tripp (ed.), 193–205. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Eschelbacher, Max. 1929. Fest-Schrift zur Feier des 25jährigen Bestehens der Synagoge. Düsseldorf. Eschelbacher, Max. 1998 [1939]. Der zehnte November 1938. Mit einer Einleitung “Rabbiner Max Eschelbacher und der Novemberpogrom in Düsseldorf” von Falk Wiesemann. Düsseldorf: Klartext. Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine. 1977. “Zur KlassiWzierung der starken Verben im Neuhochdeutschen.” Deutsche Sprache 5:193–205. Fishman, Joshua A. 1980. “Bilingualism and biculturalism as individual and societal phenomena.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1 (1): 3–17. Fishman, Joshua A. 1989. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Flynn, Suzanne and Sharon Manuel. 1991. “Age-dependent eVects in language acquisition: An evaluation of ‘Critical Period’ hypotheses.” In Point Counterpoint. Universal Grammar in the Second Language, Lynn Eubank (ed.), 117–145. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fox, Anthony W. 1990. The Structure of German. Oxford University Press. Freed, Barbara F. 1982. “Language Loss: Current thoughts and future directions.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 1–5. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Fromm, E. 1970. “Age regression and unexpected reappearance of a repressed childhood language.” International Journal of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis 18 (2): 79–88. Fuller, Janet M. and Heike Lehnert. 2000. “Noun phrase structure in German-English codeswitching: Variation in gender assignment and article use.” The International Journal of Bilingualism 4 (3): 399–420. Gardner, Robert C. 1982. “Social factors in language retention.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 24–43. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gardner, Robert C. and Wallace E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira. 1994. “How do children cope with variation in their input? The case of German plural and compounding.” In How Tolerant is UG? Problems of Learnability and Language Variation, Rosemary Tracy and Elsa Lattey (eds), 225–266. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gelhaus, Hermann. 1975. Das Futur in ausgewählten Texten der geschriebenen deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Studien zum Tempussystem. München. Giles, Howard, Richard Bourhis and Donald Taylor. 1977. “Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations.” In Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, Howard Giles (ed.), 307–348. London: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1991. “Markedness in grammar.” Studies in Language 15 (2): 335–370. Golston, Chris and Richard Wiese. 1996. “Zero morphology and constraint interaction:

References 203

subtraction and ephensesis in German dialects.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), 143–195. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.. Gonzo, Susan and Mario Saltarelli. 1983. “Pidginization and linguistic change in emigrant languages.” In Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition, Roger W. Andersen (ed.), 181–197. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Göpfert, Rebekka. 1999. Der jüdische Kindertransport von Deutschland nach England 1938/ 39. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Almqvist & Wiksell. Görlach, Manfred. 1986. “Middle English — a creole?.” In Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, Vol. 1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics, Dieter Kastovsky and Aleksander Wzwedek (eds), 329–344. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals. With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. Grendel, Marjon, Bert Weltens and Kees De Bot. 1993. “Language attrition: Rise and fall of a research topic?.” Toegepaste Taalwetenshap in Artikelen 46/47:59–68. Grewendorf, Günther. 1980. “Funktionale Satzperspektive und deutsche Wortstellung.” Linguistische Berichte 66: 28–41. Griese, Kerstin. 1997. “Die zionistische Bewegung in Düsseldorf. Von einer aktiven Minderheit zur wichtigen Auswanderungsinstanz.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 142–155. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Grimm, H. 1983. Strukturanalytische Untersuchung der Kindersprache. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien: Hans Huber. Grosjean, François, and Bernard Py. 1991. “La restructuration d’une première langue: L’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues.” La Linguistique 27 (2): 35–60. Hagen, Anton M. and Kees De Bot. 1990. “Structural loss and levelling in minority languages and dialects.” Sociolinguistica 4: 136–149. Håkansson, Gisela. 1995. “Syntax and morphology in language attrition: a study of Wve bilingual expatriate Swedes.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (2): 153–171. Halle, Morris. 1953. “The German conjugation.” Word 9: 45–53. Haugen, Einar. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hentschel, Elke and Harald Weydt. 1994. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Henzl, V. M. 1975. “Aquisition of grammatical gender in Czech.” Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 10: 188–200. Hermann, Gisela. 1990. “L’InXuence de la langue étrangère sur la perception sociale et éthnique: Étude inter-culturelle.” Les Langues Modernes 84 (2): 57–74. Hermann, Jesper. 1988. “Bilingualism versus identity.” In Bilingualism in society and school, J. Norman Jørgensen, Elisabeth Hansen, Anne Holmen and Jørgen Gimbel (ed.), 227– 232. Clevendon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Herz, John H. 1984. Vom Überleben. Düsseldorf: Droste. Hilberg, Raul. 1961. The Destruction of the European Jews. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

204 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Hilberg, Raul. 1996 [1992]. Täter, Opfer, Zuschauer. Die Vernichtung der Juden 1933–1945. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. [Original: ‘Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders. The Jewish Catastrophe 1933–1945’. New York: Harper & Collins]. Hinskens, Frans. 1986. “The selection of linguistic variables in empirical research on variation and change in dialects.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 53–74. Dordrecht: Foris. Hirvonen, Pekka A. 1995. “Phonological and morphological aspects of Finnish language attrition in the United States.” In Soziolinguistische Variation., Wolfgang Viereck (ed.), 181–93 Stuttgart: Steiner. Hoberg, Ursula. 1975. “Probleme der Wortstellung.” In Deutsch als Fremdsprache und neuere Linguistik: Referate eines Fortbildungskurses in Mannheim, 26.2. 9.3. 1973, veranstaltet vom Institut für deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, und vom Goethe Institut, München, Otmar Werner et al. (eds), 67–80. München: Hueber. Hormann, Christine. 1994. Acts of Identity in Aussiedler-German: Operationalizing Le Page’s sociolinguistic identity theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Hudson, Richard A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press. HuYnes, Marion Lois. 1991. “Pennsylvania German: Convergence and Change as Strategies of Discourse.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 125–137. Cambridge University Press. Hull, Philip V. 1991. Bilingualism. Two Languages, Two Personalities? Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Hull, Philip V. 1996. “Bilingualism: Some personality and cultural issues.” In Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language. Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, Dan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis and Jiansheng Guo (eds), 419–434. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hulsen, Madeleine. 2000. Language Loss and Language Processing. Three Generations of Dutch Migrants in New Zealand. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Hulsen, Madeleine, Kees de Bot and Bert Weltens. 1999. “Language shift, language loss and language processing: An investigation of three generations of Dutch immigrants in New Zealand.” In rtikelen van de Derde sociolinguistische Conferentie , Erica Huls and Bert Weltens (eds), 221–232Delft: Eburon. Ingram, David. 1989. First Language Acquisition. Method, Description and Explanation. Cambridge University Press. Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jaspaert, Koen and Sjaak Kroon. 1989. “Social determinants of language loss.” Review of Applied Linguistics (I. T. L.) 83–84: 75–98. Jaspaert, Koen and Sjaak Kroon. 1992. “From the typewriter of A. L.: A case study in language loss.” In Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages, Willem Fase, Koen Jaspaert and Sjaak Kroon (eds), 137–147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jaspaert, Koen, Sjaak Kroon and Roeland van Hout. 1986. “Points of reference in Wrstlanguage loss research.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 37–49. Dordrecht: Foris. Jordens, Peter. 1983a. Das deutsche Kasussystem im Fremdspracherwerb. Tübingen: Narr.

References 205

Jordens, Peter. 1983b. “Die Kasusmarkierung im Deutschen in unvollständigen Sätzen.” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 22: 101–126. Jordens, Peter. 1985. “Production rules in interlanguage. Evidence from case errors in L2 German.” In Cross-linguistic InXuence in Second Language Learning, Eric Kellerman and Michael Sharwood Smith (eds), 91–109. Oxford: Pergamon. Jordens, Peter. 1988a. “The acquisition of word order in L2 Dutch and German.” In Language Development, Peter Jordens and Josine Lalleman (eds), 149–80. Dordrecht: Foris. Jordens, Peter. 1988b. “The acquisition of verb categories and word order in Dutch & German: evidence from Wrst and second language acquisition.” In Learnability and Second Languages, James Pankhurst, Mike Sharwood Smith and Paul Van Buren (eds), 132–66. Dordrecht: Foris. Jordens, Peter. 1988c. “The Acquisition of Word Order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2.” Second Language Research 4 (1): 41–65. Jordens, Peter. 1992. “The cognitive function of case marking in German as a native and a foreign language.” In Language Transfer in Language Learning, Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker (eds), 138–175. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jordens, Peter, Kees de Bot and Henk Trapman. 1989. “Linguistic Aspects of Regression in German Case Marking.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11:2: 179–204. Jordens, Peter, Kees de Bot, Charles van Os and Jos Schumans. 1986. “Regression in German case marking.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 159–176. Dordrecht: Foris. KarmiloV-Smith, Annette. 1979. A Functional Approach to Child Language. Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, Dorit Hannah. 1992. First Language Attrition as a Creative Interplay between Two Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, SUNY at Stony Brook. Kaufman, Dorit and Mark AronoV. 1991. “Morphological Disintegration and Reconstruction in First Language Attrition.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 175–188. Cambridge University Press. Keller, Rudi. 1995. “The epistemic weil.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivization, Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), 16–30. Cambridge University Press. Khemlani-David, Maya. 1998. “Language shift, cultural maintenance, and ethnic identity: a study of a minority community: The Sindhis of Malaysia.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 130: 67–76. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology.” In The Structure of Phonological Representations, H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds), 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris. Kirkwood, Henry W. 1969. “Aspects of word order and its communicative function in English and German.” Journal of Linguistics 5: 85–107. Klerks, Annette. 1997. “Wir sind voller Unruhe. Und das ist unser Glück.’ Jüdische Jugendgruppen in Düsseldorf 1902 bis 1938.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 116–129. Düsseldorf: Mahnund Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Koehn, Caroline. 1994. “The acquisition of gender and number morphology within NP.” In

206 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German grammatical development, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), 29–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1982. Untersuchungen zum Genussystem der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1987. “Die Beherrschung der deutschen Pluralmorphologie durch muttersprachliche Sprecher und L2-Lerner mit englischer Muttersprache: Ein Vergleich.” Linguistische Berichte 107: 23–42. Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. “Schemas in German plural formation.” Lingua 74: 303–355. Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1998. “The Acquisition of Plural Marking in English and German Revisited: Schemata versus Rules.” Journal of Child Language 25: 2: 293–319. Köpcke, Klaus-Michael and David A. Zubin. 1983. “Die kognitive Organisation der Genuszuweisung zu den einsilbigen Nomen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 11:2: 166–182. Köpcke, Klaus Michael and David A. Zubin. 1984. “Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur natürlichen KlassiWkation.” Linguistische Berichte 93: 26–50. Köpcke, Klaus-Michael and David A. Zubin. 1986. “Gender and folk taxonomy: The indexical relation between grammatical and lexical categorization.” In Noun Classes and Categorization, Colette Craig (ed.), 139–180. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Köpke, Barbara. 1999. L’attrition de la première language chez le bilingue tardif: implications pour l’étude psycholinguistique du bilinguisme. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail. Kuczaj, S. A. 1977. “The acquisition of regular and irregular past forms.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16: 589–600. KuryPowicz, Jerzy J. 1964. The InXectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg. Lambert, Richard D. 1982. “Setting the agenda.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 6–10. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lambert, Richard D. 1989. “Language Attrition.” Review of Applied Linguistics (I. T. L.) 83– 84: 1–18. Lambert, Richard D. and Sarah J. Moore. 1986. “Problem areas in the study of language attrition.” In Language Attrition in Progress, Bert Weltens, Kees de Bot and Theo van Els (eds), 177–186. Dordrecht: Foris. Leets, Laura and Howard Giles. 1995. “Dimensions of minority language survival/nonsurvival: Intergroup cognition and communication climates.” In The State of Minority Languages: International Perspectives on Survival and Decline, Willem Fase, Koen Jaspaert and Sjaak Kroon (eds), 37–73. Lisse: Sweets/Zeitlenger. Leisiö, Larisa. 2001. Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tampere, Finland. Lenerz, Jurgen. 1977. “Zum EinXuss des ‘Agens’ auf die Wortstellung des Deutschen; Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Aachen 1976, Band 1.” In Grammatik und interdisziplinäre Bereiche der Linguistik, Heinz Werner Viethen, Wolf Dietrich Bald and Konrad Sprengel (ed.), 133–142. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. LePage, Robert B. and Andree Tabouret-Keller. 1978. Acts of Identity. Creole-based ap-

References 207

proaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. Louden, Mark L. 1992. “German as an Object-Verb language: A uniWcation of generative and typological approaches.” In On Germanic Linguistics. Issues and Methods, Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr and Robert L. Kyes (eds), 217–231. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. MacWhinney, Brian. 1978. The acquisition of morphophonology. Washington DC: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43. Maher, Julianne. 1991. “A Crosslinguistic Study of Language Contact and Language Attrition.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 67–84. Cambridge University Press. Major, R. C. 1992. “Losing English as a Wrst language.” The Modern Language Journal 76: 190–209. Maratsos, M. 1979. “Learning how and when to use determiners.” In Language Acquisition, P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds), 225–240. Cambridge University Press. Marcus, Gary F. 1995. “The acquisition of the English past tense in children and multilayered connectionist networks.” Cognition 56 (3): 271–279. Marcus, Gary F., Ursula Brinkmann, Harald Clahsen, Richard Wiese and Steven Pinker. 1995. “German inXection: The exception that proves the rule.” Cognitive Psychology 29: 189–256. Matsumoto, David and Philip V. Hull. 1994. “Language and Language Acquisition.” In People. Psychology from a Cultural Perspective, David Matsumoto (ed.), 83–100. PaciWc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Meier, Helmut. 1967. Deutsche Sprachstatistik, Vol. I. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Mills, Anne E. 1985. “The acquisition of German.” In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data, Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), 141–253. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mills, Anne E. 1986a. The Acquisition of Gender. A Study of English and German. Berlin: Springer. Mills, Anne E. 1986b. “Acquisition of the natural-gender rule in English and German.” Linguistics 24(1): 31–45. Müller, Natascha. 1994. “Gender and number agreement within DP.” In Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German grammatical development, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), 53–88. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Muysken, Pieter. 1999. “Retrieving the lexicon in language contact.” MS, Universiteit Leiden. Myers-Scotton, Carol and Janice L. Jake. 2000. “Testing the 4-M model.” International Journal of Bilingualism. 4 ( 1): 1–8. Northover, Mehroo. 1988. “Bilinguals and linguistic identities.” In Bilingualism in Society and School, J. Normann Jørgensen et al. (eds), 201–231. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilinguals Matters. Ochs, Elinor and Bambi B. SchieVelin. 1983. “Foregrounding referents: a reconsideration of left-dislocation in discourse.” In Acquiring Conversational Competence, Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. SchieVelin (eds), 158–174. London: Routledge. Olshtain, Elite. 1989. “Is Second Language Attrition the Reversal of Second Language

208 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Acquisition?.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11:2: 151–165. Olshtain, Elite and Margaret Barzilay. 1991. “Lexical retrieval diYculties in adult language attrition.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 139–150. Cambridge University Press. Oxford, Rebecca L. 1982. “Technical issues in designing and conducting research on language skill attrition.” In The Loss of Language Skills, Richard D. Lambert and Barbara F. Freed (eds), 119–137. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Park, Tshang-Zin. 1978. “Plurals in child speech.” Journal of Child Language 5: 237–250. Penke, Martina. 1998. Die Grammatik des Agrammatismus: eine linguistische Untersuchung zu Wortstellung und Flexion bei Broca-Aphasie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pérez-Pereira, Miguel. 1991. “The acquisition of gender: What Spanish children can tell us.” Journal of Child Language 18 (3): 571–590. Phillips, Betty S. and L. Bouma. 1980. “The acquisition of German plurals in native children and non-native adults.” IRAL XVIII (1): 21–29. PHILO GmbH (ed.). 1938. PHILO-Atlas. Handbuch für die jüdische Auswanderung. Berlin: Jüdischer Buchverlag PHILO GmbH. Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince. 1988. “On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallell distributed processing model of language acquisition.” Cognition 28: 73–193. PfaV, Carol W. 1991. “Turkish in Contact with German: Language Maintenance and Loss among Immigrant Children in Berlin (West).” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 90: 97–129. Polinsky, Maria. 1994. “Strucutral dimensions of Wrst language loss”, Chicago Linguistic Society 30: 257–76. Polinsky, Maria. 1997. “American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition.” Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting 1995, Wayles Browne, Ewa Wornisch, Natasha Kondrashova and Draga Zec (eds), 370–406. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic. Poulisse, Nanda. 1999. Slips of the tongue. Speech errors in Wrst and second language production, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Poussa, Patricia. 1982. “The evolution of early standard English: The creolization hypothesis.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XIV: 69–85. Preston, D. 1982. “How to lose a language.” Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 6 (2): 64–87. Prince, Ellen F. 1978. “A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse.” Language 54 (4) 883–905. Prince, Ellen F. 1981. “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.” In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–255. New York: Academic Press. Py, Bernard. 1986. “Native language attrition amongst migrant workers: Towards an extension of the concept of interlanguage.” In Crosslinguistic InXuence in Second Language Acquisition, Eric Kellerman and Michael Sharwood Smith (ed.), 163–172. New York: Pergamon. Ricker, Kirsten. 1994. “Sprache, Migration und kulturelle Identität — II.” In Sprache — Sprechen — Handeln. Akten des 28. Linguistischen Kolloguiums, Graz 1993, Dieter D. Halwachs and Irmgard Stütz (eds), 291–297. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Ricker, Kirsten. 1995. “Sprache und Identität — Zur Rekonstruktion und Präsentation von

