ChapterPDF Available

Contact in the City

Authors:

Abstract

This chapter looks at cities as vibrant sites of language contact. Urban areas have always been a magnet for immigration, from surrounding areas as well as from more distant regions and other countries, and as a result they have always been characterised by a rich diversity of social groups, (sub-)cultures, and the different languages, dialects, and styles associated with them. The linguistic fluidity and diversity of cities offers a particularly favourable context for new developments, providing a rich pool of linguistic ressources and ample opportunities for language contact in individuals as well as speech communities. This makes urban areas a hotbed of code mixing, switching, and linguistic innovation leading to new linguistic practices and the emergence of new varieties.
13ContactintheCity
HEIKEWIESE
Abstract
This chapter looks at cities as vibrant sites of language contact. Urban areas have always been
a magnet for immigration, from surrounding areas as well as from more distant regions and
other countries, and as a result they have always been characterised by a rich diversity of
social groups, (sub-)cultures, and the different languages, dialects, and styles associated with
them. The linguistic fluidity and diversity of cities offers a particularly favourable context for
new developments, providing a rich pool of linguistic ressources and ample opportunities for
language contact in individuals as well as speech communities. This makes urban areas a
hotbed of code mixing, switching, and linguistic innovation leading to new linguistic practices
and the emergence of new varieties.
1Background:anhistoricviewonurbanlanguagecontact
.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:historical background"}Throughouthistory,cities
havebeenamagnetforimmigration,takinginaconstantinfluxofnewresidents,both
frommoreruralareasofthesameregionorcountryandfromregionsandcountries
furtherafar,whowouldbringwiththemawealthofdifferentdialectsandlanguages(see
Mackey2005foranoverview).Wellknownhistoricexamplesforhighlymultilingual
citiesincludesuchearlycosmopolitancitiesasBombay,DaresSalaam,Alexandria,or
Constantinople,manyofwhichstillretaintheirmulticulturalandmultilingualcharacter
today(Gupta2000).Inanaccountfromtheearlyseventeenthcentury,theEnglishtravel
writerThomasCoryatrelatesthatinVeniceonecould“heareallthelanguagesof
Christendome,besidesthosethatarespokenbythebarbarousEthnickes”(Dursteler
2012:47),andinanoftencitedletterfromtheearlyeighteenthcentury,anotherEnglish
author,LadyMaryWortlyMontagu,describesConstantinoplewhereshelivedwhenher
husbandwastheEnglishambassadorthereasa“TowerofBabel”(O’Quinnand
Heffernaneds.2012:Letter41).
ThelargetradingcitiesoftheLevantwerepolyglotandcosmopolitan,with
languagemixinginthestreetsandinfamiliesaswellasinformalcontexts(Strauss2011,
Mansel2014),andcitiesintheEarlyModernMediterraneaningeneral,includingnotonly
theOttoman,butalsotheHabsburgandVenetianempires,werecharacterisedbyalarge
culturalandlinguisticdiversityandfluidity(Dursteler2012;cf.alsoLucassenand
Lucassen2013onmultiethnicempiresinMedievalEurope).
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:national languages"}Thestrongdominanceof
asinglenationallanguageandtherelatedmonolingualperspectivesweseeinEurope
today,areahistoricallycomparablyrecentphenomenon:alegacyfromaperiodofnation
statebuildingthatinvolvedwhatBommesandMaas(2005:182)calledthe“counter
factualideologicalconstruction”of‘onecountry,onepeople,onelanguage’,whichisstill
verymuchpartoftheselfimageinmostmodernEuropeanstates(cf.Vogl2012foran
historicaloverview).Incontrasttothis,inMedievalandEarlyModernEurope,
multilingualismwasanormalpartoflife,anunremarkablefactofeverydaylinguistic
Author’s copy; final version in:
Wiley Handbook of Language Contact,
ed. Raymond Hickey.
experiencesandpractices(cf.Putzo2011).Classen(2013)showsinananalysisofalarge
rangeofearlytextsincluding,amongothers,Beowulf(betweenca.800andca.1100),the
Nibelungenlied(ca.1200),andElCid(ca.1200),thateventhoughtherearenumerous
descriptionsofencountersduringtravelsorwarthatwillhaveinvolvedspeakersof
differentlinguisticbackgrounds,thisneverincitedanyspecialcommentsinthestories:
multilingualismwassomuchthenormthatatnopoint,thisseemstohavebeenregarded
asachallenge.
