Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:46:11.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 33 - Heritage Germanic Languages in North America

from Part V - Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Janne Bondi Johannessen  and
Michael T. Putnam
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

The empirical focus of this chapter are heritage Germanic languages spoken in North America. Heritage languages are the first language of individuals who speak a language at home that is not the dominant language of the larger society (pace Rothman 2009). Unlike minority languages (see Louden, Chapter 34), speakers of heritage varieties of Germanic are not tied to a particular religious group. Additionally, the majority of these heritage speakers speak moribund vernaculars. Here we review the general properties of the phonology, morphology and morpho-syntax, syntax, and semantics and pragmatics of heritage German and Norwegian. We discuss the impact that these empirical findings have on theoretical analyses, include language attrition and the potential of incomplete mastery of elements of the heritage language.

Keywords

heritage Germanheritage Norwegianincomplete acquisitioncontact linguisticscontact languagelanguage and agingmoribund languages
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 783 - 806
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Åfarli, T. A. 2012. “Hybride verbformer i amerikanorsk og analyse av tempus,” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift: 381–398.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. 2003. “Differential object marking: iconicity versus economy,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 438–485.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M. and Westergaard, M. 2017. Crosslinguistic Similarities and Differences in Bilingual Acquisition and Attrition: Possessives and Double Definiteness in Norwegian Heritage Language. Ms., University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Annear, L. and Speth, K. 2015. “Maintaining a multilingual repertoire: Lexical change in American Norwegian.” In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition, Attrition and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 201–216.Google Scholar
Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. 2006. North American Icelandic: The Life of a Language. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
Bayram, F., y Cabo, D. Pascual, and Rothman, J. 2019. “Cross-generational attrition contributions to heritage speaker competence.” In Köpke, B. and Schmid, M. S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition. Oxford University Press: 446–457.Google Scholar
Berend, N. and Jedig, H. (eds.) 1991. Deutsche Mundarten in der Sowjetunion: Geschichte der Forschung und Bibliographie. Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 2016. “Aging and bilingualism: Why does it matter?” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6.1/2: 1–8.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2009. The Death of Texas German. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1991. “Differential object marking in Romance and beyond.” In Wanner, D. and Kibbee, D. (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 143–167.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., Schroeder, S. R., Bobb, S. C., Freeman, M. R., and Marian, V. 2016. “Auditory word recognition across the lifespan: Links between linguistic and nonlinguistic inhibitory control in bilinguals and monolinguals,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6.1/2: 119–146.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. and Cain, H. 2000. “Trilingualism in related languages – Dutch-German-English near and far.” In Hirschfelder, G., Schnell, D., and Schrutka-Rechtenstamm, A. (eds.), Kulturen – Sprachen – Übergänge. Festschrift für H.L. Cox zum 65. Geburtstag. Cologne: Boehlau: 135–152.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Sung, L.-M. 1990. “Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives,” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 1–22.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1997. “Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research,” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 34: 35–50.Google Scholar
Duus, O. F. 1855–1858 [1958]. “Frontier Parsonage: The letters of Olaus Fredrik Duus. Norwegian Pastor in Wisconsin, 1855–1858. NAHA, Northfield 1947.” In Blegen, I. and Theodore, C. (eds.), Amerikabrev. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. and Arnstein, H. 2015. “Verb second and finiteness morphology in Norwegian heritage language of the American Midwest.” In R. Page, B. and Putnam, M.T. (eds.), Leiden: Brill: 64–101.Google Scholar
Fitch, G. W. 2011. “Changes in frequency as a measure of language change: Extraposition in Pennsylvania German.” In Putnam, M. T. (ed.), Studies on German-Language Islands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 371–384.Google Scholar
Flaten, Ns. 1901. “Notes on American-Norwegian with a Vocabulary.” Dialect Notes, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
Flom, G. T. 1901. “English Elements in Norse Dialects of Utica, Wisconsin.” Dialect Notes, Vol. 2, 1900–1904.Google Scholar
Flom, G. T. 1926. “English loanwords in American Norwegian. As spoken in the Koshkonong settlement, Wisconsin,” American Speech 1: 541–558.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. 1997. Pennsylvania Dutch with a Southern Touch: A Theoretical Model of Language Contact and Change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina-Columbia.Google Scholar