References 209

Identität in Migrationsbiographien.” Grazer Linguistische Studien 44: 101–112. Ricker, Kirsten. 1997. Sprache und Identität. Zur Rekonstruktion und Präsentation von Identität in den Biographien französischer Migrantinnen. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Bremen. Rieker, Yvonne and Michael Zimmermann. 1998. “Von der rechtlichen Gleichstellung bis zum Genozid.” In Geschichte der Juden im Rheinland und in Westfalen, Michael Zimmermann (ed.), 141–259. Köln: Kohlhammer. Romaine, Suzanne. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. RuoV, Arno. 1985. HäuWgkeitswörterbuch gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Russ, Charles V. J. 1989. “Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 17 (1): 58–67. Schachter, P. 1977. “Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, Peter Colle and Jerry Sadock (eds), 279– 306. New York: Academic Press. Schaner-Wolles, Chris. 1988. “Plural vs. Komparativerwerb im Deutschen. Von der Diskrepanz zwischen konzeptueller und morphologischer Entwicklung.” In Experimentelle Studien zur Flexionsmorphologie, H. Günther (ed.), 155–186. Hamburg. Schmid, Monika S. 1999. Translating the Elusive. Marked Word Order and Subjectivity in English-German Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schmidt, Annette. 1991. “Language attrition in Bouman Fijian and Dyirbal.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 113–124. Cambridge University Press. Schneuwly, B. 1978. Zum Erwerb des Genus im Deutschen: eine moegliche Strategie. Manuscript, Max Planck Institut Nijmegen. Schoenmakers-Klein Gunnewiek, Marian. 1998. Taalverlies door taalkcontact? Een onderzoek bij Portugese migranten. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant. Schulz, Barbara. 1999. Fehler im Zweitspracherwerb und Markiertheit. MS Heinrich-HeineUniversität Düsseldorf. Seliger, Herbert W. 1989. “Deterioration and creativity in childhood bilingualism.” In Bilingualism Across the Lifespan, Kenneth Hyltenstam and Loraine K. Obler (eds), 173– 184. Cambridge: CUP. Seliger, Herbert W. 1991. “Language Attrition, Reduced Redundancy, and Creativity.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 227–240. Cambridge University Press. Seliger, Herbert W. and Robert M. Vago. 1991. “The Study of First Language Attrition: An Overview.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 3–15. Cambridge University Press. Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1983. “On Wrst language loss in the second language acquirer.” In Language Transfer in Language Learning, Susan Gass and Larry Selinker (eds), 222– 231. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Sharwood Smith, Michael A. 1989. “Crosslinguistic inXuence in language loss.” In Bilingualism across the lifespan, Kenneth Hyltenstam and Loraine K. Obler (ed.), 185–201. Cambridge University Press. Sharwood Smith, Michael and Paul Van Buren. 1991. “First Language Attrition and the

210 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Parameter Setting Model.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 17–30. Cambridge University Press. Sherman, Andrew J. 1973. Island Refuge. Britain and Refugees from the Third Reich 1933– 1939. London: Elek. Simon, Bettina. 1993. Jiddische Sprachgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Jüdischer Verlag. Søndergaard, Bent. 1996. “Language maintenance, code mixing, and language attrition. Some observations.” Nowele: North-Western European Language Evolution 28–29: 535– 55. Sparing, Frank. 1997a. “Im Mittelpunkt des Unterrichts steht das Jüdische.’ Jüdische Schulen in Düsseldorf.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 106–115. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Sparing, Frank. 1997b. “Ostjuden in Düsseldorf.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 156–165. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Sparing, Frank. 1997c. “Juden in der Düsseldorfer Wirtschaft.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 166–175. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Stein, Dieter. 1990. The Semantics of Syntactic Change. Aspects of the Evolution of ‘Do’ in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stein, Dieter. 1995. “Subjective meanings and the history of inversions.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivization, Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), 129–150. Cambridge University Press. Stump, Gregory T. 1998. “InXection.” In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell. Suchy, Barbara. 1989. Düsseldorf, Donnerstag, den 10. November 1938. Texte, Berichte, Dokumente. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf/Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf. te Velde, John R. 1992. “Problems with Movement Theories of Verb Second in German: A View from a Theory of Coordinate Ellipsis.” In On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods, Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr and Robert L. Kyes (eds), 339–363. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ThieroV, Rolf. 1992. Das Wnite Verb im Deutschen. Tempus — Modus — Distanz. Tübingen: Narr. Thomason, Sarah. 1999. “Linguistic areas and language history.” Paper presented at the conference ‘Languages in Contact’, Groningen, The Netherlands, 25–26. Nov. 1999. Tracy, Rosemarie. 1984. “Fallstudien: Überlegungen zum Erwerb von Kasuskategorie und Kasusmarkierung.” In Syntaktische Struktur und Kasusrelationen, H. Czepluch and Hero Janssen (eds), 271–313. Tübingen: Narr. Tucker, G. Richard, E. Wallace Lambert and Andre A. Rigault. 1977. The French Speaker’s Skill with Grammatical Gender: An example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Turian, Donna and Evelyn P. Altenberg. 1991. “Compensatory Strategies of Child First Language Attrition.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 207–226. Cambridge University Press.

References

Uhmann, Susanne. 1998. “Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische DiVerenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 17 (1): 92–139. Ulvestad, B. 1956. “The strong verb conjugation system in German.” Word 12: 91–105. Vago, Robert M. 1991. “Paradigmatic Regularity in First Language Attrition.” In First Language Attrition, Herbert W. Seliger and Robert M. Vago (eds), 241–251. Cambridge University Press. Vater, Heinz. 1975. “Werden als Modalverb.” In Aspekte der Modalität, Joseph P. Calbert and Heinz Vater (eds). Tübingen: Narr. Volkov, Shulamit. 2000. Die Juden in Deutschland 1780–1918. Muenchen: R. Oldenbourg. Vorländer, Herwart. 1990. “Mündliches Erfragen von Geschichte.” In Oral History, Herwart Vorländer (ed.),. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Waas, Margit. 1993. “Loss of First Language Skills in the Community: Intermediate Stage.” Language Problems and Language Planning 17 (3): 225–237. Waas, Margit. 1996. Language Attrition Downunder: German Speakers in Australia. Frankfurt — New York: Peter Lang. Walk, Joseph (ed.). 1981. Das Sonderrecht für die Juden im NS-Staat. Eine Sammlung der gesetzlichen Maßnahmen und Richtlinien — Inhalt und Bedeutung. Heidelberg/Karlsruhe: C. F.Müller. Watzinger-Tharp, Johanna. 1994. “Applying the Wndings of a sociolinguistic study to teaching German.” Selecta: Journal of the PaciWc Northwest Council on Foreign Languages 15: 12–18. Wegener, Heide. 1992. “Pluralregeln und mentale Grammatik.” In Fügungspotenzen. Festschrift für Manfred Bierwisch, A. Strigin and I. Zimmermann (ed.), 225–249. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wegener, Heide. 1993. “La formation du pluriel des noms en allemand.” In Actes du XVe Congrès International des Linguistes, Quebec, Université Laval, 9–14 août 1992: Les Langues Menacées/Endangered languages: Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguistis, Quebec, Université Laval, 9–14 August 1992, André Crochetière et al. (eds), 239–242. Sainte Foy: PU Laval. Weinreich, Peter. 1983. “Emerging from threatened identities: ethnicity and gender in redeWnitions of ethnic identity.” In Threatened Identities, Glynis M. Breakwell (ed.), 143–85. New York: John Wiley. Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. Weltens, Bert and Andrew D. Cohen. 1989. “Language Attrition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11 (2): 127–133. Wiese, Richard. 1987. “Phonologie und Morphologie des Umlauts im Deutschen.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 6: 227–248. Wilkins, David P. 1996. “Morphology.” In Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. I, Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary and Wolfgang Wölck (eds), 109–117. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Wodak, Ruth and Gertraud Benke. 1997. “Gender as a sociolinguistic variable: new perspectives on variation studies.” In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Florian Coulmas (ed.), 127–150. Oxford: Blackwell. Woelk, Wolfgang. 1997a. “Jüdische Ärzte in der Stadt und an der Medizinischen Akademie

211

212 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Düsseldorf im Nationalsozialismus.” In Die Medizinische Akademie Düsseldorf im Nationalsozialismus, Mischa G. Esch, Kerstin Griese, Frank Sparing and Wolfgang Woelk (eds), 55–85. Essen: Klartext. Woelk, Wolfgang. 1997b. “Ausgeschaltet, vertrieben, ermordet — Jüdische Ärzte in Düsseldorf.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 176–185. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1970. Tempus und Zeitreferenz im Deutschen. München. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1985. “Über die Argumente des Verbs.” Linguistische Berichte 111: 183– 227. Yagmur, Kutlay. 1997. First Language Attrition among Turkish Speakers in Sydney. Tilburg University Press. Zielke, Heiko. 1997. “` Unsere Kraft unserem Volk’. Makkabi und der jüdische Sport in Düsseldorf 1924 bis 1938.” In Aspekte jüdischen Lebens in Düsseldorf und am Niederrhein, Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf (ed.), 130–141. Düsseldorf: Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. Zittartz, Susanne. 1998. “Von der Frühen Neuzeit bis zur Judenemanzipation.” In Geschichte der Juden im Rheinland und in Westfalen, Michael Zimmermann (ed.), 79–140. Köln: Kohlhammer. Zubin, David A. 1975. “On the distributional properties of surface morphology and their consequences for semantic analysis.” Columbia University Working Papers on Linguistics 2: 189–218. Zubin, David A. 1977. “The semantic basis of case alternation in German.” In Studies in Language Variation. Semantics, Syntax, Phonology, Pragmatics, Social Situations, Ethnographic Approaches, Roger W. Fasold and R. W. Shuy (eds), 88–99. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Zubin, David A. 1979. “Discourse function of morphology. The focus system in German.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed.), 469–504. New York: Academic Press. Zubin, David A. and Klaus-Michael Köpcke. 1984. “AVect classiWcation in the German gender system.” Lingua 63 (1): 41–96.

Appendix I

Tables

Albert L. Alice J. Arthur L. Bella S. Berta D. Charlotte G. Dieter K. Elisabeth L. Ellen F. Emma B. Erich E. Ernst L. Fritz K. Gertrud U. Gretl L. Hans L. Hilde W. Ilse N. Irma M. Jakob L. John Herz Kurt S. Liesl R. Lola R. Lotte A. Margot L. Martin R.

Alias

2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2

– – – E E G G G G G E G G E G – G G E G G G G E G G G

– 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2

1 1 3 2 1 – – 1 – 1 – 2 1 – 1 1 2 1 3 1

1

3 3

3 2 1 3

3 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 – 2

–

–

2

3 3

3 1 2 2

3 3 2 1 2 – 3 3 3 3 3 – 3

–

–

Extralinguistic variables emigra ageemi natlgs lgpar lgsib lgspo lgchi 0,46 0,93 1,22 2,95 1,94 2,77 0,59 0,93 0,41 0,00 5,87 1,28 0,95 2,21 0,00 0,46 0,60 0,39 1,49 0,89 0,09 0,23 0,51 0,32 0,45 0,29 0,20

case

Table 1. Extralinguistic variables and interferences per 1,000 German words

0,61 0,74 0,00 0,74 0,97 0,37 0,59 1,87 0,10 0,29 0,00 0,43 1,42 1,10 0,32 0,46 0,60 0,59 0,17 0,00 0,43 0,00 0,25 0,08 0,45 0,43 0,00

gen 0,30 0,00 0,00 1,47 1,21 0,55 0,20 0,00 0,10 0,29 1,07 0,21 0,71 1,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,17 0,00 0,00 0,12 0,00 0,24 0,00 0,29 0,20

0,76 1,30 3,66 3,32 2,18 2,22 0,39 1,40 0,10 0,29 1,60 1,28 0,47 6,19 1,28 0,00 2,10 2,96 1,32 0,00 0,26 0,46 0,76 0,57 0,91 0,86 0,79

0,30 0,00 1,22 1,11 2,18 2,22 0,79 0,00 0,00 0,58 0,00 1,49 0,95 4,20 1,28 0,00 0,60 1,18 0,83 0,89 0,00 0,00 0,51 0,24 0,91 0,72 0,20

0,30 1,49 0,00 0,74 0,24 0,18 0,20 0,47 0,21 0,88 1,07 1,28 0,00 1,10 6,40 0,00 0,30 0,20 0,17 0,89 0,17 0,23 0,00 0,32 0,45 1,00 0,00

0,00 0,37 0,00 0,37 0,97 2,03 0,39 0,00 0,10 0,29 0,00 0,85 0,47 2,65 0,32 0,46 0,60 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,00 0,12 0,00 0,16 0,91 1,00 0,39

Interferences per 1,000 words plu vp vs dwo sub 2,74 4,83 6,11 10,69 9,68 10,34 3,14 4,67 1,03 2,63 9,61 6,80 4,97 18,56 9,60 1,39 4,79 5,32 4,46 2,66 0,94 1,15 2,03 1,94 4,09 4,59 1,77

total

214 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Max M. Ruth K. Stefan S. Thea S. Theo S. Victor S. Walter O. Werner S.

3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1

2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2

G G G G E E E E

1 – 1 3 – 3 1

2 – 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3

1 3

3 3 2 3 3 3 3

0,67 0,93 0,00 0,52 2,65 1,32 0,25 0,51

0,00 1,28 0,47 0,52 2,43 0,33 0,00 0,25

0,34 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,10 0,00 0,00 0,13

0,67 1,75 0,00 1,03 8,83 0,66 0,00 1,02

0,00 0,35 0,00 0,17 0,88 0,66 0,00 0,00

0,00 0,23 0,00 0,00 0,44 0,00 0,00 0,76

0,00 0,58 0,00 0,00 0,88 2,32 0,00 0,25

1,68 5,12 0,47 2,24 17,21 5,30 0,25 2,93

Appendices 215

Albert L. Alice J. Arthur L. Bella S. Berta D. Charlotte G. Dieter K. Elisabeth L. Ellen F. Emma B. Erich E. Ernst L. Fritz K. Gertrud U. Gretl L. Hans L. Hilde W. Ilse N. Irma M. Jakob L. John Herz Kurt S. Liesl R. Lola R. Lotte A. Margot L. Martin R.

Alias

2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2

– – – E E G G G G G E G G E G – G G E G G G G E G G G

– 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2

1 1 3 2 1 – – 1 – 1 – 2 1 – 1 1 2 1 3 1

1

3 3

3 2 1 3

3 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 – 2

–

–

2

3 3

3 1 2 2

3 3 2 1 2 – 3 3 3 3 3 – 3

–

–

Extralinguistic variables emigra ageemi natlgs lgpar lgsib lgspo lgchi

Table 2. Extralinguistic variables and proWciency data

3,78 3,92 3,52 3,21 4,18 4,30 3,94 3,87 3,71 3,71 3,99 4,08 3,79 5,03 4,49 3,98 4,16 4,13 3,85 3,79 3,25 4,29 3,98 3,83 4,28 4,11 4,43

tif 12,27 16,42 10,92 9,32 14,81 14,53 10,25 14,99 12,80 12,80 12,30 15,61 13,11 14,51 14,43 10,43 14,61 9,58 13,38 9,45 6,71 13,21 11,46 10,38 16,05 13,31 12,37

31,38 21,17 40,29 26,53 30,97 26,77 36,94 25,21 33,76 34,49 40,55 37,63 21,06 28,51 30,72 18,50 35,35 31,91 28,08 15,10 15,68 43,74 28,18 23,63 24,99 27,83 25,13

meanfr v2 14,63 23,03 20,76 23,95 16,21 10,89 19,85 18,21 34,28 19,29 8,00 14,03 15,14 17,46 10,56 42,09 22,47 15,17 25,27 9,77 36,84 12,20 18,02 24,60 19,99 20,94 19,63

34,89 44,95 40,29 20,27 38,23 45,60 37,73 43,42 43,75 53,49 40,55 45,07 33,83 42,65 38,72 25,44 40,74 39,99 31,21 44,40 16,19 40,75 37,57 26,30 37,71 51,06 37,50

55,16 50,91 57,26 46,21 46,78 65,38 52,40 59,86 51,28 51,64 53,63 64,73 57,82 55,47 55,00 54,62 59,16 56,61 54,33 52,53 39,27 60,63 52,46 61,35 63,16 49,82 52,51

24,20 25,30 19,23 24,19 27,46 11,89 27,05 18,03 27,11 24,67 24,57 15,75 17,82 22,26 24,00 23,69 18,33 17,97 19,00 25,59 27,72 21,95 27,46 18,44 17,89 24,03 27,41

ProWciency data sub dwo nom dat 18,15 22,87 23,50 28,52 25,42 22,73 20,55 20,75 20,88 23,36 20,42 19,52 22,55 22,26 20,33 20,08 21,86 24,41 26,33 21,21 30,36 16,38 18,66 19,86 18,60 26,15 16,22

1,15 1,31 2,23 2,15 2,38 2,38 1,00 2,24 1,69 1,92 2,77 1,46 1,46 2,85 2,00 1,77 1,46 1,31 2,08 2,39 1,00 1,85 1,38 1,15 2,31 1,77 1,62

acc rating

216 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Max M. Ruth K. Stefan S. Thea S. Theo S. Victor S. Walter O. Werner S.

3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1

2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2

G G G G E E E E

1 – 1 3 – 3 1

2 – 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3

1 3

3 3 2 3 3 3 3

3,48 3,98 3,88 3,26 3,75 4,97 3,46 2,87

8,18 9,25 12,90 7,55 9,56 13,40 10,89 8,30

21,49 33,17 37,46 32,41 25,38 24,50 29,46 10,44

31,23 24,44 18,26 23,27 28,69 14,56 26,22 33,75

26,53 53,30 47,06 45,51 34,65 26,48 27,97 19,48

46,18 60,00 54,19 56,00 57,52 63,51 49,67 48,32

24,36 14,39 20,00 22,67 18,30 18,25 18,95 23,15

24,00 24,56 24,52 20,33 20,92 17,19 30,07 24,50

1,77 2,23 1,38 1,23 2,46 2,54 1,00 1,08

Appendices 217

218 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 3. Overall case marking in a stretch of 1,000 words Albert L. Alice J. Arthur L. Bella S. Berta D. Charlotte G. Dieter K. Elisabeth L. Ellen F. Emma B. Erich E. Ernst L. Fritz K. Gertrud U. Gretl L. Hans L. Hilde W. Ilse N. Irma M. Jakob L. John Herz Kurt S. Liesl R. Lola R. Lotte A. Margot L. Martin R. Max M. Ruth K. Stefan S. Thea S. Theo S. Victor S. Walter O. Werner S.