Inurbanareas,differentlocaldialectscametogetherwitharangeofforeign
languages,supplementedbyLatinasalanguageofreligionandeducation.Inparticularin
thecities,widespreadmultilingualismwasfurthersupportedbythefactthatmerchants’
sonsand(male)studentsusuallyspentlongerperiodsabroadfortrainingandeducation.
Accordingly,students’argotsaspredecessorsofmodernyouthlanguageswereoften
influencedbylanguagecontactatleastintheformoflexicalborrowing(Mihm2001).
2Contactinmoderncities
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:present-day contact"}
Theheterogeneousandfluidcharacterofurbanspeechcommunitiesmakesthem
particularlyopentolanguagevariationandchange,andtheycanaccordinglyplaya
pioneeringroleinlinguisticinnovation(cf.Vanderkeckhove2010).AccordingtotheUN
reportonWorldUrbanisationProspects,morethanhalfoftheworld’spopulationlivedin
urbanareasin2014,withanupwardtrend(UN2015),socitiesareanincreasingly
importantdomainfortheinvestigationoflanguageuseingeneral,andlanguagecontact
inparticular,withurbanlanguageputtingaspotlightondevelopmentsatboth
sociolinguisticandstructurallevels.
Traditionally,thelinguisticinvestigationofdialectsconcentratedonruralareas.
ThefocuswasonagroupofspeakerswhomChambersandTrudgill(1980)describedas
‘nonmobileoldruralmales’,shortNORMs:inordertoidentifyaparticularlypronounced,
“authentic”dialect,traditionaldialectologytendedtofavourolder,malespeakerswho
hadspentmostoftheirlifeinthesameruralarea.Accordingly,adialectatlasresulting
fromsuchasurvey,ratherthanreflectingthebreadthoflinguisticpracticeswithin
differentregions,mightmorefittinglybecalledan“atlasofoldmen’svillagespeech”.
Urbanspeechcommunitieswerelessinthecentreofattentionsincetheywereseenas
lesslikelytoprovidehomogeneous,historicallygrowndialects,giventhehighdegreeof
contactandfluidityatsocialandlinguisticlevels.However,itisjustthisdynamicthat
makesurbancentresinterestingforinvestigationsoflinguisticandsocialdifferentiation.
Accordingly,modernsociolinguisticshashadastrongfocusonurbanlanguagesince
Labov’sseminalworksinthe1960sand1970s.1Acomparablynewlineofresearchinto
urbanmultilingualismtargetsthelinguisticlandscape,thatis,languagethatisvisiblein
thepublicdomainandcanprovideinsightsintolocallinguisticecologiesandpower
relations,and(contact)linguisticpractices.2
2.1Dialectlevellingandchange
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:dialect levelling and change"}
1Cf.Labov(1972).Forrecentsociolinguisticperspectivesonurbanlanguagesee,e.g.,
contributionsinHeinrichandSmakman(eds.2018),andCoulmas(2018:Ch.7)foranoverview
andadiscussionoflanguageprofilesasabasisofresearchonurbanmultilingualism.
2Cf.,e.g.,contributionsinShohamyandGorter(eds.2009)foranoverview;inBlackwood(ed.
2017)forarecentmethodologicaldiscussion.
Urbanlanguagecontactoftenleadstotheformationofnewdialects.Fromageneral
perspective,wecandistinguishtwomainkindsofurbandialectsthathavebeeninthe
focusofcontactlinguisticstudies:thedevelopmentofkoinesasaresultofdialect
levellingbasedondifferentregionaldialects,andtheemergenceofnewversionsof
existinglocaldialectsundertheinfluenceofotherlanguagesordialects.Fromthe
perspectiveoflanguagecontact,koinesrepresenttheformationofanewmixedvariety
andcanhenceberegardedasacounterparttonewcontactlanguagessuchaspidginsand
creoles,andMixedLanguages.Incontrast,thesecondkindofdialectreflects
developmentswithinanexistingvarietythatweretriggeredorfacilitatedbylanguage
contact.