Geiger, S. and Salmons, J. 2006. “Reconstructing variation at shallow time depths: The historical phonetics of 19th century German dialects in the U.S.” In Cravens, T. (ed.), Variation and Reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 37–58.Google Scholar
Grimstad, M. B., Lohndal, T., and Åfarli, T. A. 2014. “Language mixing and exoskeletal theory: A case study of word-internal mixing in American Norwegian,” Nordlyd 41.2: 213–237.Google Scholar
Gross, S. 2005. “Attrition and typological change.” Presentation, 2nd International Conference on First Language Attrition. Vrije Universitet Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. 2002. Linguistic Characteristics of Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition: Turkish overt versus null pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. 2004. “Selectivity in L2-induced attrition: A psycholinguistic account,” Journal of Neurolinguistics 17: 53–78.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. 2007. “(Psycho)linguistic determinants of L1 attrition.” In Köpke, B., Schmid, M., Keijzer, M., and Dosterst, S. (eds.), Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 99–120.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. 1995. “Syntax and morphology in language attrition: A study of five bilingual expatriate Swedes,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5: 153–171.Google Scholar
Hjelde, A. 1992. Trøndsk talemål i Amerika. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Hjelde, A. 2015. “Changes in a Norwegian dialect in America.” In Johannessen and Salmons (eds.): 283–298.Google Scholar
Hjelde, A. and Johannessen, J. B. 2017. “Amerikanorsk: Orda vitner om kontakt mellom folk.” In Hasle Joranger, T. M. and Cleven, H. T. (eds.), Norwegian-American Essays 2017. Oslo: Novus: 257–282.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. and Putnam, M. T. 2015. “Restructuring in heritage grammar: Word order variation in heritage German,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5.2: 180–203.Google Scholar
Huffines, M. L. 1989. “Case usages among the Pennsylvania German sectarians and nonsectarians.” In Dorian, N. C. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge University Press: 211–226.Google Scholar
Ivanova, I., Murillo, M., Montoya, R. I., and Gollan, T. H. 2016. “Does bilingual language control decline in older age?” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6.1/2: 86–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobson, R. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2015a. “The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS).” In B. Megyesi (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, NODALIDA 2015, May 11–13, 2015, Vilnius, Lithuania. NEALT Proceedings Series 23.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2015b. “Attrition in an American Norwegian heritage language speaker.” In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition, Attrition and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 46–71.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2018. “Factors of variation, maintenance and change in heritage languages,” International Journal of Bilingualism 22.4: 447–465.Google Scholar
Johannessen, L. J. B. and Larsson, I. 2015. “Complexity matters: On gender agreement in heritage Scandinavian,” Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01842.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.) 2015. Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition, Attrition and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. D. 1994. The Volga-German Dialect of Schoenchen, Kansas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Judy, T., Putnam, M. T., and Rothman, J. 2018. “When bilingualism is the common factor: Switch reference at the junction of competence and performance in both Second Language and Heritage Language performance,” Journal of Language Contact 11.3: 592–618.Google Scholar
Keel, W. D. 1994. “Reduction and loss of case marking in the noun phrase in German-American speech islands: Internal development or external influence?” In Berend, N. and Mattheier, K. (eds.), Sprachinselforschung: eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag: 93—104.Google Scholar
Keel, W. D. 2015. “Noun phrase case shift in Volga German varieties on the Great Plains of Kansas.” In Page, B. R. and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Moribund Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings. Leiden: Brill: 133–153.Google Scholar
Keijzer, M. C. J. 2007. First In Last Out? An Investigation of the Regression Hypothesis in Dutch Emigrants in Anglophone Canada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Keijzer, M. C. J. 2010. First Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition: Parallels and Divergences. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Keijzer, M.C. J. and Schmid, M. S 2016. “Individual differences in cognitive control advantages of late Dutch-English bilinguals,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6.1/2: 64–85.Google Scholar
Khramova, M. 2011. The Volga German Dialect of Milberger, Kansas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kim, J-H., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J. 2009. “Binding interpretation of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers,” Language Acquisition 16: 3–35.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2014. “Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German-Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17: 222–233.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. and Rothman, J. 2018. “Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers,” International Journal of Bilingualism 22.5: 564–582.Google Scholar