% nom

% gen

% dat

% acc

55.2 50.9 57.3 46.2 46.8 65.4 52.4 59.9 51.3 51.6 53.6 64.7 57.8 55.5 55.0 54.6 59.2 56.6 54.3 52.5 39.3 60.6 52.5 61.3 63.2 49.8 52.5 46.2 60.0 54.2 56.0 57.5 63.5 49.7 48.3

2.5 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.7 2.6 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 3.9 5.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 3.3 1.1 1.3 4.0

24.2 25.3 19.2 24.2 27.5 11.9 27.1 18.0 27.1 24.7 24.6 15.8 17.8 22.3 24.0 23.7 18.3 18.0 19.0 25.6 27.7 22.0 27.5 18.4 17.9 24.0 27.4 24.4 14.4 20.0 22.7 18.3 18.2 19.0 23.2

18.1 22.9 23.5 28.5 25.4 22.7 20.5 20.7 20.9 23.4 20.4 19.5 22.5 22.3 20.3 20.1 21.9 24.4 26.3 21.2 30.4 16.4 18.7 19.9 18.6 26.1 16.2 24.0 24.6 24.5 20.3 20.9 17.2 30.1 24.5

Appendices 219

Table 4. Distribution of singular and plural NPs in a stretch of 1,000 words Informant

NP sg n

Albert L. Alice J. Arthur L. Bella S. Berta D. Charlotte G. Dieter K. Elisabeth L. Ellen F. Emma B. Erich E. Ernst L. Fritz K. Gertrud U. Gretl L. Hans L. Hilde W. Ilse N. Irma M. Jakob L. John Herz Kurt S. Liesl R. Lola R. Lotte A. Margot L. Martin R. Max M. Ruth K. Stefan S. Thea S. Theo S. Victor S. Walter O. Werner S. Total

78 84 61 99 118 86 92 80 85 107 98 86 95 87 109 63 78 79 96 80 95 69 97 76 67 83 11 92 81 84 95 71 76 89 116 2963

NP pl % 67,24 80,77 72,62 70,71 82,52 77,48 80,00 78,43 81,73 85,60 80,99 72,88 81,20 81,31 94,78 72,41 78,79 79,80 72,73 78,43 74,80 71,88 76,38 80,85 71,28 70,94 10,38 76,03 75,70 82,35 76,00 65,14 81,72 77,39 74,84 75,41

n 38 20 23 41 25 25 23 22 19 18 23 32 22 20 6 24 21 20 36 22 32 27 30 18 27 34 95 29 26 18 30 38 17 26 39 966

Total NPs % 32,76 19,23 27,38 29,29 17,48 22,52 20,00 21,57 18,27 14,40 19,01 27,12 18,80 18,69 5,22 27,59 21,21 20,20 27,27 21,57 25,20 28,13 23,62 19,15 28,72 29,06 89,62 23,97 24,30 17,65 24,00 34,86 18,28 22,61 25,16 24,59

116 104 84 140 143 111 115 102 104 125 121 118 117 107 115 87 99 99 132 102 127 96 127 94 94 117 106 121 107 102 125 109 93 115 155 3929

220 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 5. Distribution of tenses in a stretch of 1,000 words fin verbs n Albert L. Alice J. Arthur L. Bella S. Berta D. Charlotte G. Dieter K. Elisabeth L. Ellen F. Emma B. Erich E. Ernst L. Fritz K. Gertrud U. Gretl L. Hans L. Hilde W. Ilse N. Irma M. Jakob L. John Herz Kurt S. Liesl R. Lola R. Lotte A. Margot L. Martin R. Max M. Ruth K. Stefan S. Thea S. Theo S. Victor S. Walter O. Werner S. Total

pres %

133 48 140 21 113 43 132 28 114 9 147 49 145 34 137 41 125 16 140 44 135 32 142 22 139 37 144 19 138 20 128 46 138 37 149 17 133 21 138 39 107 10 134 49 133 25 129 3 136 13 132 31 119 29 112 29 163 40 138 53 119 28 143 41 142 25 143 51 123 19 4683 1069

36,09 15,00 38,05 21,21 7,89 33,33 23,45 29,93 12,80 31,43 23,70 15,49 26,62 13,19 14,49 35,94 26,81 11,41 15,79 28,26 9,35 36,57 18,80 2,33 9,56 23,48 24,37 25,89 24,54 38,41 23,53 28,67 17,61 35,66 15,45 22,83

n

pret %

68 46 49 59 53 46 89 41 63 50 79 45 61 78 51 45 56 75 92 40 85 67 79 97 91 37 55 52 73 38 47 58 89 63 79 2196

51,13 32,86 43,36 44,70 46,49 31,29 61,38 29,93 50,40 35,71 58,52 31,69 43,88 54,17 36,96 35,16 40,58 50,34 69,17 28,99 79,44 50,00 59,40 75,19 66,91 28,03 46,22 46,43 44,79 27,54 39,50 40,56 62,68 44,06 64,23 46,89

perf n % 15 70 18 43 48 49 18 54 34 41 24 74 40 41 66 32 42 50 18 57 6 16 25 28 29 62 29 27 48 45 42 38 26 25 18 1298

11,28 50,00 15,93 32,58 42,11 33,33 12,41 39,42 27,20 29,29 17,78 52,11 28,78 28,47 47,83 25,00 30,43 33,56 13,53 41,30 5,61 11,94 18,80 21,71 21,32 46,97 24,37 24,11 29,45 32,61 35,29 26,57 18,31 17,48 14,63 27,72

pqp n %

fut n %

1

1 3 1

2 2 4 2 4 1 12

1 6 1 2 3 5 1 2 6 1 3 0 3 5 2 2 2 2 6 2 1 6 90

0,75 0,00 1,77 1,52 3,51 1,36 2,76 0,73 9,60 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,72 4,17 0,72 1,56 2,17 3,36 0,75 1,45 5,61 0,75 2,26 0,00 2,21 0,00 4,20 1,79 1,23 1,45 1,68 4,20 1,41 0,70 4,88 1,92

1

5 1

3 2 1

1 1 1 2 1 2

3 1 30

0,75 2,14 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,68 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,57 0,00 0,70 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,34 0,00 1,34 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,78 0,00 1,52 0,84 1,79 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,10 0,81 0,64

Appendices 221

Table 6. Correlations of interference data: Morphology (Pearson Corr. Sig. 2-tailed)

case gen plu vp

case

gen

plu

– n.s. .731** .487**

– .378* .609**

– .583**

*:p<.05; **:p<.01

Table 7. Correlations of interference data: Syntax

vs dwo sub

vs

dwo

– n.s. .717**

– n.s.

**:p<.01

Table 8. Interference data: Outliers Alias Bella S. Charlotte G. Elisabeth L. Erich E. Gertrud U. Gretl L. Theo S. Victor S.

case

gen

plu

vp

vs

dwo

sub

1,47 2,22

2,03

1,87 5,87 6,19

4,20

2,65 6,40

2,43

8,83 2,32

Table 9. Distribution of Outliers across biographical data Outliers (n = 12) emigra1 emigra2 emigra3

– 2 10

ageemi1 AGEEMI2

11 1

natlgsn natlgsg natlgse

– 4 8

222 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Table 10. Distribution of Outliers across self-report data a/f

s

n

–

– – 1 1

3 4 1 –

1 7 9 10

8 1 1 1

lgpar LGSIB

lgspo lgchi

Table 11. Correlations of proWciency data Variables Lexicon Morphology

Syntax

Pearson corr.

ttf – meanfr nom-dat nom-acc dat-acc v2-dwo v2-sub sub-dwo

.64*** -.77*** -.60*** -.00 .54*** -.44** -.49**

**:p<.01; ***:p<.001

Table 12. Interferences/1000 words and language use case** gen

plu*

vp*

vs

dwo

sub

natlgsn natlgsg natlgse

0,56 0,57 1,40

0,41 0,44 0,36

0,11 0,14 0,54

0,86 0,91 0,97

0,11 0,41 0,66

0,60 0,29 0,43

0,19 0,28 0,33

lgsiba/f lgsibs lgsibn

case 0,16 0,68 1,19

gen 0,45 0,30 0,30

plu 0,08 0,27 0,40

vp** 0,25 0,59 1,14

vs 0,25 0,21 0,65

dwo 0,25 0,21 0,27

sub* 0,12 0,16 0,37

lgspoa/f lgspos lgspon

case** gen 0,32 0,35 0,54 0,27 1,12 0,46

plu 0,12 0,05 0,40

vp 0,55 0,77 0,92

vs* 0,45 0,18 0,46

dwo 0,30 0,23 0,30

sub 0,25 0,14 0,32

lgchia/f lgchis lgchin

case* 0,92 0,25 1,10

plu 0,00 0,09 0,36

vp** 0,92 0,31 1,05

vs* 0,31 0,11 0,57

dwo* 0,61 0,16 0,32

sub* 0,00 0,13 0,35

*: p<.05; **: p<.01

gen 0,00 0,25 0,49

Appendices 223

Appendix II

Letter and questionnaire

1.

English1

Dear ______________, Some time ago you kindly agreed to give an interview about your life to the Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. I would now like to ask your permission to use this interview for a study I am planning to do. In recent years the object of various studies has been the situation of people who were prosecuted by the Nazi regime for various reasons and had to emigrate. One aspect, however, has been almost totally neglected so far, namely the consequences of living in a country with a language other than German. Linguistic studies have shown that for people who speak more than one language, each language represents diVerent aspects of their own identity and personality — a fact which you may already have experienced for yourself. One of the protagonists in the documentary movie “Emigration N. Y.”, which is based on interviews like the one you gave, put it this way: “I consider that the worst crime that Nazis committed against me: that they deprived me of my mother tongue”. I would now like to conduct a linguistic study with the object of throwing some light on the linguistic consequences of emigration. For this study, I would like to linguistically analyse the interview that you gave to the Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf. I have been working with these interviews for close to a year already, transcribing them to make them more accessible for the Mahn- und Gedenkstätte, as well as for my own research. First of all I would like to ask you whether you have any objections to an analysis of your own interview. My study will focus on where in your interview you use German and English elements and whether there is any ‘mingling’ of the languages. I will concentrate on grammatical aspects like the order of words within the sentence. I will, of course, anonymize the data, so that the study will not show from which interview the results are drawn. Also, I have some questions concerning your personal use of English and German. I would be most grateful if you would be kind enough to spare me a little time in answering them and sending your answers back to me in the envelope I am enclosing. Also, if there is anything you would like to tell me about that this would be invaluable for my study. I would be most grateful if you would be kind enough to spare me a little time in answering them and sending your answers back to me in the envelope I am enclosing. As a linguist, I am aware what an important role the language we speak plays for our personality and for our life. Let me thank you in advance for your help and support in my work. With warmest greetings to you and your family, Monika S. Schmid 1. Both the letter and the questionnaire were sent to all informants in English and in German (see below)

224 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Questionnaire 1. How did you learn English as a foreign language? Did you have English lessons while you were still in Germany? Did you have systematic English lessons after you emigrated, or did you learn it only through everyday-use? —————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————— 1) With whom did you talk German after the time of your emigration? –

With your parents? 䊐 always

–

䊐

frequently

With your parents until

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

______________

䊐 always 䊐 frequently 䊐 seldom 䊐 never (the reason for this question is that in some interviews it is mentioned that after a certain time, conversation switched to English) –

With your brothers and sisters? 䊐 always

–

never

䊐

frequently

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

䊐

frequently

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

䊐

frequently

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

䊐

frequently

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

With your children until 䊐 always

–

䊐

With your children 䊐 always

–

seldom

With your partner or spouse until _____ 䊐 always

–

䊐

With your partner or spouse 䊐 always

–

frequently

With your brothers and sisters until ____________ 䊐 always

–

䊐

䊐

frequently

What is the native language of your partner or spouse?

________________________________________________________________ –

If you had another partner or spouse at an earlier time: what was his/her native language? _________________________________________________________________ Did you talk German with him/her?

Appendices 225

䊐 always –

䊐

frequently

䊐

seldom

䊐

never

Are there any other persons with whom you regularly talk or talked German _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

–

If so, until what time?

_____________________________________________

2) How is talking German for you nowadays? 䊐 eVortless

䊐 with some eVort

䊐 diYcult

3) For what other purposes do you use German now? 䊐 When writing your diary 䊐 In creative writing 䊐 When writing your memoirs 䊐 When writing letters 䊐 When dreaming 䊐 Never 䊐 Other: _________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

4) Is there anything else you would like to tell me about how you feel about English or German? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

226 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

2. German

Liebe/Lieber ______________ ich möchte mich hier mit einer Bitte an Sie richten, die mit dem lebensgeschichtlichen Interview zusamenhängt, welches Sie freundlicherweise der Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf gegeben haben. Die Situation von Menschen, die während des Nationalsozialismus aus den verschiedensten Gründen verfolgt wurden und ihr Heimatland verlassen mußten, ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten sehr gut erforscht worden. Ein Aspekt jedoch, der bislang fast völlig vernachlässigt wurde, ist die Frage, welche Auswirkungen die Lebenssituation in einem Land hat, in dem eine andere Sprache als Deutsch gesprochen wird. Die Sprachwissenschaft hat festgestellt, daß für Menschen, die mehr als eine Sprache sprechen, jede Sprache für einen unterschiedlichen Teil der eigenen Identität, der Persönlichkeit, steht — aus persönlicher Erfahrung wissen Sie das vielleicht schon längst selbst. In dem DokumentarWlm “Emigration N. Y.”, der auf lebensgeschichtlichen Interviews von emigrierten österreichischen Juden beruht, sagt einer der Zeitzeugen: “I consider that the worst crime the Nazis committed against me: that they deprived me of my mother tongue”. Ich möchte mich in einer sprachwissenschaftlichen Untersuchung mit den sprachlichen Auswirkungen befassen, die die Emigration mit sich bringt. Hierfür möchte ich gerne aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht das Interview untersuchen, welches Sie der Mahn- und Gedenkstätte Düsseldorf gegeben haben. Ich beschäftige mich seit ca. einem Jahr mit den Interviews, die der Mahn- und Gedenkstätte vorliegen, und habe diese Interviews zunächst alle verschriftet, um sie sowohl für die Dokumentation der Mahn- und Gedenkstätte als auch für mich selbst zugänglich zu machen. Ich möchte Sie daher zunächst einmal fragen, ob Sie Bedenken gegen eine solche Untersuchung Ihres persönlichen Interviews haben. Es geht in meiner Untersuchung vor allem darum, an welchen Stellen Ihrer Erzählung Sie englische und an welchen Stellen deutsche Elemente verwenden, und ob sich die beiden Sprachen gelegentlich vermischen. Mein Untersuchungsschwerpunkt wird dabei auf der Syntax, also der Satzstellung, liegen. Selbstverständlich werde ich die Daten anonymisieren, so daß aus der Untersuchung nicht hervorgeht, aus welchem konkreten Interview die einzelnen Ergebnisse stammen. Daneben hab ich noch einige Fragen, die Ihren persönlichen Sprachgebrauch betreVen. Wenn sie mir hierüber etwas erzählen möchten, so wäre das für meine Untersuchung von sehr großem Wert. Ich wäre Ihnen daher ganz besonders dankbar, wenn Sie die Zeit für die Beantwortung erübrigen und mir die Ergebnisse in dem beiliegenden Rückumschlag zuschicken könnten. Als Sprachwissenschaftlerin bin ich mir darüber bewußt, welch wichtige Rolle die Sprache, die wir sprechen, für unsere Persönlichkeit und unseren Werdegang hat. Für Ihre Hilfe und Unterstützung bei meiner Arbeit bedanke ich mich schon im voraus ganz herzlich. Mit freundlichen Grüßen und den besten Wünschen für Sie und Ihre Familie, Monika S. Schmid

Appendices 227

Fragebogen 1) Auf welche Weise haben Sie die Fremdsprache gelernt? Hatten Sie bereits in Deutschland unterricht darin? Hatten Sie nach der Emigration systematischen Unterricht, oder haben Sie die Sprache nur im Alltagsgebrauch gelernt? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 2) Mit welchen Personen haben Sie seit der Emigration Deutsch gesprochen? –

Mit Ihren Eltern? 䊐 immer

–

䊐

häuWg

䊐

selten

䊐

nie

Mit Ihren Eltern bis etwa zum Zeitpunkt ________________

䊐 immer 䊐 häuWg 䊐 selten 䊐 nie (Ich stelle diese Frage, weil aus einigen Interviews hervogeht, daß sich die Sprache irgendwann geändert hat) –

Mit Ihren Geschwistern? 䊐 immer

–

nie

䊐

häuWg

䊐

selten

䊐

nie

䊐

häuWg

䊐

selten

䊐

nie

䊐

häuWg

䊐

selten

䊐

nie

䊐

häuWg

䊐

selten

䊐

nie

selten

䊐

nie

Mit Ihren Kindern bis etwa zum Zeitpunkt 䊐 immer

–

䊐

Mit Ihren Kindern 䊐 immer

–

selten

Mit Ihrem (Ehe)partner/Ihrer (Ehe)partnerin bis etwa zum Zeitpunkt _________ 䊐 immer

–

䊐

Mit Ihrem (Ehe)partner/Ihrer (Ehe)partnerin 䊐 immer

–

häuWg

Mit Ihren Geschwistern bis etwa zum Zeitpunkt ________________ 䊐 immer

–

䊐

䊐

häuWg

䊐

Was ist die Muttersprache Ihres (Ehe)partners/Ihrer Ehepartnerin? _________________________________________________________________

–

Falls Sie früher einen anderen (Ehe)partner/eine andere (Ehe)partnerin hatten: was war seine/ihre Muttersprache? _________________________________________________________________ Haben Sie mit ihm/ihr Deutsch gesprochen? 䊐 immer

䊐

häuWg

䊐

selten

䊐

nie

228 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

–

Gibt es sonst Personen, mit denen Sie regelmäßig Deutsch gesprochen haben?