AnexampleforthefirstcasehasbeendescribedbyKerswill(2002)forMilton
Keynes,a‘NewTown’intheUKthatwasfoundedonlysomedecadesearlier.Internal
immigrationsupportedhereakoineisationbasedoncontactbetweentheregion’soriginal
dialectandseveralotherdialectsbroughtinbynewresidentsfromotherregions(cf.also
Kerswill,thisvolume).3Anexampleforthesecondkindofdialectchangehasbeen
describedbyWölck(2002)forNewYorkState,whereimmigrationfromGermany,Italy,
andPolandsupportednewlinguisticdevelopmentsnotjustinminority,heritagelanguage
use,butalsointhemajoritylanguageofthereceivingcountry,thatis,English.
2.2Newurbancontactdialects
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:new contact dialects"}
Overthelastdecades,amajorfocusofresearchonurbanlanguagecontacthasbeenon
newwaysofspeakingthatemergedaspeergroupvernacularsamongadolescentsin
multiethnicurbanneighbourhoods.FollowingWiese(toappear),suchnewwaysof
speakingcanbecapturedasurbancontactdialects,definedas“urbanvernacularsthat
emergedincontextsofmigrationbasedlinguisticdiversityamonglocallybornyoung
people,markingtheirspeakersasbelongingtoamultiethnicpeergroup”.Whilesuch
contactdialectscanbeobservedindifferentcitiesacrosstheworld,twogeographical
areashavebeenparticularlyinthecentreofinterestlately:NorthwesternEuropeand
SubsaharanAfrica.4
2.2.1Thelinguisticdynamicsofmultiethnicurbanyouth
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:multiethnic urban youth"}
Animportantsociolinguisticcharacteristicofurbancontactdialectsistheirassociation
withmultiethnicneighbourhoods,where“ethnicity”shouldbeunderstoodasasocial
category,constructinggroupsthatarebelievedtoshareacommondescenttypically
geographicallyassociatedandculture(e.g.,Moran2014;Fought2002).Thesedialects
typicallyemergeamongyoungpeoplewhogrowupinamixedurbanneighbourhood
whereasubstantialpartoftheoldergeneration(e.g.,speakers’parentsorgrandparents)
haveimmigratedtothecityfromruralareasand/orothercountries.Theselocallyborn
speakers,then,findthemselvesaspartofanew,multiethnicurbangenerationthathas
accesstoawealthofdifferentdialectsandlanguagesaspartofthebroadercultural
heritageintheirpeergroup.
3Forsimilardevelopmentsinanothergeographicalregion,cf.Miller(2004)onhistoricand
presentexamplesofdialectlevellinginArabiccities.
4Foranoverviewofrecentresearch,cf.,e.g.,suchcollectedvolumesasQuistandSvendseneds.
(2010),KällströmandLindbergeds.(2011),KernandSeltingeds.(2011),NortierandSvendsen
eds.(2015)forEurope;Hursted.(2014);NassensteinandHollingtoneds.(2015);Mensahed.
(2016)forAfrica;KerswillandWieseeds.(inpreparation)foranintegration.
Thislargerangesometimesdescribedas“superdiversity”5supportsthe
creativecombinationandintegrationofamultitudeoflinguisticresources,inlinguistic
practicescaptured,e.g.,bysuchconceptsas“translanguaging”(cf.García2009).Over
time,suchpracticescanleadtonewcontactdialectsasmarkersofanew,multiethnic
urbangeneration.Findingsonthedistributionofthesedialectssofarsuggestthatthey
tendtoemergefirstinpeergroupsituationsamongyoungpeople,andcanlaterspread
tootheragegroups,becomingmoregeneralmarkersofsocialclass,multiethnicity,or
urbanness,cf.Wiese(toappear)foranoverview.
Thatthesedialectshavetheirrootsinyouthlanguagepracticesisnotsurprising
fromtheperspectiveoflanguagevariationandchange.Youngadolescentspeakersare
oftenregardedasthemainagentsofchangesincetheyareasocialgroupthatisforging
newidentitiesforthemselvesandstronglyorientstowardspeers.Accordingly,Kerswill
(1996)andEckert(2000)identifyadolescentsasacoregroupinlinguisticinnovation,
andTagliamonteandd’Arcy(2009)discussconvergingquantitativedatathatpointstoan
“adolescentpeak”intheusageofnewphenomena,whichmightbearequirementfor
languagechange(cf.alsoLabov2001).