Larsson, I. and Johannessen, J. B. 2015a. “Incomplete acquisition and verb placement in heritage Scandinavian.” In R. Page, B. and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Moribund Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings. Leiden: Brill: 153–189.Google Scholar
Larsson, I. and Johannessen, J. B. 2015b. “Embedded word order in Heritage Scandinavian.” In Hilpert, M., Östman, J-O, Mertzlufft, C., and Rießler, M (eds.), New Trends in Nordic and General Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 239–266.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. and Westergaard, M. 2016. “Grammatical gender in American Norwegian Heritage Language: Stability or attrition?” Frontiers in Psycholology, 7: 344.Google Scholar
Louden, M. L. 1988. Bilingualism and Syntactic Change in Pennsylvania German. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Louden, M. L. 2006. “Pennsylvania German in the twenty-first century.” In Berend, N. and Knipf-Komlósi, E. (eds.), Sprachinsel weltweit – The world of language islands. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag: 89–107.Google Scholar
Louden, M. L. 2016. Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mironow, S. A. 1957. “Zur vergleichenden Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 79 (supplemental volume): 388–414.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2015. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Øverland, O. and Kjærheim, S. (eds.) 1992. Fra Amerika til Norge. I norske utvandrerbrev 1838–57. Bind 1. Oslo: Solum.Google Scholar
Page, B. R. and Putnam, M. T. (eds.) 2015. Moribund Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. and Rothman, J.. 2012. “The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition,” Applied Linguistics 33: 450–455.Google Scholar
Perez-Cortes, S. 2016. Acquiring Obligatory and Variable Mood Selection: Spanish Heritage Speakers and L2 Learners’ Performance in Desideratives and Reported Speech Contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Pires, A. and Rothman, J. 2009. “Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars,” International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2006. “Incomplete acquisition: American Russian,” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14: 191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2011. “Reanalysis in adult heritage language,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33: 305–328.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. (ed.). 2011. Studies on German-Language Islands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. and Sánchez, L. 2013. “What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3.4: 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T. and Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. 2015. “Minimizing (interface) domains: The loss of long-distance binding in North American Icelandic.” In Page, B. R. and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Moribund Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings. Leiden: Brill: 203–223.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T., Kupisch, T., and Pascual y Cabo, D. 2018. “Different situations, similar outcomes: Heritage grammars across the lifespan.” In Bayram, F., Denhovska, N., Miller, D., Rothman, J., and Serratrice, L. (eds.), Bilingualism: The State of the Science Across Its Subfields. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 251–279.Google Scholar
Riksem, B. R. 2018. “Language mixing in American Norwegian noun phrases,” Journal of Language Contact 11.3: 481–524.Google Scholar
Rødvand, L-I. S. 2017. Empirical Investigations of Grammatical Gender in American Heritage Norwegian. M.A. thesis, University of Oslo: Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, P. 2003. “Comparative speech island research: Some results from studies in Russia and Brazil.” In Keel, W. D. and Mattheier, K. J. (eds.), Deutsche Sprachinseln weltweit. Interne und externe Perspektiven/German language varieties worldwide. Internal and external perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag: 199–238.Google Scholar
Rossi, E. and Diaz, M. 2016. “How aging and bilingualism influence language processing,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6.1/2: 9–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, J. 2007. “Heritage speaker competence differences, language change and input type: Inflected infinitives in heritage Brazilian Portuguese,” International Journal of Bilingualism 11: 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirer, M. 1965. “Case systems in German dialects,” Language 413: 420–438.Google Scholar
Stolberg, D. 2014. Changes Between the Lines: Diachronic Contact Phenomena in Written Pennsylvania German (Studia Linguistica Germanica). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taranrød, B. 2011. Leddstillingen i relativsetninger i amerikansknorsk. M.A. thesis. University of Oslo: Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. and Anderssen, M. 2015. “Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acquisition and attrition.” In J. B. Johannessen and J. C. Salmons (eds.): 21–45.Google Scholar
Yager, L. 2016. Morphosyntactic Variation and Change in Wisconsin Heritage German. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H-A., Putnam, M. T., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., and Salmons, J. 2015. “New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in heritage German,” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1716.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×