____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ –

Wenn ja, bis zu welchem Zeitpunkt? ___________________________________

3) Wie ist es heute für Sie, Deutsch zu sprechen? 䊐 mühelos

䊐 etwas anstrengend

䊐 sehr anstrengend

4) In welchen Situationen verwenden Sie sonst noch Deutsch? 䊐 Beim Schreiben Ihres Tagebuchs 䊐 Beim kreativen Schreiben 䊐 Beim Schreiben Ihrer Lebenserinnerungen 䊐 In Briefen 䊐 Im Traum 䊐 Gar nicht 䊐 Sonstiges: ______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

5) Gibt es sonst noch irgend etwas, was Sie in Bezug auf Ihr Verhältnis zu Ihrer Muttersprache oder über Ihr Verhältnis zur englischen Sprache für wichtig halten? _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Appendices 229

Appendix III

CD and transcripts

The CD that is included with this book contains 21 samples from the interviews, each about 3 minutes in length. Unfortunately, the quality of the recordings is in some cases rather bad. I attempted to improve the sound quality with SoundForge 4.5 — with variable success. The transcripts are given in the original, followed by an English translation (in italics, utterances from the interviewer are underlined). I have deliberately avoided ‘smoothing’ out grammatical inconsistencies and other incongruities in these translations, following the original text as closely as possible, since they are primarily intended as a help to the listener. I’ve attempted to chose excerpts that would form a coherent whole, and to arrange them into a thematically consistent unit. The excerpts are arranged in the following order: Track 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Name Emma B. John H. Herz Victor S. Dieter K. Stefan S. Margot L. Ellen F. Lola R. Irma M. Theo S. Arthur L.

Track 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Name Gertrud U. Bella S. Charlotte G. Hilde W. Albert L. Kurt S. Walter O. Martin R. Lotte A. Ruth K. and Fritz K.

Excerpt 1: Emma B. (emigra2, age at emigration 26 years) E. B.:

also ich meine, die die Kriegsjahre erinner ich mich waren, waren schwer, ich meine, das das weiß ja jeder in Düsseldorf, daß es nichts zu essen gegeben hat und daß man keine Butter hatte, ich erinner mich wir hatten einen Klavierlehrer und der hatte der kam zu uns mit einer Rolle in leicht lila Papier und hat dann immer hat er gesagt, das ist Medizin, das muß er einnehmen, werd ich auch werd ich auch nie vergessen, war ich vielleicht acht Jahre. Und wie der Krieg vorbei war, meine Mutter hatte eine Cousine in Amsterdam, und da hab ich diese lila Rolle in Amsterdam gesehen. Es war Lindt-Schokolade [laughs] aber er hätte uns kein Stückchen gegeben, da hat er immer gesagt, das ist Medizin, das er einnehmen muß, das erstemal in meinem Leben daß ich Schokola- wissentlich Schokolade gesehen hab war neunzehnhundertachtzehn. Haben wir gar nicht gekannt. Und die Telefonnummer von der Konditorei in Amsterdam tweeëntachtigdrieënseventig werd ich nie vergessen, da hat die Tante immer gesagt, du darfst dir bestellen, was du willst.

230 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

I: E. B.:

I: E. B.:

Toll [laughs] ja, ja, ja, das war neunzehnhundertachtzehn, aber ich meine wir haben, das das wissen die Christen in Deutschland genauso wie wir, das war damals hat es ja den Unterschied nicht gegeben. Nicht, also ich mein, wir haben christliche Freundinnen gehabt und jüdische Freundinnen gehabt. Mhm, Ihre Eltern verkehrten ja auch in allen Kreisen. Ja, absolut, aber ich meine, mein Vater mehr, Vater war, ich mein socially durch durch sein Geschäft, er war im Aufsichtsrat bei bei vielen Firmen und und war, ich mein wir, ich weiß, daß neunzehnhundert neunundzwanzig hat der Doktor [name deleted] einen großen Ball gegeben, oder wie man das nennt, vom Reitclub und da waren mein Vater und ich die einzigen Juden, das weiß ich genau. Wir waren nicht im gleichen Reiterverband, wir waren in der Nähe von, in der Nähe zur kal zur Cäcilienallee Kortis or oder so ähnlich, wie hieß der Kortner der Tattersall? Und und Doktor [name deleted] war wo die Henkels waren, ein andern Reitclub wo keine Juden waren, also das war auch getrennt, absolut

Well, I mean the war years [this refers to WWI, MSS] I remember were diYcult I mean, everyone in Düsseldorf knows there was nothing to eat, and there was no butter, I remember we had a piano teacher and he came to us with a sort of roll wrapped in pale purple paper, and he always said it’s medicine that he has to take, I’ll never forget that, I was maybe eight years. And when the war was over, my mother had a cousin in Amsterdam, and I saw that purple roll in Amsterdam. It was Lindt chocolate, but he would never have given us a bit of it, he always said it is medicine he has to take, the Wrst time in my life that I knowingly saw chocolate was 1918. We didn’t know it. And the phone number of the patisserie in Amsterdam I’ll never forget either, 8273, my aunt always said, you may order what you want. Great Yes, yes, that was 1918, but I mean we had, the Christians in Germany know that as well as we do, there was no diVerence then. You know, I mean we had Christian friends and we had Jewish friends. Well, your parents had contacts in all circles of society. Yes, absolutely, but I mean, it was more my father, I mean father was socially because of his business, he was on the board of many companies and was, I mean I know that 1920 Doktor [name deleted] gave a great ball or whatever you call it, at the riding club, and my father and I were the only Jews there, I know that for a fact. We weren’t members of the same riding club, we were somewhere close to the Caecilienallee, Kortis or something it was called, what was its name, Kortner, the stables? And Doktor [name deleted] was in the same club with the Henkels, a diVerent club that had no Jewish members, so that was separated, absolutely.

Excerpt 2: John H. Herz (emigra1, age at emigration 27 years) J. H. also damals in der akkustisch wunderbaren Tonhalle fanden diese Konzerte statt, ich lernte damals auch da gab es auch einen Knabenchor in einer Mahlersymphonie also ich lernte da sehr viel Musik mitmachen, was ja ungeheuer viel ausmacht, nicht nur zuhören, sondern mitmachen zu können, was auch wieder zeigt, wie assimiliert wir als jüdische Familie waren, daß vielleicht allgemein gesagt werden kann, daß mehr oder weniger die meisten damals in Deutschland lebenden Juden so assimiliert waren, daß sie sich kaum von den andern kulturell und so weiter unterschie-

Appendices 231

den, das stammt ja schon noch noch von Heinrich Heine her, der bekannterweise gesagt hat, der sich taufen ließ und gesagt hat, daß er eigentlich die Taufe ist das Eintrittsbillet zur deutschen Kultur, wir waren nicht getauft, wir hattens nicht nötig, wir glaubten uns auch so an der deutschen Kultur beteiligen zu können ohne uns taufen zu lassen, viele der Freunde meiner Eltern oder unsere Freunde stammten aus getauften jüdischen Familien oder waren auch christliche Familien, wir waren so assimiliert, daß wir kaum n Unterschied machten zwischen den Freunden, die jüdischer Herkunft waren, oder anderen. Und was sich noch wieder darin wiederspiegelt, wir waren vielleicht darin sogar ein Extremfall, daß wir kaum in die Synagoge gingen, sondern die die christlichen Feiertage waren unsere Feiertage, auch Weihnachten mit Weihnachtsbaum und allen Weihnachtsliedern, und Ostern wie gesagt die Matthäuspassion das das Ereignis und nicht etwa der jüdische Pessach oder sowas, darin unterschieden wir uns vielleicht von den- von der Mehrheit der damals in Düsseldorf ansässigen jüdischen Familien So, the concerts took place in the Tonhalle, a place with fantastic acoustics, and back then I also learned, there was a boys’ choir in one of Mahler’s symphonies, so I learned a lot about music by taking part, that’s very important, not just to listen, but to take part. This again shows how assimilated we Jewish families were, I think it can generally be said that most of the Jews living in Germany at that time were so assimilated that culturally and so on they were hardly diVerent from the others, that goes back to Heinrich Heine who as you know said — who got himself baptized and said that for him baptism was his ticket of entrance to German culture, we weren’t baptized, we didn’t think it necessary, we thought we could take part in German culture without being baptized, many friends of my parents or friends of our friends came from baptized Jewish families or were Christian families, we were so assimilated that we hardly made any diVerence between those friends who were Jewish and the others. And this is also reXected, maybe we even were an extreme case in this, that we hardly ever went to the synagogue, instead the Christian holidays were our holidays, including Christmas with a Christmas tree and Christmas carols, and Easter, as I said, the Matthäuspassion was a big event, and not the Jewish Pessach, and in this we may have been diVerent from the majority of the Jewish families who lived in Düsseldorf at that time.

Excerpt 3: Victor S. (emigra2, age at emigration 13 years) V. S.: Und das war grade gegenüber von dem Zoo, wir da war doch ein Zoo in Düsseldorf zu der Zeit, und ich hatte eine Dauerkarte zu diesem Zoo also sind wir jeden bin ich fast jeden Tag durfte ich da even sogar allein rübergehen, ich war dann vielleicht oh acht, neun Jahre alt, maybe vielleicht zehn, und bin ich immer auf den Zoo gegangen und das das kann darauf kann ich mich noch erinnern. I: Ihre wann war Ihre Mutter geboren? V. S.: Meine Mutter war in achtzehnhundert sechsundneunzig geboren starb in Hamburg sie war zweiunddreißig Jahre, peritonitis war der sie hatte eine Blind- Blinddarmentzündung und das war natürlich alles vor antibiotics, also sind war das natürlich viel gefährlicher in der Zeit als als heute, weil man da Penicillin oder ein antibiotic geben, und dann wär es würde aber damals war das nicht so, und sie starb dann als sie war zweiunddreißig, ich war drei Jahre alt meine Schwester war sechs und dann mein Vater natürlich alleine und und ein- ein Witwer in den den Jahren wurde natürlich alles anders behandelt als heute, you know, er hatte sich dann mein Vater

232 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

G: V. S.:

hat sich dann sofort an seine Mutter gewendet, und sagte die Kinder müssen natürlich jetzt mit mit euch leben, und das war auch war eigentlich ne ne sehr gute Zeit für mich, ich ich kann mich noch an an alles gut erinnern und und und die meisten Erinnerungen sind gute Erinnerungen, nicht von der Nazizeit, da wollen wir auch mal sprechen aber n bißchen später, but in in den guten Zeiten wir uns uns gings Wnanziell sehr gut und wir meine Großmutter und war gut zu uns, beide waren gut zu uns, und die hatte ne große Wohnung und wir hatten ich hatte mein ein mein Zimmer meine Schwester lebte wir hatten ein governess, was was nennt man ne governess noch was ist das noch? ein Kindermädchen Kindermädchen, ja

And this was right across the street from the zoo, there was a zoo in Düsseldorf at that time and I had a year ticket to this zoo and so we went I went almost every day, I was even allowed to go there on my own, I was maybe eight or nine years old, maybe ten, and I always went to the zoo, that’s what I remember. And your mother was born when? My mother was born in 1896, she died in Hamburg when she was 32 years old, peritonitis she had appendicitis and of course all this was before antibiotics, so of course it was all much more dangerous than today when you’d simply take penicillin or an antibiotic, and then it would be — but back then it was diVerent and so she died when she was 32, I was three years, my sister was six and then my father on his own of course, and a widower, back then of course things were diVerent from what they are now, you know, he went my father immediately went to his mother, and said, of course the children will have to live with you now, and that was also was really a very good time for me, I can remember it all very well, and most of those memories are good memories, not those of the Nazi period, we’ll talk about that too, later, but in those good times we were very well oV Wnancially and we my grandmother was good to us, both of them were good to us, and they had a large apartment and we had I had a room and my sister was — and we had a governess, how do you call a governess, what’s that?

Excerpt 4: Dieter K. (emigra2, age at emigration 26 years) D. K.: der wollte uns jüdische jüdische Angestellte behandel- behalten aber die Nazis tolhatten ihm gesagt, wenn er uns nicht entläßt wird sein Geschäft boykottiert, so wurden wir alle zum einunddreißigsten Dezember neunzehnhundertfünfunddreißig gekündigt, meine Schwester übrigens arbeitete auch in derselben Firma die war Einkäuferin dort for se- einige Jahre. I: Wieviele Leute waren das, die da gekündigt wurden? D. K.: Mhm schwer zu sagen, wieviel das noch waren. A- ich möchte wohl sagen ungefähr hm vielleicht fünfzehn ungefähr wären betr- waren betroVen. Übrigens fällt mir ger- etwas ein, da war ein- eine junge Angestellte di- auf einmal traf ich sie im Geschäft a- irgend im ersten St- zweiten Stockwerk, weiß nicht mehr genau wo, und war am Weinen, ich sag was pas- ist mit dir passiert, sie sagt, ach du weißt gar nicht, was mit mir passiert ist. Ich bin Halbjüdin meine Mutter ist Christin, mein Vater war Jude, ich bin christlich erzogen und jetzt weiß ich nicht, was mit mir passieren wird, das waren besonders tragische Fälle, daß Leute in- diese hin- und hergerüttelt wurden, sie waren nicht christlich, sie waren nicht jüdisch, aber sie f- die Welen alle

Appendices 233

unter dies Gesetz daß sie als Halbjüdin konnten sie auch deportiert werden und auch zu leben lassen. Was aus ihr wurde, weiß ich nicht, aber auf jeden Fall, das war son typisch tragischer Fall. So ich muß sagen ich in Düsseldorf als ich dort gearbeitet hab übrigens hab ich Düsseldorf geliebt, das war die Stadt, wo ich bleiben wollte und mein- bis zum Ende meines Lebens aber es kam anders. Ich liebte meinen Beruf besonders und für mich gab es nichts and- jeder Tag war für mich ein Vergnügen, wenn ja wenn ich zur Arbeit ging. Wir mußten Außerordentliches leisten. Und dann natürlich das wurde immer schwieriger, aber meine meine Kollegen, die alle christlich waren, haben mich nie irgendwie schlecht behandelt, und eines guten Tages kommt einer von meinen Kollegen an, übrigens ein ausgezeichneter Plakatmaler und hatte die SS-Uniform an. Da fragte ich ihn, wofür hast du dich denn heute so fein gemacht? Er sagt, ich hab mich feingemacht für dich. Ich sag, wieso? Ich will dich nach Hause bringen nachher, denn da ist eine Razzia geplant hier in Düsseldorf, daß man alle jüdische jungen Männer festnimmt und wegtransportiert. So der Mann hat mir- hat mich nach Hause gebracht und hat mir das Leben gerettet. he wanted to keep us Jewish employees, but the Nazis had told him his shop would be boycotted, and so all of us were sacked on Dec. 31st 1935, my sister, by the way, was working for the same company, she was in the acquisition department for a few years. How many people were sacked at that point? Hard to tell how many there were left. I guess there were about Wfteen or so. By the way, I just remembered, there was a young employee who I once met in the store, somewhere on the second Xoor, I don’t quite remember where, and she was crying, and I said, what’s wrong, she said, oh, you don’t know the trouble I’m in. I am a half Jew, my mother is Christian, my father was a Jew, I was brought up a Christian, and now I don’t know what’s going to happen to me, those were especially tragic cases, where people were thrown about like that, they weren’t Christian, they weren’t Jewish, but they all came under this law and as a half Jew she could also be deported and be murdered. I don’t know what happened to her, but in any case this was one of those typical tragic cases. Well, I have to say in Düsseldorf when I was working there — and by the way I loved Düsseldorf, that was the city where I wanted to stay until the end of my life, but things worked out diVerently. I especially loved my work, and there was nothing else for me, and every day it was a joy to go to work. We had to do extraordinary work. And of course it all became more and more diYcult, but my colleagues, all of whom were Christian, never treated me badly in any way, and one Wne day one of my colleagues came to work, an outstanding poster painter, by the way, and he was wearing his SS uniform. I told him, what did you dress up for? He said, I dressed up for you. I said, why is that? I want to escort you home after work, they are planning a raid here in Düsseldorf, where all Jewish young men are supposed to be arrested and deported. So that man walked me home and saved my life.

Excerpt 5: Stefan S. (emigra1, age at emigration 21 years) S. S. da gabs einen einen [name deleted], der nicht mit dem verwandt war, und das- der ist mitm Hakenkreuzkappe rumgelaufen. Und der hat sich bei mir immer die Mathematikaufgaben geholt, der ist immer zu mir gekommen hat warum nicht, ich mein Mitschüler, Hakenkreuz da spielt das keine Rolle, immer nicht für so wichtig gehalten in der Zeit. Aber eines Tages hat er einen Klassenkameraden als einen

234 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

I: S. S.:

dreckigen Juden bezeichnet, und am selben Tag ist er zu mir gekommen, wollte Mathematik, ich sage, dreckigen Juden, das ist aus, das kannste dir abschreiben. Hab ich ihn rausgeschmissen. Und dieser selbe [name deleted] ist nachher hat nachher in Buchenwald Versuche mit mit wie heißt es Krankenversuche gemacht. Bekannt geworden, er hat dem ist nichts geschehen, und praktizierte nachher als Kinderarzt out of all in Hen- in in Hilden, praktiziert vielleicht heute noch, ich weiß nicht, er wird wohl nicht mehr leben oder er ist in meinem Alter. Also das ist ist dasdiese Sache möcht ich ganz gerne festgehalten haben. Erinnern Sie sich an Lehrer namens Grüter? Grüters, oh ja, da gabs zwei, Fritz Grüters war also ich hab mit hab von beiden Unterricht gehabt, aber hauptsächlich von Fritz Grüters, den ich ein den ich sehr schätzte, das war ein Halbjude, und der ist verfolgt worden, der arme Kerl, im Ersten Weltkrieg war er war er Kriegsgefangener in in Frankreich und nachher ist er wieder von den Nazis rausgeschmissen worden. Und was mit ihm am Ende geschehen ist, weiß ich nicht, aber er war ein ganz outstanding Pädagoge.

and there was someone called [name deleted], he wasn’t related to the other one, and that — he had a cap with a swastika. And he always came to get the maths homework from me, he always came to me, why not, I mean, classmate, swastika, what does it matter, I didn’t think it was important at the time. But then one day he called a classmate a dirty Jew, and the same day he came to me and wanted the maths, and I said, dirty Jew, that’s over, forget it. I threw him out. And this same [name deleted] later on did experiments in Buchenwald, how do you call it, medical experiments. Got famous, he did, nothing happened to him and later on he became a pediatrician, of all things, in Hilden, maybe he still works there, I don’t know, he’s probably not alive any longer, or he’s my sort of age. But that is — I’d like this to be on record. Do you remember a teacher called Grüter? Grüters, oh yes, there were two of them, Fritz Grüters was, well both of them taught me, but mostly Fritz Grüters whom I liked very much, he was a half Jew and was persecuted, poor fellow, in World War One he was a prisoner of war in France, and later on he was sacked by the Nazis. I don’t know what happened to him in the end, but he was an outstanding teacher.