I{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:multiethnic urban youth:situation in Africa and
Europe"}nbothAfricaandEurope,urbanyouthisaparticularlyvitalsectorofsociety.
Africashowsnotonlyahighincreaseofurbanisation,butalsothehighestlevelof
populationgrowthglobally,andyoungpeoplemakeupalargeproportionofthe
population,with60%ofthepopulationbeingunder25years(UN2015).WhileEurope,
insharpcontrasttoAfrica,facespopulationdeclinesandischallengedbyanaging
populationingeneral(UN2015),thisisnottrueforitsurbanpopulationwithamigrant
background,whichmakeupasubstantialpartofthespeechcommunityforurbancontact
dialects:thiscommunityisvitalandgrowsfasterthantherestforinstance,inGermany,
theaverageageoftheoverallpopulationis45.3years,butthepopulationwithmigration
backgroundshowsanaverageageofonly35.4years,andoverathirdofchildrenunder
10yearshaveamigrationbackground.6Accordingtothe2017Census,incitiesover
50,000inhabitants,nearlyhalfofyoungresidentsunder18years(48%)werefroma
familywithanimmigrationhistory.
Asmentionedabove,citiesingeneralareaparticularlyvibrantsiteoflanguage
contact,supportedbyalargeinfluxofnewresidents.InpresentdayEurope,thisis
primarilyduetopoliticalandlabourimmigrationfromothercountries,whileinAfrica,
domesticimmigrationfromother,moreruralpartsplaysanimportantroleaswell.Asthe
historicexamplesofstudents’languagementionedhasalreadyshown,urbanyouth
languageasaruleparticipatesinsuchlanguagecontact,thusbringingtogethertwo
sourcesofdynamics,whichmakesthemparticularlyinteresting,providingadomain
where,asNortierandDorleijn(2013)putit,“languagecontactcanbecaught,asitwere,
‘redhanded’”.
2.2.2Multilingualmixedlanguagesvs.newmajoritylanguagevernaculars
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:multilingual mixed languages"}{xe "language
contact:urban scenarios:majority language vernaculars"}
Themultiethnolectalurbancontactdialectsthatcanemergeundersuchfavourable
conditions,cantakeontwodifferentforms:theycanconstituteMultilingualMixed
5E.g.,Vertovec(2007),Blommaertetal.eds.(2011);forcriticismofthisconcept,seePavlenko
(2018).
6TheFederalStatisticalOfficeinGermanydefines“migrationbackground”ascoveringpersons
whoimmigratedtoGermanyafter1949,haveaforeignnationalityand/orhaveatleastone
parentforwhomthatholds.
Languagesthatintegratedifferentcontactlanguages,ornewvernacularsofamajority
languageofthelargersociety.Thistwofolddistinctionofcontactlinguisticcodesis
relatedtothesociolinguisticmakeupofthelargersocietalcontext,underliningthe
relevanceofsuchfactorsfortheoutcomeoflanguagecontact.7
Inthecontextofwidespreadsocietalmultilingualism,multilingualpracticessuch
ascodeswitchingandmixingareanormalpartofeverydayencounters.Insuchcontexts,
urbancontactdialectsoftentakeontheformofMixedLanguagesinthesenseof
Thomason(2001).Accordingtothecontactlinguistictaxonomydevelopedthere,Mixed
Languagescombinegrammaticalandlexicalsubsystemsfromtwosourcelanguages,thus
indicatingamixedancestry(cf.alsoMatras2009:Ch.10.3;Meakins2013;Velupillai2015:
Ch.3;Bakker,thisvolume).Inthecoretypeof“intertwined”MixedLanguages,
grammaticalfeaturesdominantlygobacktoonelanguage,whilethelexiconislargely
contributedbyasecondlanguage.Urbancontactdialectswiththeirmuchlargerrangeof
contactlanguagesaspotentialsourcestypicallydrawonmorethantwocontact
languages,especiallyfortheirlexicon,makingthemaspecialkindof“MultilingualMixed
Language”(cf.Wiese,toappear).
