New Structural Patterns in Moribund Grammar: Case Marking in Heritage German

Abstract

Research treats divergences between monolingual and heritage grammars in terms of performance—‘L1 attrition,’ e.g., lexical retrieval—or competence—‘incomplete acquisition’, e.g., lack of overt tense markers (e.g., Polinsky, 1995; Sorace, 2004; Montrul, 2008; Schmid, 2010). One classic difference between monolingual and Heritage German is reduction in morphological case in the latter, especially loss of dative marking. Our evidence from several Heritage German varieties suggests that speakers have not merely lost case, but rather developed innovative structures to mark it. More specifically, Heritage German speakers produce dative forms in line with established patterns of Differential Object Marking (Bossong, 1985, 1991; Aissen, 2003), suggesting a reallocated mapping of case. We take this as evidence for innovative reanalysis in heritage grammars (Putnam and Sánchez, 2013). Following Kamp and Reyle (1993) and Wechsler (2011, 2014), the dative adopts a more indexical discourse function, forging a tighter connection between morphosyntax and semantic properties. Moribund grammars deploy linguistic resources in novel ways, a finding which can help move us beyond simple narratives of ‘attrition’ and ‘incomplete acquisition.’

Redefining Language Death: Evidence From Moribund Grammars

“…The following examines German HL varieties that exhibit change over time in nominal case marking. We support previous literature (Salmons, ; Yager, ; Yager et al., ) in arguing that such a change is not due to the erosion of the HL, but rather due to attested patterns of language change characteristic especially of languages in contact settings. Data do not support a convergence with English—previously argued to suggest the influence of imposition of the dominant L2 on the HL—but rather data suggest the restructuring of the nominal (case‐marking) system in TxG and WHG, such that the discussion centers not around the reduction of complexity within the system, but rather a systematic restructuring of the complexity of the system.…”

“…Yager et al. (, p. 2) point out, “dative case marking is retained more often on pronouns than on determiners and, in some varieties, more on definites than indefinites.” If DOM‐effects were to emerge as an innovative case‐marking strategy in varieties of Heritage German, it would lead to testable hypotheses (from Yager et al., , p. 4): Pronouns should show case marking over full NPs, for example, mit mir but mit den Mann ; Definite should show case marking over indefinite, for example, less dative on ein‐determiners (indefinite) than der‐determiners (definite), so standard einem should be realized as ein/einen (without dative) more often than dem as der/den or das . Animate should show case marking over inanimate, so humans and animals should show more dative determiners than physical objects. …”

“…The latter, dative case loss in German HLs, is a well‐studied topic that warrants revisiting. Although the remaining speakers of these vernaculars often lack literacy in the heritage language, have reduced opportunities to receive qualitative and quantitative L1 input, have limited opportunities to speak their HL, and are often elderly (e.g., Rossi & Diaz, ; Rothman, ; Yager et al., ), the grammars of these speakers collectively exhibit the maintenance of preimmigration grammatical structures, or systematic restructuring of the grammatical system.…”

Language Mixing and Diachronic Change: American Norwegian Noun Phrases Then and Now

“…This has been suggested in studies of other HL, e.g., heritage Russian [18,79], heritage Spanish [80], and heritage German [81], all of which conclude that the heritage language in question seems to have fundamentally different structures than its native counterpart. Polinsky [18] suggests that the changes she finds between heritage and non-heritage speakers of Russian, and between children and adult HS, are the result of a structural reanalysis of the heritage grammar.…”

Variation – Normen – Identitäten

“…Rosenberg 2003Rosenberg , 2005Riehl 2010;Yager et al 2015), um etwa festzustellen, ob es sich bei der angenommenen internen Entwicklung um den gleichen Entwicklungsverlauf handelt oder ob unterschiedliche Entwicklungsverläufe lediglich zu dem gleichen Ergebnis führen. Außerdem fehlen beim Vergleich unterschiedlicher Konstellationen noch systematische Auszählungen der tatsächlichen Vorkommnisse von Kasussynkretismus; die meisten Untersuchungen beruhen auf qualitativen Ergebnissen.…”