Excerpt 6: Margot L. (emigra2, age at emigration 17 years) M. L.: Und da hab ich mein Einjähriges gemacht, und dann kam natürlich Hitler schon zur Power und die Sache wurde also so, daß ich nicht mehr in der Schule sein konnte, weil die Lehrer und die Bücher und alles geändert wurde und das letzte Jahr war sehr unangenehm, sehr unangenehm weil weil die Lehrer sehr wahrscheinlich Anweisung hatten, was was sie zu zu lehren hatten und zu sagen hatten, und im Geschichtsunterricht wurde das so unangenehm, weil weil der Lehrer hat gesagt daß die Juden wollen die wollen nicht Aufzugführer sein oder oder solche manual Berufe haben, sie wollen nur you know Doktor und und und und Anwalt und und von da ab hab ich mich immer vor die Tür gestellt, ich ich ich hab ich hab den Unter- richt nicht mehr besucht, und dann kam der Lehrer zu mir und hat gesagt er kann mir keine Note geben für das Einjährige, wenn ich nicht den Unterricht besuche, und da hab ich gesagt zu ihm, das ist fein, ich werd den Unterricht besuchen, aber wenn er etwas über die Juden zu sagen hat, dann soll er mir vorher sagen, daß ich aus dem Zimmer gehen kann aus der sch- aus dem Klassenzimmer

Appendices 235

gehen kann. Und das hat er auch getan, er hat gesagt [name deleted], Sie können jetzt rausgehen. You know. Also es war eine sehr unangenehme Zeit und und ich hab gesehen, daß ich das Abitur da nicht mehr machen kann, und dann bin ich also Obersekunda ins Annakloster. Und das ging also ein Jahr gut, und dann durften die Schwestern ja auch nicht mehr unterrichten. Und dann bin ich eben- dann hab ich eben gesehen, daß also wirklich keine große Zukunft für mich in Deutschland ist. I: Wer waren Ihre Freundinnen vorher, hat das gewechselt damals neunzehnhundertdreiunddreißig? M. L.: Sie meinen die Klassen- meine Klassenkameradinnen, nein. Nein nein nein. Es war nur sehr bitter für mich daß- manche sind in den BdM gegangen, und und Mädchen in dem Alter, you know, vierzehn fünfzehn Jahre, ich war ausgeschlossen, und ich hab mich ausgeschlossen gefühlt, zweite Klasse und und you know, ich hab gedacht, ja, wenn du jetzt nicht jüdisch wärst, dann könntste auch you know ich weiß doch nicht man hier sagt man joiner, and das war eben nicht möglich und und wollt ich auch gar nicht, you know, wenn ich gesehen hab, was da vorgeht And I did my Einjähriges there, and then of course Hitler came to power, and things became so that I couldn’t be in that school any more, since the teachers and the books and everything was changed, and the last year was very unpleasant, very unpleasant, because the teachers probably had their orders on what they had to teach and say, and in the history lessons it got to be so unpleasant, because the teacher said that Jews don’t want to be lift operators or have other manual jobs, they only want to be, you know, doctors or lawyers, and from then on I always stood outside the door, I didn’t attend the lessons any more, and then the teacher came to me and said he can’t give me a Wnal grade if I don’t attend his lessons, and so I said, okay, I’ll come to the lessons, but when there’s anything he has to say about the Jews, I want him to tell me beforehand, so I can leave the room. And that’s what he did, he said [name deleted] you can leave now. You know. So it was a very unpleasant time, and I realized that I couldn’t do my Abitur there any more, so I went to the Annakloster for the Wnal years. And that was okay for a year, and then the nuns weren’t allowed to teach any longer. And so I did — I realized that there really wasn’t any great future in store for me in Germany. Who were your friends before, did that change back then in 1933? You mean classmates, no. No, no, no. It was just a bit hurtful to me that — some of them went to the BdM and you know, a girl of that age, fourteen or Wfteen, I was excluded and felt excluded, second-rate, and you know, I thought, well, if you weren’t Jewish you could also, you know, I don’t know, what we say here is ‘joiner’ and that wasn’t possible, and I didn’t want it either, really, you know, when I saw what went on there

Excerpt 7: Ellen F. (emigra3, age at emigration 17 years) E. F.: Das war damals ziemlich neu, und die andern ham auch drauf bestanden, daß bei der Feierlichkeit zum Abschluß, erstens mal daß ich erschien, ich wollt nämlich eigentlich nicht hingehen und daß ich die Sachen überreichte, also das war achtunddreißig doch schon eine Ausnahme. Und was dann auch noch passiert ist, und das hab ich später dann nach dem Krieg auch bescheinigt, ist da männliche Lehrer waren nicht viel dabei, aber es wurde doch etwas getanzt, und der Direktor tanzte nur einmal und das war mit mir. Also das war schon etwas besonderes. Und dann ging ich anschließend von von Düsseldorf aus an die Javne weil die dann von

236 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

I: E. F.:

achtunddreißig ab den englischen Kurs hatten für das school certiWcate, und da hatte meine Mutter mich dann angemeldet und da bin ich jeden Morgen von Montag bis Freitag nach Köln gefahren. nur für — im Englischen? ja also das waren die die für das war n richtiger Schulunterricht, aber er wurde hauptsächlich englisch geleitet, also wir hatten zwei junge Engländer die da den Kurs machten und bei den anderen Lehrern, die konnten teilweise etwas Englisch aber es ist doch ziemlich gut gegangen. Und dann war natürlich im November achtunddreißig die Schule einige Zage- Tage zu weil da doch n ziemlicher AngriV gewesen war und da bin ich auch ein oder zwei Tage hingefahren und hab beim Aufräumen geholfen. Aber nach dem neunten November hat mein Vater gesagt, also das ist das geht nicht mehr. Und meine Eltern hatten schon eine Auswanderung vorbereitet, für den Fall daß mal nötig sein sollte, die ursprüngliche Idee war daß ich in Deutschland noch ne Ausbildung haben sollte, wenn das möglich war, weil meine Eltern das gut bezahlen konnten, während es neunzehnhundertachtunddreißig schon sehr schwer war Geld ins Ausland für solche Zwecke zu schicken. Aber meine Eltern hatten das irgendwie fertiggebracht, das hab ich nur nicht gewußt zu der Zeit, etwas von dem Geld was sie hatten, die hatten Schweizer Papiere oder irgendwas, ins Ausland zu bekommen, und da war ein Vetter meiner Mutter, der das verwaltet hatte noch.

That was relatively new, and the others insisted that at the Wnal celebrations, Wrst of all that I came, because I didn’t really want to go, and that I was the one to hand over the presents, so in 1938 that was really an exception. And another thing that happened — I gave that statement later after the war — is that, there weren’t many male teachers there, but there was some dancing, and the director only danced once, and that was with me. So that was something exceptional, really. And then afterwards I went to the Javne from Düsseldorf, since they had the English course after 1938 for the school certiWcate, and my mother enrolled me there, and I went to Cologne every morning Monday through Friday. Only for English? Yes well it was a real school, but classes were mainly given in English, so we had two young English people who gave that course, and with the other teachers, some of them knew some English but it went quite well. And then in November 38 of course the school closed for some days, because there had been quite an attack, and so I went there a couple of days to help with the cleaning up. But after Nov. 9th my father said, well, this can’t go on. And my parents had already prepared the emigration, just in case it would become necessary, originally the idea had been that I should get some education in Germany if possible, because my parents could easily aVord that, while in 1938 it was already very diYcult to send money abroad for such purposes. But my parents managed it somehow, although I didn’t know that at that time, to get some of the money they had, they had Swiss bonds or something, abroad, and a cousin of my mother’s was there and he managed them.

Excerpt 8: Lola R. (emigra1, age at emigration 12 years) L. R. aber dann hatten wir eine neue Klassenlehrerin, die hieß Fräulein Sievers, und die war- also das war das konnte man nicht mißverstehen, die war eine große Nazi, das merkte man sofort, das konnte man sof- also das die war- etwas war an ihr ich

Appendices 237

merkte es sofort, wie die eingestellt war, und das hat sich dann auch verwirklicht, und es gab dann immer so Nadelstiche, und eines Tags waren waren ich und zwei andere jüdische Mädchen ins Klassenbuch eingetragen wegen irgendeinem einem Unfug, es war nichts besonderes und nicht von ihr sondern von andren von einer andren Lehrerin, und als die Sievers dann auf das dann am nächsten Tag sah, hat sie gesagt, wir sollen aufstehen, die zwei andern und ich und die andern saßen, und dann hat sie gesagt, also ihr müßt verstehen, daß ihr als Juden in Deutschland nur Gäst- Gäste seis- seid, ihr seid nur Gäste, ihr gehört nicht hierher, nein. Das war auch das war das war sehr sehr schmerzhaft, obwohl ich genau wußte, wie sie eingestellt war, aber uns sowas zu sagen, vor versammelter Klasse ich mein, da war ich da war ich dreizehn vierzehn, wo man- das ist ja sowieso ein Alter in dem man doch so manches durchmacht, auch ohne solche Schikanen, und es es war es hat mich furchtbar gekränkt, muß ich sagen, es ist genau als wie als ob eine Liebesgeschichte zu Ende geht, ich wußte dann, daß die Liebesgeschichte mit Deutschland vorbei war und als ich meinen Eltern das erzählte, die haben das- das also als scheinbar unter sich gesprochen, und haben sich überlegt, wie mans nicht doch nicht doch fertigbringen kann, mich wieder nach England zu schicken, und das haben sie dann auch getan also ich glaub es war nach den Sommerferien fünfunddreißig, da war ich vierzehn dann bin ich zurück nach England, und ich war sehr froh. Also das war ich ich wollte ich hatte ich hatte keine ich hatte kei- diese Liebe, die ich zu Deutschland hatte, die war weg und ich merkte daß daß ich nicht dahin gehörte und da bin ich zurück nach England but then we had a new teacher, her name was Fräulein Sievers, and she was — well there was no mistaking it, she was a conWrmed Nazi, you noticed immediately, you could see- well she had, there was something about her, I knew immediately what her views were, and I was right, there were continuous little hints, and one day I and a couple of other Jewish girls had been entered in the class diary for some kind of nonsense, nothing special, and not by her but by another teacher, and when Sievers saw that the next day she told us to stand up, the two others and myself, while the rest of the class were sitting, and then she said, you’ve got to understand that you Jews are guests in Germany, you’re guests, you don’t belong here, no. That was also — it was terribly painful, even though I knew her views quite well, but to tell us this, in front of the whole class — I mean, I was maybe thirteen, fourteen, that is a diYcult age in any case, even without such meannesses, and it was — it hurt me terribly, I must say, it was exactly as if a romance was ending, and I knew then that my romance with Germany was over. And when I told this to my parents, apparently they talked among themselves and thought about how it might be possible to send me back to England, and that’s what they did, so I think it was after the summer holidays in 1935, I was fourteen years old, and I went back to England, and I was very happy about it. I really was, I wanted — I had no, this love that I’d had for Germany was gone, and I realized this was not where I belonged, and so I went back to England.

Excerpt 9: Irma M. (emigra1, age at emigration 16 years) I. M.: Wir kriegten nen neuen Biologielehrer, der war- he was really cute good looking young man. Und der den hatten wir alle ganz gern. Aber der Wng an dann mit diesem, mit dieser Propaganda anzufangen. Ach da muß ich Ihnen auch noch was anderes erzählen, was so um diese Zeit rum kam passierte, und einmal da haben und da haben wir ihn so gern oh, you know the whole class was Xirting with him,

238 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

und da haben wir ihn mal gefragt, ob er uns sagen könnte, wer das arischste Kind in der Klasse in unser Klasse war. Und da hat er meine Freundin die war blond, hatte einen jüdischen Vater und eine jüdische Mutter ausgesucht. Und das war mir furchtbar komisch nicht so komisch. Und dann zur Zeit als das — so ein Buch, das muß doch so mit der, da muß es doch drinstehen wann es gedruckt wurde irgendeines von den Biologie-Schulbüchern. So und ich bin mal zu zu der Zeit, ich hab meinen Onkel Doktor [name deleted] besucht, meines Großvaters Bruder, der war ein schrecklich netter Mensch. Sprachs- war also sehr beliebt von allen seinen Patienten und so. Und ich weiß nicht, warum ich nicht meinen Vater gefragt habe, ich glaub als Vierzehnjährige hab ich mich so’n bißchen geniert und zu ihm wars einfacher zu gehn. Und da hab ich ihn gefragt, ob er mir nen Tropfen Blut ziehen würde von meinem Finger. Und da hat er mich gefragt, warum? Bist du krank, fühlst hast, you know, was tut dir was weh? Hab ich gesagt, nein, ich will nur mal, daß du das Tröpfchen Blut unters Mikroskop tust und mir zeigst, wie mein Blut anders ist von andern Kindern. Und da hat er gesagt, das ist doch nur Nazi-Unsinn, und und hat versucht mich zu whatever to comfort me I: zu trösten I. M.: ja, aber das hat nicht geholfen, you know. Und dann erinner ich mich auch, daß ich manchmal abends ins Bett gegangen, ich war dreizehn, und im Bett hab ich gebetet daß ich morgens aufwecken würde und arisch sein könnte. Aber das passierte nicht, hat nicht die Gebete haben nicht geholfen. we got a new biology teacher who was really cute, good looking young man. And we all liked him a lot. But then he started with this propaganda. Oh, there’s something else I have to tell you, that happened about that time, and at one point we had — we liked him so much and, oh, you know the whole class was Xirting with him, and then we asked him at some point whether he could tell us who was the most Aryan kid in the class, in our class. And then he chose my friend, she was blond, had a Jewish father and a Jewish mother, he chose her. And I thought that was so funny. And then at the time that — that kind of book, I’m sure it would say in the book when it was printed, any one of those biology textbooks. Well and I went at that time — I went to visit my uncle, Doktor [name deleted], a brother of my grandfather, he was a really nice person, he was very popular with his patients and so on. And I don’t know why I didn’t ask my father, I think maybe at fourteen years you are a bit embarrassed, and it was easier to go to him. And I asked him if he’d draw a drop of blood from my Wnger. And he asked me, why? are you ill, do you feel — you know, are you hurting anywhere? And I said, no, I just want you to put a drop of blood under the microscope and show me how it is diVerent from that of other children. And he said, that’s just Nazi nonsense, and he tried to whatever, to comfort me, but that didn’t help, you know. And then I remember going to bed at night sometimes, I was thirteen, and in bed I prayed that I’d wake up in the morning and be Aryan. But it didn’t happen, the prayers didn’t help.

Excerpt 10: Theo S. (emigra3, age at emigration 14 years) I: Haben Sie da Erinnerungen dran, an die Schwierigkeiten? T. S.: Ja, natürlich hab ich Erinnerungen daran. Ich war eVektiv isoliert. Ich bin zur Schule an der Rethelstraße dem Gymnasium gegangen. Der einzigste Grund, daß ich erlaubt war, dahinzugehen, ich war der einzigste Jude, war, daß mein Vater im Weltkrieg zwei gefochten hat und er war verwundet in Tannenberg. Darum war ich erlaubt zu der Schule zu gehen. Alle andern Kinder meines Alters, die Juden waren,

Appendices 239

I: T. S.:

I: T. S.:

mußten zu einer spezialen jüdischen Schule gehen, die von der Synagoge gegeben war. Ich hatte wenige Freunde, aber die ich habe, ein oder zwei, waren sehr gute Freunde. Ich hatte keine Freunde von meinem Schul Mitsch- den andern Schülern und so war es ich ich bin sehr glücklich, daß ich ein paar Sachen hatte, die mich selbst sehr beschäftigt hatten. Ich habe immer, wenn ich auf der Eisenbahn gefahren bin, habe ich die Zeit gesehen, wo wir angekommen und abgefahren sind, das hab ich notiert. Und dann auch als ich ein kleines Kind war, habe ich immer noch Landkarten gemalt, aber augenblickliche Landkarten, nicht Landkarten wie die hier, die drei- vierhundert Jahre alt sind. Mit dem Sport habe ich nur ein bißchen Schwimmen gemacht, ein bißchen Fußball. Aber das ist alles. Waren Sie im Verein? Nicht? Nein. Nein, der war — Fortuna Düsseldorf hatte s- seinen Spielplatz direkt hinter unserm Haus und da waren immer da Tournamente, die, ich bin nicht zu denen gegangen, aber ich wußte davon. Ich erinner mich noch als junger Mann in den dreißiger Jahren, war ich mal mit dem Kajak auf den Flüssen gegangen, nicht dem Rhein aber der Ruhr und den teritalen und durch die ich weiß nicht Schlösser? nicht Schlösser, wo wo die wo man das Wasser rauf und runter nimmt Schleusen Schleusen, waren da die Schleusen da

Do you remember having diYculties? Yes, of course I remember. I was eVectively isolated. I went to high school on Rethelstrasse. The only reason I was allowed to go there — I was the only Jew — was that my father had fought in World War Two and was wounded in Tannenberg. That’s why I was allowed to go to that school. All the other Jewish children of my age had to go to a special Jewish school at the synagogue. I had few friends, but the one or two I had were very good friends. I had no friends among my classmates, and that was it, and I’m very glad that I had a few things to keep me occupied. Whenever we took the train I looked at the arrivals and departure times and took all of that down. And even as a small child I drew maps, but current maps, not maps like these that are three- or four hundred years old. And where sports are concerned, I only did a bit of swimming and a bit of football, that’s all. Were you a member of a club? No? No. No, there was — Fortuna Düsseldorf had their training ground right behind our house, and there were always competitions there, I didn’t go, but I knew about them. I remember as a young man in the 1930s I went on the rivers with a Kayak, not the Rhine but the Ruhr and other rivers through the — I don’t know, locks, not locks but where where the water is taken up and down

Excerpt 11: Arthur L. (emigra2, age at emigration 11 years) I: Ja, vielleicht fangen wir dann mal an daß Sie von Ihrer Kindheit erzählen, an was Sie sich da noch erinnern können A. L.: d- da weiß ich wirklich sehr wenig, das hab ich vorhin schon erzählt I: wann Sie geboren sind A. L.: da weiß ich nichts von I: nee, ich mein aber wann das war, ich welchem Jahr A. L.: ach so, ja, neunzehnhundertvierundzwanzig. Das meiste was ich weiß ist Sachen, die mein Bruder mir erzählt, nicht die an die ich mich selbst erinnere.