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban contact dialects"}Examplesforurban
contactdialectsthathavetheformofMultilingualMixedLanguagesarefound,e.g.,in
manyAfricancountriestoday,wherelinguisticdevelopmentscanbenefitfromthelarger
contextofsocietalmultilingualismandalongtraditionofembracingthenormalityof
multilingualpractices(cf.Mufwene2008:Ch.13onmultilingualisminAfricanhistory).
(1)illustratesthistypeofcontactlinguisticcodewithanexamplefromCamfranglais,an
urbancontactdialectfromCameroon(KießlingandMous2004):inthisexample,a
grammaticalframeprovidedby{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban contact
dialects:Cameroonian French"}CameroonianFrenchintegrateslexicalborrowingsfrom
twocontactlanguages,‘kick’fromEnglishand‘agogo’fromHausa.
(1)Onakickmonagogo.
GENERIC.PRON.3PS.hasstealmywatch
‘Theystolemywatch/Someonehasstolenmywatch.’
Historically,thereisalsoanexamplefromEuropeforanurbancontactdialectthattakes
ontheformofaMixedLanguage,namely{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban
contact dialects:Old Helsinki Slang"}OldHelsinkiSlang.Thisdialectemergedinearly
twentiethcenturyHelsinki,whenmonolingualnationalideologieswerestillrestrictedto
theupperclasses.Likemodernexamples,OldHelsinkiSlangisassociatedwiththe
formationofanew,mixedurbangroup;inthiscaseabilingualworkingclassculturethat
emergedastheresultofFinnishspeakingimmigrantsmixingwiththeinitially
predominantlySwedishspeakinglocalpopulation.Structurally,thisnewdialect
resembledmodernAfricanexamples,showingsuchcharacteristicpatternsoflanguage
mixingasaFinnishmorphosyntacticframecombinedwithadominantlySwedishlexicon
(cf.deSmit2010).
Incontrasttothis,inpresentdayEurope,asocietalmacrocontextthatis
characterisedbyastrongmonolingualhabitus(e.g.,Hüningetal.2012)supportsurban
contactdialectsthatconstitutenewvernacularsofthemajoritylanguage.Inmodern
Europannationstates,wetypicallyfindastrongideologicalassociationtyinglanguageto
space,whereasinglelanguageisconstructedasbelongingtoadistinctivegeographical
7Cf.alsoLimandAnsaldo(2016:Ch.8)ontherelevanceofsociolinguisticaspectsforcontact
linguisticdynamicsingeneral.
region(oftenthecountryasawhole,or,inthecaseofmultilingualEuropeanstates,a
delimitedregionwithinacountry).Thislanguageconstitutesastrongmajoritylanguage
whosedominanceisfurthersupportedthroughsuchinstitutionsaseducation,
bureaucracy,orthelegalsystem.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban contact dialects:status of
monolingualism"}ThiswidespreadmonolingualhabitusinmodernEuropeisatoddswith
thelocalrealityofurbansettings,wheremultilingualismisanunremarkableeveryday
reality,inmanywaysreminiscentofthemultilingualnormalityofearlierperiods(see
section0above).Intheseurbansettings,manyspeakersgrowupwithoneormore
heritagelanguage(s)inadditiontothemajoritylanguage,andchildrenandadolescents
frommono‐andmultilingualhomesaliketypicallyacquireatleastsomewordsorshort
routinesfromotherlanguagesspokenintheirpeers’families,leadingtoahorizontal
multilingualismthatisinevidentcontrasttothe‘onelanguageonecountry’ideology
thatdominatesthesocietalmacrocontext.8
Nevertheless,thismacrocontextispowerfulenoughtopreservethenational
language’sdominanceeveninmultilinguallocalsettings,giventhatthislanguageisnot
onlythelanguageofeducational(andother)institutions,butalsotypicallyfunctionsasa
widespreadlinguafranca,amongmultilingualspeakerswithdifferentrepertoiresaswell
asmonolingualmajoritylanguagespeakers.Undersuchconditions,then,urbancontact
dialects,ratherthanconstitutingMixedLanguages,formnewvernacularsofthemajority
language.Suchnewvernacularsdonotevenhandedlyintegratetwoormorecontact