240 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

I: A. L.: I: A. L.: I: A. L.: I: A. L.:

Mhm, und wann sind Sie zur Schule gekommen, können Sie sich daran noch erinnern? Ich denke mit sechs Jahren, ist das ist das nicht üblich mit sechs Jahren? Ich weiß, ich war in der Lindenschule und dann danach im Prinz-Georg-Gymnasium Können Sie sich da noch daran erinnern, wie das Etwas an den Schulhof, da waren so Lindenbäume, deswegen hieß die Schule wohl Lindenschule, aber eigentlich kann ich mich an sehr wenig da erinnern. Auch an an Ihre Mitschüler? Vielleicht an einen Freund aber kann auch nicht viel mit dem zusammen gespielt haben und so, und oder vielleicht mit nach Hause kam und sowas. Haben Sie denn Erinnerungen an ich sag mal antisemitische Ausgrenzung oder dergleichen, haben Sie sowas erlebt eigentlich eigentlich nicht, nein, eigentlich nicht, ich weiß ich war sehr nah an meiner Kusine, die jetzt hier wohnt, und wir sind ungefähr anderthalb Jahre Alterunterschied nur, und gegenüber von- wo die auf der Heinrichstraße wohnte, da war Ecke Börnerstraße eine Dame, die hat den Stürmer im im Fenster angeklebt, und ich weiß nicht, ob die auf auf uns geschimpft hat oder was, und dann daß man das erinner ich mich.

Maybe we can start by you telling me about your childhood, whatever you can remember I really know very little about that, as I said earlier when you were born I don’t remember that No, I mean, what year Oh, yes, 1924. Most of what I know are things my brother told me, nothing I remember myself. Mhm, and when did you start going to school, do you remember that? I think I must have been six, isn’t that the usual age, six years? I know I was in the Lindenschule and then in the Prinz Georg Gymnasium Can you remember how that I remember the courtyard of the school a bit, there were lime trees, I guess that was why the school was called Lindenschule, but I really remember very little there. And your classmates? Maybe one friend, but I can’t really have played with him a lot, or maybe he came home with me or something. Do you have any recollection about anti-Semitic activities, being isolated or anything, was any of that going on? Not really, no, not really, I know I was very close to my cousin who is living here now, we are only about a year and a half apart, and who lived opposite us on Heinrichstrasse, and on the corner of Börnerstrasse there was a lady who put up the Stürmer in her window, and I don’t know whether she was yelling at us or anything, and that they — I remember that.

Excerpt 12: Gertrud U. (emigra3, age at emigration 13 years) G. U. Ich erinner mich an manche Sachen, nicht sehr viel aber manches kann ich mich noch erinnern. This- das Früheste ist ist bestimmt, da war ich vielleicht nur- das war

Appendices 241

m- vielleicht in neunzehnhundertdreiunddreißig, wie die Nazis hereinmarschiert sind durch die Straßen und wir mußten die mußten im dunkeln Zimmer sitzen, wir haben die Fenster zugemacht, und die blinds über die Fenster gemacht, so daß und es ich war nur ein kleines Kind und das- hä hat- hatte furchtbar große Angst, nämlich diese Männer marschierten mit den ihren Stiefeln, die machten sehr viel es ich hatte große Angst davor. Und dann haben meine Eltern mir immer gesagt, wenn man in der Straße ist darf man nicht sprechen, nämlich vielleicht hört jemand das und versteht das nicht und denkt ich hab was gesagt, das ich also wirklich nicht gesagt habe, und das könnte sehr schlimm sein, wenn ich ich mußte in der Straße durft ich nie zu jemand sprechen, nicht zu meinem Bruder oder jemand. Und dann und dann wie ich ich wußte wirklich nicht, was was es gab, nämlich meine Eltern hatten mich davon behütet, sie wollten nicht wissen sie wollten nicht, daß ich weiß alle die schlimmen Sachen, die passierten, und aber dann wie ich zehn Jahre alt war und zur Hochschule gehen sollte das war neunzehnhundertsechsunddreißig, da konnt ich nicht gehen, und dann bin ich zur katholischen Schule gegangen, und die Schwestern waren sehr gut zu mir und aber da konnte ich nur ein bißchen mehr wie ein Jahr bleiben, dann sind die Schwestern mußten die weggehen, die durften nicht mehr in der Schule sein, die dürch- dürfen nicht mehr eine Schule haben, und dann konnte ich nicht da bleiben, da bin ich zur jüdische Schule gegangen, aber früher dann das wenn ich von der Schule zu Hause kam da zape- manchmal sind Kinder und haben mich haben nun- auf mich gelacht und haben mich zerschoben und manchmal haben sie meinen Hut oder meine Tasche genommen und weggeworfen I remember some things, not a lot, but I remember some. The earliest is certainly when I was maybe — that may have been in 1933 when the Nazis were marching in the streets and we had to sit in a darkened room, we closed the windows and drew the blinds so that — and I was just a child and was very scared, since these men were marching with their boots, making a lot of — I was very scared. And then my parents always told me I couldn’t talk in the street, since someone may hear it and not understand and think I said something I really didn’t say, and that could be very bad, when I — I had to — on the street I was not allowed to talk to anyone, not to my brother or anyone. And then I really didn’t know what was going on, since my parents were protecting me, they didn’t want me to know about all the terrible things that were happening, and — but when I was ten years and supposed to go to high school, that was in 1936, I couldn’t go, and so I went to a Catholic school, and the nuns were very good to me, but I could only stay a little bit more than a year before the nuns had to leave, they weren’t allowed to have a school any longer, so I couldn’t stay there either, so I went to the Jewish school, but earlier than that, when I came home from school, sometimes other children were laughing at me and pushing me about, and sometimes they took my hat or my bag and threw them away.

Excerpt 13: Bella S. (emigra3, age at emigration 15 years) I: Sie haben die Erlebnisse aus der Kristallnacht mal aufgeschrieben? B. S.: Nicht in Einzelheiten, aber sie kommen unter anderem meiner Sachen vor, ja, ich wurde geweckt, an der Nacht, durch Geräusch an der Tür, und schlief in einem Eßzimmer, was auch ein Chaiselongue hatte für mein Schlafmöglichkeiten, und hab natürlich sofort in mein Elters Schlafzimmer gehen wollen, und es versucht, aber da standen sie schon in der Diele und sagten meinem Vater, der fragte, was machen Sie denn da, und mit Fäusten haben sie geantwortet, Sie wissen genau was wir tun. Und

242 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

I: B. S.:

ich bin gelaufen in meinen- oVenen Arme meiner Mutter, und bin da so gegen geworfen worden, daß sie einen lockeren Vorderzahn hatte, noch längere Zeit, aber der hat sich wieder beruhigt. Beruhigt ist nicht das Wort, das wir an der Nacht fühlten, ich bin dann zitternd in das Bett meiner Eltern gekrochen, und hörte nur alle diese Sachen, die sie umwerften, und dann schließlich auch gingen. Und unsere größte Sorge war unser Dackel, Addi, aber sie hat sich glücklicherweise unter ein Möbelstück versteckt, und war gut dran vorbeigekommen. Und dann haben wir nicht versucht, zu schlafen, das ging nicht, aber wir lagten halt da zusammen, bis es Licht wurde, und wir sahen, was mit unserem Heim gemacht worden war. Das war der Kristallnachterfahrung. Waren Sie dann in den nächsten Nächten Oh ja. Und immer war ich beim Eltern misch- hab ich mit den Eltern geschriebenschlafen, und immer hab ich gezittert, und das konnt- da konnt ich nichts dafür, ich konnte nicht aufhören zu zittern, und das hat sich nach ner Zeit gelegt. Und meine Eltern mit vielen Schwierigkeiten haben versucht, die Wohnung irgendwie wieder in Benützung zu bringen, denn man konnte niemanden engagieren, für uns zu helfen.

You wrote down your experiences from the Kristallnacht? Not in detail, but they are somewhere among these things, yes, I woke up that night, because there were noises at the door, and I was sleeping in a dining room where there also was a couch for me to sleep on, and of course I immediately wanted to go to my parents’ bedroom, and tried to, but they were already standing in the hall and they told my father — he asked them, what are you doing, and they answered with their Wsts, you know exactly what we’re doing. And I ran into my mother’s open arms, and was thrown against her so hard that for a long time afterwards one of her front teeth was lose, but that calmed down again. Calm is not the word that we felt that night, and trembling I climbed into my parents’ bed and heard all the things that they were throwing over, and then eventually they left. We were most concerned about our dachshund, Addi, but fortunately she hid under a piece of furniture and got through everything all right. And then we did not try to sleep, that was not possible, but we were lying there together until it got light and we saw what had been done to our home. That was the experience of the Kristallnacht. And you were there the next nights? Oh yes, and I was always with my parents, slept with my parents, and I was always trembling, I couldn’t help it, I couldn’t stop trembling, but after some time it stopped. And my parents tried under great diYculties to get the apartment habitable again, because we could not hire anyone to help.

Excerpt 14: Charlotte G. (emigra3, age at emigration 12 years) C. G.: Ja, meine Eltern haben probiert, rauszukommen. Aber da mein Vater in Jarotschin geboren war, which ist das jetzt Po- Polen wurde na in hat er dies falsche quota Nummer gehabt nach Amerika zu gehen und sind wir von Stuttgart wieder nach Haus geschickt worden. I: Wann war das ungefähr? C. G.: Das war in achtunddreißig, ich glaub es war achtunddreißig, wo wir die ersten Papiere bekommen haben. No, es muß schon neununddreißig sein gewesen sein, erinner ich mich. Sind wir nach Stuttgart gegangen, und haben, das war ganz schrecklich da gewesen, das wir wir wir wurden behandelt als Viehe, und die Kinder

Appendices 243

mit den Müttern, alles mußten wir nackt da rumstehen, das war ganz schrecklich, das war für mich sehr schlimm, und auf I: Wurde man auf den Gesundheitszustand untersucht? C. G.: Ja, ja, ja, ja, aber gar nicht nichts Persönliches, war sehr schlimm. Und und auf dem Weg hab ich auch das erstemal das Zeichen gesehen, Juden und Hunde nicht erlaubt. Das das muß das muß maybe war das noch achtunddreißig? Ich weiß nicht. Und dann wurde meiner Mutter gesagt, ja, Sie können rausgehen auf der Schweizer Quota, aber müssen Ihren Mann lassen verlassen. Ja, das ist neununddreißig gewesen, neununddreißig, das hätte hat nicht so lange gedauert. Und dann hat meine Mutter uns nach Amerika gebracht, alleine, ohne Geld. I: Also Sie haben noch die Kristallnacht in Düsseldorf erlebt? C. G.: Oh ja, und ich erinner mich noch, wie wir, wie mein Bruder und ich, wir haben, wie ich gesagt hab, wir haben unten geschlafen und meine Eltern oben, und wie die Nazis kamen, ich weiß nicht ob es SS SA war, haben auf der an der Tür gehaut geschlagen, hat so viel Radau gemacht, und sind wir hingegangen, und die haben gesagt laßt uns rein. Wir waren kleine Kinder, ich war elf Jahr, und da haben wir sie reingelassen, elf ich war zehn und mein- dann sind sie reingegestürmt und kucken nach meinen Eltern. Na haben erst, die ersten Zimmer wo Herrenzimmen sch war, wo die andern Leute schon gewohnt haben, haben sie den Mann verprügelt. Ich seh noch das Blut aw an der Wand. Yes, my parents tried to get out. But since my father was born in Jarotschin, which was Poland by now, he had the wrong quota number to go to America, so we were sent back home from Stuttgart. About what time was that? That was in 38, I think it was 38 when we got the Wrst papers. No, it must have been 39, I remember. We went to Stuttgart, and were — it was terrible, we were treated just like cattle, the children and the mothers and everyone, we had to stand around naked, that was horrible, it was terrible for me and Was that for a health checkup? Yes, yes, but nothing personal, it was terrible. And on the way there I saw that sign for the Wrst time, No Jews or dogs. That that must have been, maybe that was still in 38? I don’t know. And then they told my mother, yes, you can leave on the Swiss quota, but you have to leave your husband. Yes, that was in 39, 39, that wouldn’t have taken so long. And then my mother brought us to America, alone, without any money. But you did survive the Kristallnacht in Düsseldorf? Oh yes, and I remember how we — my brother and I, I said, we were sleeping downstairs and my parents were upstairs, and when the Nazis came, I don’t know whether it was SS, SA, they beat on the door, made a lot of noise, and we went there and they said, let us in. We were children, I was eleven, and we let them in, eleven I was ten and my — then they came charging in, looking for my parents. Well, Wrst the Wrst room, the smoking room where the other people were living, they beat up the man. I can still see the blood on the wall.

Excerpt 15: Hilde W. (emigra3, age at emigration 15 years) H. W.: meine Eltern haben gesehen, daß es daß für uns keine Zukunft war, denn wir konnten weder in dem hatten keine Gelegenheit zum Studieren oder irgendwas

244 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

anderes zu lernen, nicht und dann Wngen eben die Kindertransporte an, und dann haben sie uns da angemeldet. I: Haben Sie mit- haben Ihre Eltern mit Ihnen darüber gesprochen? H. W.: Nicht- ja, ach Gott, natürlich haben wir das besprochen, nicht, aber es war keine Frage, daß wir weggehen, nicht. I: Und wenn Sie jetzt gesagt hätten, ich will aber nicht weggehen? Das war- das kam überhaupt nicht in Betracht? H. W.: Nein, also ich muß sagen, das- wir haben uns so, also ich, ich kann ja nicht für meinen Bruder sprechen, ich hab gesehen, daß wohin, was was sollen wir tun, ich wollte was lernen und was tun, das ging nicht. Und hier in der jüdischen Schule beim da kamen die Kinder von allen wie soll ich sagen von allen Stufen her, das war da war so langweilig, da hab ich nichts gelernt. [laughs] Und- natürlich wär es uns niemals eingefallen, daß unsre Eltern nicht später auch kommen, nicht, das das hatte ich gedacht. Ich mein, wir hatten niemanden hier, das- keine Verwandten oder was, nicht, ich hatte mußte jeder mußte Garantoren haben, und das war eine Gemeinde in London. Und ich muß sagen zu Anfang war das nicht sehr angenehm, aber dann natürlich ich wurde in eine Schule geschickt, in eine boarding school, und das waren Kinder, die aus- also das- meistens Waisenkinder, oder aus getrennten Haushalt kamen, also das das war sehr unangenehm, und weil ich mehr mit mir mithatte als die anderen Kinder weil ich meine ganz- alles mein ganzes Eigentum mithatte, großen KoVer und so weiter, ne, da haben sie mir alles mögliche geklaut [laughs] und ich hab einen Bettelbrief, wie man das wohl nennt, an meinen Garantor geschrieben, bitte, ich will hier weg. my parents realized that there was no future for us, since we could neither — there was no possibility for us to go to university or learn anything else, right, and then the Kindertransporte started, and they put our names down. Did your parents talk to you about that? Not — well, yes, of course we talked about it, right, but there was no question, really, we were leaving. And if you had said, I don’t want to go? That was not an option? No, well, I have to say, we did — well I, I can’t speak for my brother, I saw that — where, what should we do, I wanted to learn something, to do something, that wasn’t possible. And in the Jewish school here, the children came, how should I say, from all walks of life, and it was so boring there, I didn’t learn anything. And — of course we never thought that our parents would not come later, too, right, that was what I thought. I mean, we did not have anyone here, no relatives or anything, right, I had to — everyone had to have someone who gave a guarantee, and that was a community in London. And I have to say, at Wrst it was not very pleasant, but then of course I was sent to school, to a boarding school, and there were kids there who were — well, mostly orphans, or children from families who had separated, and that was very unpleasant, since I had more stuV with me than the other children, since I had everything that I owned, a big suitcase and so on, well, they stole a lot of my stuV, and I wrote a letter imploring the one who had given my guarantee, please, I want to get away from here.

Appendices 245

Excerpt 16: Albert L. (emigra2, age at emigration 13 years) A. L.: und die konnten schon Englisch, und gaben furchtbar an mit ihren englischen Kenntnissen, jedes zweite Wort war gosh, gosh war das Wort, das Ausländer scheinbar zuerst lernen, nicht wahr. Nun gut, ich hab es ausgehalten da auf dieser Schule und kam dann auf eine public school, und zwar eine anglikanische Kirchenschule in Weymouth Weymouth College, und da war ich drei Jahre. Und ich hatte drei sehr glückliche Jahre da. Und ich bin heute noch im Vorstand des Old Boys Club. Heute noch I: Was war der Unterschied zu der anderen Schule, warum waren Sie bei der anderen so unglücklich? A. L.: Ja, weil ich kein Englisch konnte. Schließlich so langsam lernte ich auch ein bißchen Englisch, wie ich anWng Bücher zu lesen. Das ist eigentlich der beste Weg, ne Sprache zu lernen, ist Lesen. Selbst wenn man die nicht weiß was man liest, so langsam kommen die- diese Wörter kommen ein in den Kopp und es bleibt dann hängen. Ich mußte da an der ein Examen machen und ich war immer gut in Geschichte und Geographie, und darauf hat man sich konzentriert, die wußten schon was sie taten, und auf ein bißchen Französisch, hatte ich war auf der Schule in in Düsseldorf gut in Französisch und hat man mich hat man mich akzeptiert in Weymouth, und war sehr brav, bin jeden Tag zweimal in die Kirche gegangen, was mir aber nicht geschadet hat, noch heute hab ich die englischen Kirchen innen sehr sehr gerne. Also eine jüdische Erziehung hab ich nicht gehabt, und viele Leute böse nicht wahr, ist- und wissen Sie, wo ich jüdische Geschichte gelernt habe? Denn viele meiner orthodoxen Freunde haben keine Ahnung von jüdischer Geschichte, sie kennen den Gottesdienst gut, und die Religion und so weiter, aber Geschichte kennen sie nicht. Auf der anglikanischen Kirchenschule. Unser Geistlicher der hat jüdische Geschichte gelehrt. Und wenn ich jetzt Besuche habe aus Deutschland, und die Leute wollen gerne ins Britische Museum gehen, vielleicht wollen Sie auch mal gehen, da kann ich Ihn- da kann ich Sie führen, und da kann ich Ihnen Sachen sagen, nicht wahr, und das hab ich in Weymouth gelernt. Mit anderen Worten, die Interessen an Geschichte sind da sehr gefördert worden, was mir in meinem Leben sehr viel gegeben hat, Geschichte und Musik, klassische Musik, hab leider nie ein Instrument gelernt, aber klassische Musik ohne das komm ich nicht aus. Ja, wo sind wir jetzt? Also ich war in Weymouth bis neunzehnhundert neun- bis ja bis kurz vor Ausbruch des Krieges war ich in Weymouth, da war ich siebzehn Jahre alt, ja, bitte schön, ja ja, ich kann noch mehr holen. Ich kann noch bißchen heißes Wasser gleich drauf drauf- soll ich etwas draufgießen, heißes Wasser? Hab ich in der Küche, habs da. Ja was ja. Ich wollte arbeiten, wollte eine Lehre machen. Aber ich bekam keine Arbeitserlaubnis. and they already spoke English, and were posing terribly with their knowledge of English, every other word was ‘gosh’, ‘gosh’ was the word that foreigners seemed to learn Wrst, right. Okay, I survived that school and then I came to a public school, an Anglican Church school in Weymouth, Weymouth college, and there I was for three years. I had three very happy years there, and am one of the chairmen of the Old Boys’ Club to this day. What was the diVerence to the other school, why were you so unhappy there? Well, because I spoke no English, eventually I slowly learned some English, when I started reading books. That is the best way to learn a language, reading. Even when you don’t really

246 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

know what you’re reading, slowly the words enter your head and then eventually they stick. I had to take an exam, and I had always been good at history and geography, and they focussed on that, they knew what they were doing, and some French, I had been good at French at the school in Düsseldorf, so they accepted me in Weymouth, and I did everything I was told, went to church twice every day, but it didn’t do me any harm, I really like the inside of English churches to this day. So I had no Jewish education, and people often think that’s bad, and do you know where I learned about Jewish history? Because many of my orthodox friends have no idea about Jewish history, they know the service and religion and so on, but not the history. At the Anglican Church school. Our minister taught us Jewish history. And these days, when I get visitors from Germany, and the people want to go to the British Museum, maybe you’d like to go there one day, I can show you around, and I can tell you things, you know, I learned all of that in Weymouth. In other words, an interest in history was encouraged there, and I’ve enjoyed that very much over the years, history and music, classical music, unfortunately I never learned to play an instrument, but I can’t do without classical music. Okay, where are we now? Well, I was in Weymouth until 19- 9-, yes, until shortly before the outbreak of the war I was in Weymouth until I was seventeen years — yes, please do, yes, I can get some more. I can pour on some more hot water, shall I pour some on, hot water? I’ve got it in the kitchen, all ready. Yes, what — yes. I wanted to work, wanted to take an apprenticeship. But I couldn’t get the permission to work.

Excerpt 17: Kurt S. (emigra2, age at emigration 13 years) (This informant preferred to translate and re-write his excerpt in English.) At this time (in May 1940) I received an order from the police to leave Bristol and therefore my school, Clifton College. I had planned to take Higher CertiWcate (a national examination) in July, and to compete in December for a scholarship in mathematics at Cambridge University, at that time the only major university for the study of mathematics in England. (As a foreigner I was not qualiWed to compete for a State Scholarship.) It now looked as if my schooling would come to an immediate end. Fortunately the Headmaster of Clifton was able by an extraordinary eVort to Wnd me a place at another famous school, Marlborough College, which was not near the coast and where the police would permit me to study. Like Clifton, Marlborough was founded in the nineteenth century, one of its aims was the education of sons of Anglican clergy. When I arrived there I had an interesting experience: Marlborough had a rule that pupils did not need to be members of the Church of England, but they had to agree to attend Anglican services in the College chapel twice a day. However, when I arrived, I received a message from the Headmaster that this rule would not be applied to me because I had not had a free choice of school, a very English decision. The teaching of mathematics at Marlborough was of very high quality, ranked second in England after Winchester College the famous fourteenth century foundation. The head of the mathematics department was Mr. Alan Robson, a wonderful mathematician. I was at Marlborough from May to December, and I learnt a great deal. By December I was in a stronger position than if I had stayed in Clifton. To become a student in Cambridge I would need to apply not to Cambridge University but to one of the many Colleges there. Scholarships were given by the Colleges not the University. The highest scholarships were for 100 pounds, the cost of study was 180 pounds, so the scholarship would not be suYcient. Mr. Robson told me that some Colleges were rich, the richest was Trinity College. If I were successful in winning a scholarship at Trinity the College would almost certainly pay the whole cost of my studies if I could not Wnd the

Appendices 247

money elsewhere. This is how it turned out, I won a scholarship in December, and Trinity paid for everything.

Excerpt 18: Walter O. (emigra1, age at emigration 11 years) I: Und womit haben Sie sich beschäftigt, außer mit Lernen, wissen Sie? W. O.: Ich hab viel gelesen und ich war viel mit Erwachsenen zusammen, was auch nicht gut ist, ich war eigentlich immer ein kleiner Erwachsener damals. Aber das hat nichts mit- nichts direkt mit der Emigration zu tun, das waren eben die Umstände, wie sie überall vorkommen könnten. I: Mhm. Und die Zeit- wie war der Wechsel von dort nach England für Sie? W. O.: Sehr schwer. Plötzlich war ich in einem Internat, das war schon schlimm genug, mit ganz normalen englischen Jungen zusammen, die die ich eigentlich verachtete, weil sie so kindisch waren, in meiner Sicht, und I: Wo war das Internat? W. O.: In Cambridge I: In Cambridge W. O.: Das war angeblich eine der besten Schulen damals. I: Aber Sie empfanden das nicht? W. O.: Ah, jein, akademisch war die Schule sehr gut, sie hatten sehr gute Lehrer und ich hab da doch eine ganze Menge gelernt, aber im persönlichen, es war überhaupt kein persönliches Verhältnis zwischen Lehrer und Schüler, und das wie ich dann später entdeckte im Schuldienst, ist das wichtigste, aber da gab es das nicht. Mit dem Schulleiter hab ich glaub ich einmal ein Gespräch gehabt, und das war am letzten Tag, als ich abging, da hat er sich verabschiedet von mir, oder ich von ihm. Und der Hausmaster, also der Lehrer der für mich verantwortlich veran- verantwortlich war, mit dem hab ich- mit dem hab ich nie gesprochen, oder er hat nie mit mir gesprochen. Ich war sicher ein höchst unsympathisches Kind. I: Warum? W. O.: [laughs] Eingebildet, teilweise mit Recht, ein Eigenbrötler, nicht sportlich begabt oder interessiert, also ich paßte überhaupt nicht in die Schule. And what did you do, except study? I read a lot, I spent a lot of time around adults, which isn’t good, I was sort of a small adult at that time. But that wasn’t directly a consequence of the emigration, it was just the way things were and could have been anyway. And how did you experience the transition to England? It was hard. All of a sudden I found myself in a boarding school, which was bad enough, together with completely normal English boys, whom I despised, really, because I thought they were so childish, and Where was the boarding school? In Cambridge, allegedly that was one of the best schools at that time. But you did not think so? Yes and no, the academic level was high, they had very good teachers and I did learn quite a lot, but where the personal aspect was concerned, there was no personal relationship between teacher and pupils which, as I learned later when I became a teacher myself, is really the most important

248 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

thing, but there was none of that. I think I talked to the headmaster once, on the last day when I left, he said goodbye to me or I to him. And the housemaster, the teacher who was responsible for me, I never talked to him. I think I must have been a most unlikable child. Why is that? Arrogant, about which I was partly right, a loner, no interest or talent in sports, I really didn’t Wt in that school.

Excerpt 19: Martin R. (emigra2, age at emigration 17 years) M. R.: Ja, ich hab ich habs gerade hier aufgeschrieben, ich kanns ich mein Vater wurde in Düsseldorf am vierzehnten Juni achtunddreißig in Haft genommen und anschließend am zwanzigsten Juni achtunddreißig war er im Transport im Transport zum nach Sachsenhausen, und am dritten September neunzehnhundertvierzig angewiesen in das Konzentri- trat- Konzentrationslager Dachau, überstellt am zweiundzwanzigsten dreiundzwanzigsten Januar neunzehnhunderteinundvierzig nach Neuengamme und am neunundzwanzigsten April einundvierzig zum Konzentrationslager Dachau und am fünften Juli einundvierzig in nach Buchenwald, wo er am zwölften Februar verstarb, zwölften Februar zweiundvierzig, da war er fast vier vier Jahre in verschiedenen Lagern und ist dort gestorben. Und und seine seine Düsseldorfer Mutter die ist während des Krieges gestorben, aber seine Schwester, die auch in Düsseldorf wohnte und Mann und sein sein Vater, actually sein Stiefvater, sein sein Vater starb wie er fünf Jahre alt war und die seine Mutter hat wieder geheiratet, die drei sind haben noch in Düsseldorf gelebt bis ich glaube bis auch so bis zweiundvierzig und sind dann auf einen Transport gekommen nach Min- Minks und sind Minks und sind dort ums Leben gekommen, alle drei. Und und ich lernte meine meine zukünftige Frau schon in in in sobald ich nach Melbourne kam kennen, da war eine Gruppe von jungen Leuten, die also auch alle aus Wien oder aus aus Österreich oder aus Deutschland ausgewandert waren, und die und wir haben uns kennengelernt und dadurch lernte ich auch meine Frau kennen, die ging noch zur Hoch- die ging noch zur Schule trug ne Sch- Schuluniform noch, n großen Strohhut und und während des Krieges noch gegen Ende des Krieges haben wir geheiratet, und dasI: mhm, wo kam Ihre Frau her? M. R.: aus Wien, die ist in Wien geboren, die die kam neunzehnhundertneununddreißig mit ihren Eltern und ihrer Schwester nach nach nach Melbourne, und und so haben wir dann das Geschäft weitergeführt, wir haben ein Haus gebaut und zwei Kinder bekommen und dann haben sind wir zum ersten Mal wieder nach Europa gefahren, wir beide kannten Europa nicht wir waren zu jung um viel gesehen zu haben und es geWel uns so gut in Europa, daß wir daß wir entschlossen, Australien zu verlassen, zu versuchen in in London unterzukommen und und das ist uns auch dann gelungen, wir waren immer an Kunst interessiert und haben in London eine Galerie aufgemacht für moderne Kunst Yes, I’ve got it written down here, I can, my father was arrested in Düsseldorf on June 14th 1938, and then on June 20th 1938 he went on the transport to Sachsenhausen and on Sept. 3rd 1940 he was listed for Dachau, on 22nd–23rd January 1940 he was taken to Neuengamme and on April 29th 1941 to Dachau, then to Buchenwald on July 5th 1941, where he died on February 12th 1942, so for almost four years he was in diVerent camps and then he died. And his mother, also

Appendices 249

from Düsseldorf, died during the war, but his sister who also lived in Düsseldorf and her husband and his father, actually his stepfather, his father died when he was Wve and his mother married again, those three lived in Düsseldorf until, I think, about 42, and then they went on a transport to Minsk where they died, all three of them. And I met my future wife as soon as I came to Melbourne, there was a group of young people, all of whom had emigrated from Vienna or Austria or Germany as well, and we met and that was where I met my wife, she still went to school, she was wearing a school uniform with a big straw hat and we got married during the war, towards the end of the war Mhm, and where was your wife from? from Vienna, she was born in Vienna, she came to Melbourne with her parents and her sister in 1939, and so we went on with the business, we built a house and had two children, and then we went back to Europe for the Wrst time, we both didn’t know Europe, we were too young to have seen a lot, and we liked it so much in Europe that we decided to leave Australia and to try to Wnd something in London, and we succeeded, we had always been interested in art, so we opened a gallery in London for modern art.

Excerpt 20: Lotte A. (emigra2, age at emigration 15 years) L. A.: und ich war sehr lange hat das gedauert, bis ich das- ich wollte wieder zurückkommen, aber nachdem ich Freunde gemacht hab und so weiter wollt ich nicht mehr zurückkommen und hab alles fast alles vergessen, was was da vorher war. Ich glaub, das tut man psychological, you know? I: War das für Sie so’n so’n Übergang, oder war das daß Sie, wie soll ich sagen, erst mal zurück wollten, und dann irgendwann mal sich für das Bleiben entschieden haben, innerlich? L. A.: nein ich ich wollte dann nicht mehr zurück. Ich weil- ich bin sehr happy in you know in the United States. Und wir waren auch schon dreimal hier hinterher, ja, dadurch, daß ich gar keine- ich wollte gar keine connection mehr haben, hier. You know, sie spricht sehr gut deutsch, wir haben nie deutsch gesprochen. I: Auch nicht mit Ihrem Mann? L. A.: No, nie. I: Auch untereinander L. A.: auch untereinander nicht, nein, das kam in in zeitweise durch den Krieg, da konnte man nicht deutsch sprechen. Und dann hinterher haben wirs- für mich ist es viel leichter, Englisch zu sprechen, ich kann nicht mehr in Deutsch denken, nicht wahr, ich hab die Worte nicht mehr. Mei- mein Sohn liegt die meiste Zeit auf dem Boden und lacht, wenn ich Deutsch spreche [laughs]. Und schreiben ist schrecklich, die Wörter sind nicht ich habs alles vergessen. Ja, ich glaube, wenn ich hier vielleicht n Monat wär, nicht dann dann kommts wieder, ja. Aber ich hab keine Gelegenheit, Deutsch zu sprechen, da ist keiner der, die einzigen, die Deutsch gesprochen haben waren meine Großeltern, wenn die wie die nach Amerika kamen, und die sind schon lange tot. Mein Vater hat nie Deutsch gesprochen, der konnte genug Englisch. Nie, der hat nie Deutsch gesprochen. and I was — it took a long time until I — I wanted to come back, but after I’d made friends and so on I didn’t want to come back, and forgot almost everything that had happened before. I think you just do this, psychologically, you know?

250 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Was there any transition for you, that you — how should I say — that at Wrst you wanted to go back and then at some point decided to stay? No, I I didn’t want to go back any longer. I — because — I am very happy in, you know, in the United States. And we have been back three times since, yes, because I did not want to have any connection here. You know, she speaks very good German, we never spoke German. Not even with your husband? No, never. Not with each other. Not with each other, no, that was partly because of the war, you couldn’t speak German then. And then afterwards we — it is much easier for me to speak English, I can’t think in German any longer, you see, I don’t have the words any longer. My son always falls over with laughter, whenever I speak German. And writing is terrible, the words aren’t — I’ve forgotten it all. Yes, I think, maybe if I were here for a month, right, then it might come back, yes. But I have no opportunities to speak German, there is no one, who — the only ones who spoke German were my grandparents, when they when they came to America, and they died a long time ago. My father never spoke German, he knew enough English. Never, he never spoke German.

Excerpt 21: Ruth and Fritz K. (Ruth K.: emigra3, age at emigration 16 years; Fritz K.: EMIGRA2, age at emigration 17 years) F. K.: Ja, also wir haben alles mögliche ich hatte noch Patienten von meinem Vater waren holländisch, und die haben mich erst nach Holland gebracht. War ich sechs Monate in Holland, bis ich nach England ging. Dann ging ich nach England zu meiner Schwester, zunächst, und dann hab ich hier ein richtiger Cockney Familie haben sich son Emigranten einge- paar eing- ins Haus genommen, waren wundervolle Leute. Ganz einfache Leute, er hatte eine Klaviergeschäft, verkaufte Klavier in Soho, sie war eine Yorkshire lass und also das war Charakter. Und wie das so im Leben oft ist hat haben die das mein Vater hat dem Mann das Leben gerettet, denn er war sehr krank und die Leute wußten nicht was mit ihm los war, und er hat den kuriert, also die haben gleich das wie sagt man wie kann man das sagen, also die haben gleich die ihre ihre R. K.: sind gleich belohnt worden F. K.: Wohltätigkeit belohnt bekommen. Wir kennen noch son paar meine Frau R. K.: ne andere kind ne andere Belohnung F. K.: die hatte sehr schwere Geburten, immer mit Kaiserschnitt R. K.: ach so, das meinst du F. K.: und der Arzt der auch befreundet mit meinem Vater war kam zu ihr und da war es ging was schief, da hat er seinen Ferien aufgegeben für ein paar Tage, und wenn er gegangen wäre wäre er direkt war er in einem Hotel in Marokko das in einem Erdin einem Erdbeben war dadurch, daß er nicht gegangen ist hat er das auch gleich [laughs] I: das verdankt er Ihrer Frau F. K.: ah, das verdankt er seiner Güte I: ach so [laughs] R. K.: das mit dem mit dem zweiten Kind gings etwas schief, wie das dritte geboren wurde da hat er gesagt, ich bleibe hier bis die ersten paar Tage vorbei sind. Und das Hotel war vollkommen kaputt nach dem Erdbeben.

Appendices 251

F. K.: R. K.: F. K.: R. K.:

Nicht nur das, sondern darling, s- you had diYculty, didn’t you, you couldn’t ah I couldn’t breathe you could- something went wrong, I can’t remember, that’s why he was there I know, that’s what I said, something went wrong

F. K.:

Yes, well, we did all sorts of things, I had — patients of my fathers were Dutch, and they Wrst brought me to Holland, so I was in Holland for six months, until I went to England. Then I went to England to my sister at Wrst, and then I was here — a real Cockney family, they took some emigrants into their house, were wonderful people. Very simple people, he had a piano shop, sold pianos in Soho, she was a Yorkshire lass and — well, they had character. And as it often happens in life, they have — my father saved this man’s life, since he was very ill and no one knew what was wrong with him and he cured him, so they immediately — how can you say they had their they were rewarded charity rewarded. We know some more cases like that, my wife a diVerent kind, a diVerent reward she had very diYcult births, always with a Cesarean oh, that’s what you mean and the doctor, who was also a friend of my father’s, came to her and it was something went wrong, so he gave up his holidays for a few days, and if he’d gone he’d have been in a hotel in Morocco which was destroyed by an earthquake, so by not going he was

R. K. F. K. R. K. F. K. R. K. F. K.

Thanks to your wife F. K. Thanks to his generosity R. K. that with the second child something went wrong, and when the third one was born he said, I’ll stay until the Wrst few days are over. And the hotel was completely destroyed by the earthquake F. K.: Not only that, darling, you had diYculty, didn’t you, you couldn’t ah R. K.: I couldn’t breathe F. K.: you could- something went wrong, I can’t remember, that’s why he was there R. K.: I know, that’s what I said, something went wrong

Index

A Acts of Identity 10, 27 Additive bilingualism 26 Admoni 130 affixation 132 age 4, 11, 19, 20, 65, 68, 69, 72, 78, 90, 169, 170–172, 191, 194 agentivity 88 agreement 42, 86, 100, 103, 104, 118, 120, 122, 123, 127, 135, 143, 144, 148 Aktionsart 133 Allen 17 allomorph 34, 102, 104, 114, 115, 117– 121, 123 allomorphic variation 16, 34, 39 Altenberg 15, 20, 30, 32, 34, 39, 43, 87, 106, 119, 180 Altmann 102, 103, 111 Ammerlaan 10, 18, 30, 36, 39, 193 Andersen 9, 12, 14, 16, 25, 29, 32–36, 82, 87, 100, 193 animacy 92 animate 90, 92, 121 aphasia 12, 20 Appel 32 Arendt 47, 48 Armenian 42 AronoV 20, 41 AschoV 46 aspect 127, 130, 135 assimilation 3, 19, 24, 26, 193 attitude 1, 2, 25, 26, 71 Auer 151 auxiliary 128, 132–134, 137–139, 142, 147, 152, 153, 160, 163, 164, 181, 184 B Baerentzen 150 Bailey 17

Bamberg 129 Banks 134 Bartke 114–118, 194 Barzilay 24, 30, 33, 42 Bauch 101 Bauer 114, 134 Benke 22 Benz 49, 52, 59, 61 Bergs 149, 150 Berko-Gleason 12 Berman 105 Best 48 Birner 154 BloomWeld 101 Bolotin 20 Booij 85 Born 130, 134 Bornschein 115, 117 borrowability 31 Bot, de 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 30–34, 38, 39, 41, 71, 88, 90, 92–97, 99, 194 Bouma 117, 118 Bourhis 27–29 Boyd 2, 24, 39 Breakwell 26 Breivik 195 Breton 40 Brinkmann 115, 117 C Cain 20, 105 calque 32 Caramazza 12 cascade model 8 case 14, 16, 34, 41, 67, 83, 86–96, 98–100, 124, 172–177, 179, 180, 186, 187, 194 Chomsky 13, 17 Clahsen 87–91, 114, 115, 117–119, 132– 134, 143, 144, 153, 155, 156, 194

254 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

Clark 9 Clyne 9, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39, 107 code-mixing 14 code-switching 14, 32, 107, 120, 159 Cohen 10 Collings 91, 155 Comrie 128–131, 153 contextual inXection 85 Corbett 86, 104 creole 17 creolization 14, 193 critical period 19, 20 Czech 105 D Dalton-PuVer 17 Danchev 17, 140 Daneš 149 Data collection 30 Davies 10 default plural 117 deWnite 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106, 115, 119, 141 deWniteness 85, 89, 92, 97, 114, 180 derivational aYx 102 derivational suYx 108, 109, 119 dialectal 37, 38, 64 diminutive 102, 109 discontinuous word order 152, 155–157, 163, 164, 165, 174 do-support 16, 140 Dorgeloh 154 Dorian 2, 14, 16, 39 Dressler 40 dual mechanisms model of inXection 117 Dutch 24, 34, 39– 42, 71, 92, 94, 155, 195 E Eckert 57, 58, 59 education 11, 19, 21, 29, 51, 55, 65, 69, 70, 80 Edwards 27, 28 ego-nearness 87–89, 93

Eisenbeiß 88, 91 Eisenberg 128, 132, 133, 143 Els, van 10 embedded clauses 35, 156 Erdmann 153 Ertel 88 Ervin-Tripp 27 Eschelbacher 51, 52, 57 Ethnic AYliation 10 ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) 2, 28, 29 ethnolinguistic vitality theory (EVT) 2, 40, 43 F Fijian 42 Finnish 39, 40, 41 Fishman 28 Flynn 20 Fox 128, 129, 130 Freed 9 French 10, 16, 39–42, 48, 105, 121 Fromm 8 Fuller 107 G Gardner 2, 25 Gawlitzek-Maiwald 117, 118 Gelhaus 128, 130 gender 11, 15, 19, 22, 34, 35, 70, 85, 87, 90, 100–113, 115, 116, 119, 124, 125, 148, 158, 173, 176, 177, 180 Giles 2, 10, 27, 28, 29 Givón 88, 89 go-future 16, 34, 129 Golston 115 Gommans 20, 30, 39 Gonzo 8 Göpfert 60 Görlach 17 grammaticality judgements 15, 30, 39, 40, 41, 92 Greenberg 101, 153 Grendel 10, 33 Grewendorf 150

Index 255

Griese 193 Grimm 101, 134 Grosjean 40 H Hagen 10, 31, 34 Håkansson 10, 13, 14, 16–18, 34–36, 40, 157 Halle 132, 134 Haugen 32 Hebrew 41–43, 105 Hentschel 130 Henzl 105 Hermann, G. 28 Hermann, J. 28 Hilberg 46, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58 Hinskens 10 Hirvonen 40 Hoberg 150, 152 Hormann 10, 27 Hudson 22 HuYnes 40 Hull 28 Hulsen 2, 18, 24, 40, 71 Hungarian 43 hypnosis 8 hypotactical 35 I identity 1, 10, 19, 26–29, 50, 51, 61, 75, 189, 191 implied person 92, 97, 194 inanimate 89, 90, 92 indeWnite 92, 93, 96, 100, 105 inXection 35, 85, 86, 113, 117, 120, 123, 127, 131, 132, 134–137, 144, 146, 147, 149, 156, 195 Ingram 17 Inherent categories 127 Inherent inXection 85 interlanguage hypothesis 14, 16 intransitive 34, 154, 161, 164, 166, 184 irregular inXection 117, 133, 146 Italian 25, 41, 119

J Jake 193 Jakobson 4, 11, 12, 93, 191 Japanese 8 Jaspaert 10, 21, 24, 30, 36, 41 Jordens 13, 14, 34, 41, 88–90, 92–97, 99, 152, 153, 155, 156, 194 K Kabardian 42 KarmiloV-Smith 105 Kaufman 10, 19, 20, 41 Keller 153 Khemlani-David 28 Kirkwood 149 Klerks 51 Koehn 105, 111, 194 Köpcke 41, 101–103, 106, 107, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 135, 146, 194 Köpke 10, 18, 20–22, 25, 30, 34, 36–38, 70, 78, 83, 94, 106, 107, 116, 119, 123, 157, 181, 193 Kroon 10, 21, 24, 30, 36, 41 Kuczaj 134 KuryPowicz 127 Kytö 140 L LAD 154 Lambert 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 25, 105 language acquisition device 154 language change 7, 9, 11, 14–16, 22, 25, 34, 41, 43, 79, 140 language death 7–9, 14, 16, 29 language shift 7, 8, 31, 39 Leets 2, 10, 29 Lehnert 107 Leisiö 41 Lenerz 149, 150 Lenneberg 19 lexical 13, 14, 30–33, 37–40, 43, 66, 67, 78, 80, 82, 83, 100, 137, 143, 153, 186, 187, 189 lexical richness 4, 33, 37, 186

256 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

lexicon 16, 25, 32, 39, 41–43, 82, 83, 105, 174, 187, 190 loanshift 32 Louden 153 M MacWhinney 105, 134 Maher 16, 34, 41 main assertive clauses 151 main clause 80, 152–154, 158, 160, 166 Major 42 Manuel 20 Maratsos 101 Marcus 114, 115, 117, 133, 194 markedness 11, 17, 33, 40, 82, 89, 115– 117, 146, 180, 194 Maroldt 17 Matsumoto 28 Meisel 156, 157 memory retrieval 18 Mills 88, 90, 101, 102, 104, 105, 134, 155 Mittelfeld 151, 166 Montana Salish 8 Moore 10, 16 Müller 91, 105, 152 Muysken 32, 153, 155, 156, 193 Myers-Scotton 193 N narrative autobiographical interviews 1, 64 Northover 27 O Ochs 88 Olshtain 30, 33, 42 open-class 14 Oxford 9 P parameter 17, 133, 156 paratactical 35 Park 114, 118, 123 Penke 115, 143, 144, 156 Pérez-Pereira 105

periphrastic 16, 34, 128, 130, 133, 134, 135, 137–139, 147, 149, 152, 164, 195 periphrastic tenses 128, 133, 138, 147, 164 PfaV 24 Phillips 117, 118 phonology 12, 40, 42, 103 Pienemann 156, 157 Pinker 115, 117, 134 plural 13, 15, 34, 35, 83, 85–87, 90, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 113–121, 123–125, 144–146, 148, 158, 180, 194 Polinsky 42 Polish 42 Portugese 42 Poulisse 36 Poussa 17 Preston 193 Prince 90, 134, 150 proWciency data 78, 83, 174, 180, 186–189, 191, 192 psycholinguistic 10, 18, 39, 41, 42, 117, 134 Py 25, 40, 42 Q quasi-auxiliaries 16 questionnaire 2, 39, 68, 70, 71, 76, 169, 177, 192 R Raettig 102, 103, 111 registers 16 regression hypothesis 4, 11–14, 17, 41, 81, 95, 96, 125, 148, 168, 191 regular inXection 117, 134, 146 relational 35, 85, 86, 127, 146, 148 relational categories 127, 146 relative clause 35, 168 relativizer 152 Research design 29 Ricker 10, 23 Rieker 48–51, 53, 54, 56–58 Rigault 105 Romaine 8, 14, 19, 20, 32, 33

Index 257

Rossing 20, 30, 39 Rothweiler 114, 115, 117, 118, 194 RuoV 83 Russ 115 Russian 41, 42, 43

Swan 195 Swedish 13, 16, 18, 34, 35, 39, 40, 157 Swiss French 42 synthetic 15, 16, 80, 128, 130, 134, 135 synthetic tenses 128

S salience 87, 88, 89, 150 Saltarelli 8 Satzklammer 152 Schachter 88, 194 Schaner-Wolles 117, 118 SchieVelin 88 Schmid 88, 89, 149, 150, 154, 195 Schmidt 16, 42 Schneuwly 105 Schoenmakers-Klein Gunnewiek 42 Schulz 129 Schumans 13, 90, 95, 97, 99 self-report 3, 23, 25, 31, 68, 70, 71, 169, 171, 172, 175–178 Seliger 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 30, 38, 42, 135 semantic transfer 32 separable verb particles 152 Sharwood Smith 10, 14, 17, 38 Sherman 60 Simon 48 simpliWcation hypothesis 16 Smith 10, 17, 20, 38, 105 sociolectal variation 37, 64 Solin 153, 155, 156, 157 Søndergaard 42 Spanish 40, 42, 105, 119 Sparing 48–50, 52–54, 57, 64, 149, 195 Stein 140, 149, 154, 195 strong 89, 92, 100, 131–137, 143, 146 Stump 86 subordinate 80, 151–153, 156, 157, 159– 161, 164, 166, 174, 176, 178, 181, 182, 187 subordinating conjunction 152, 153 subtractive bilingualism 26 Suchy 57

T Tabouret-Keller 27 Tamil 42 Taylor 27, 28, 29 te Velde 153 Thieroff 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133 Thomason 8 topicality 88, 89, 92, 150, 194 Tracy 88, 90, 91, 194 transitive 34, 133, 162, 164, 184 transitivity 154, 161, 162, 168, 181 Trapman 88, 92–94, 96, 97, 99 Travis 153, 155–157 Tucker 105 Turian 20, 43 Turkish 24, 29, 35, 43, 90, 156 type-token 33, 82, 83, 173 U UG 11, 17, 40, 154 Uhmann 153 Ulvestad 134 Universal Grammar 11, 17, 154 unmarked 11, 17, 18, 40, 82, 89, 91, 98, 101, 106, 116, 130, 142, 146 V V2 80, 91, 97, 98, 143, 153, 157, 160–162 Vago 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 30, 38, 43, 135 Vainikka 88, 91 van Buren 17, 38 van Hout 10, 36 van Os 13, 90, 95, 97, 99 Vater 80, 95, 109, 112, 128, 145, 146 Volkov 48, 49 Vorfeld 151 Vorländer 64 VS-structures 158, 160, 162, 181, 182, 184

258 First language attrition, use, and maintenance

W Waas 2, 10, 20, 22, 23, 30, 31, 33, 43, 106, 120, 157 Walk 53, 54, 56–59 Watzinger-Tharp 129, 130, 134 weak 100 weak verbs 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 143, 146 Weber-Olsen 20, 105 Wegener 114–117, 194 Weltens 10, 12, 18, 24, 33, 71 Weydt 130 White 153, 155–157 Wiese 114, 115, 117 Wilkins 31, 193 Wodak 22 Woelk 53

Woest 114, 115, 117, 118, 194 word order 19, 35, 80, 82, 83, 85, 89, 97– 99, 149, 151, 153–157, 158, 160, 163, 166, 168, 184, 195 Wunderlich 130, 131, 133 Y Yaægmur 2, 10, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 43 Yiddish 48, 49, 64 Z Zielke 51, 56 Zimmermann 48–51, 53, 54, 56–58 Zittartz 46, 47 Zubin 41, 88, 89, 91, 92, 98, 10–103 Zurif 12

In the series STUDIES IN BILINGUALISM (SiBil) ISSN 0298-1533 the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. FASE, Willem, Koen JASPAERT and Sjaak KROON (eds): Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. 1992. 2. BOT, Kees de, Ralph B. GINSBERG and Claire KRAMSCH (eds): Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. 1991. 3. DÖPKE, Susanne: One Parent - One Language. An interactional approach. 1992. 4. PAULSTON, Christina Bratt: Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings. Implications for language policies.1994. 5. KLEIN, Wolfgang and Clive PERDUE: Utterance Structure. Developing grammars again. 6. SCHREUDER, Robert and Bert WELTENS (eds): The Bilingual Lexicon. 1993. 7. DIETRICH, Rainer, Wolfgang KLEIN and Colette NOYAU: The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language. 1995. 8. DAVIS, Kathryn Anne: Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts. Policies, communities, and schools in Luxembourg. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 9. FREED, Barbara F. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. 1995. 10. BAYLEY, Robert and Dennis R. PRESTON (eds): Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. 1996. 11. BECKER, Angelika and Mary CARROLL: The Acquisition of Spatial Relations in a Second Language. 1997. 12. HALMARI, Helena: Government and Codeswitching. Explaining American Finnish. 1997. 13. HOLLOWAY, Charles E.: Dialect Death. The case of Brule Spanish. 1997. 14. YOUNG, Richard and Agnes WEIYUN HE (eds): Talking and Testing. Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. 1998. 15. PIENEMANN, Manfred: Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability theory. 1998. 16. HUEBNER, Thom and Kathryn A. DAVIS (eds.): Sociopolitical Perspectives on Language Policy and Planning in the USA. 1999. 17. ELLIS, Rod: Learning a Second Language through Interaction. 1999. 18. PARADIS, Michel: Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. n.y.p. 19. AMARA, Muhammad Hasan: Politics and Sociolinguistic Reflexes. Palestinian border villages. 1999. 20. POULISSE, Nanda: Slips of the Tongue. Speech errors in first and second language production. 1999 21. DÖPKE, Susanne (ed.): Cross-Linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism. 2000 22. SALABERRY, M. Rafael: The Development of Past Tense Morphology in L2 Spanish. 2000. 23. VERHOEVEN, Ludo and Sven STRÖMQVIST (eds.): Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context. 2001. 24. SCHMID, Monika S.: First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance. The case of German Jews in anglophone countries. 2002.