languages,butremainclosetothissingle,dominantmajoritylanguage,withcontact
linguistictransfermostlyrestrictedtoanumberoflexicalitemsandshortroutinesfrom
heritagelanguages.Structuraltransferisrare:ratherthangenuinecontactinduced
change,whatwemostoftenfindatthegrammaticallevelisvariationandchangethat
takesupinternaltendenciesofthemajoritylanguage.Accordingly,crosslinguisticallyone
canfindsimilardevelopmentsincountrieswithrelatedmajoritylanguages,eventhough
thecontactlinguisticsettingsarecharacterisedbytypologicallydifferentheritage
languages.Developmentsgetaspecialboostinthedynamicsettingofextensivelanguage
contact,buttheyreflect,toalargepart,majoritylanguagepatterns.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban contact dialects:verb third word order in
continental Germanic languages"}Anexampleare“verbthird”(V3)wordorderoptionsthat
havebeenobservedinurbancontactdialectsacrosscountrieswithrelatedGermanic
majoritylanguages,namelySweden,Denmark,Germany,theNetherlands,andNorway,
butinthecontextofsuchtypologicallydiverseheritagelanguagesas,e.g.,Turkish,Arabic,
Kurdish,Greek,andSerbianorCroatian(cf.Wiese2009).TheGermaniclanguageson
whichthesecontactdialectsarebasedareusuallydescribedas‘verbsecond’(V2),
capturingapatternthatputsthefiniteverbinsecondpositioninmaindeclaratives(and
someothersentencetypes),withanothermajorsentenceconstituentinfrontoftheverb;
thiscanbethesubject,butalso,e.g.,anobjectoranadverbial.Forurbancontactdialects
ofsuchGermaniclanguages,findingsfromdifferentstudiespointtoadditionalV3options,
wheretwoconstituentsratherthanonecanbeplacedbeforethefiniteverb(see0below
forafurtherdiscussionofV3).(2)through(4)givethreeexamples,fromDenmark,
Germany,andNorway(datafromQuist2000,Wiese2013,andFreywaldetal.2015,
respectively).
(2)Normaltmangårungdomsskolen.[Danish]
usuallyonegoestosupplementaryschool
8Cf.alsoQuist(2010)onuntyingthe‘languagebodyplaceconnection’fortheexampleofa
Copenhagenschoolsetting.
‘Usuallyonegoestothesupplementaryschool.’
(3)danachischmusszumeinvater [German;fromKiDKo/MuH28MK9]
afterwardsImusttomyfather
‘Afterwards,I’llhavetogotomyfather.’
(4)defårbetale.  [Norwegian]
nowtheyget/mustpay
‘Now,theymustpay.
ThefactthatsuchsimilarV3patternscanbeobservedacrosscontactsettingssuggests
thatthesepatternsrelatetointernaloptionsoftheGermanicV2languagesinvolvedhere,
ratherthantotransferfromotherlanguages.Thiskindofcontactlinguisticdynamicscan
bedescribedas“contactfacilitated”variationandchange:itiscontactrelatedinthe
senseofbeingsupportedbyadynamiclinguisticsettingthatgenerallyfavourslanguage
variationandchange,butitisnotcontactinducedinthatitdoesnotinvolvespecific
patternsofanotherlanguage(Wiese,toappear).Wecanhencedistinguishtwokindsof
contactrelateddynamicsforurbancontactdialects:contactinducedversuscontact
facilitatedvariationandchange.
Contactfacilitatedpatternsoccurparticularlyofteninurbancontactdialectsthat
represent{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban contact dialects:new vernaculars of a
majority language"}newvernacularsofamajoritylanguage.Thelocalsettingwithitslarge
diversityofmultilingualpracticessupportsahighertoleranceoflinguisticvariation,
allowingamoreliberallinguisticsystem.Givenadominantmonolingualhabituswithin
thelargersocietalcontext,thismightnotleadtotheemergenceofnewmixedvarieties,
butsuchalooseningofgrammaticalrestrictionscanstillgivethesenewurbandialectsan
innovativepotentialthatmakesthempioneerswithinthegeneraldialectallandscapeof
themajoritylanguage(Wiese2013;cf.alsoHinskens2011onthespecialdynamicsofnew
urbancontactdialectscomparedtohistoricallyolderones;Matras2011oninnovations
andelaborationsincontextsofwidespreadbilingualismandlaxernormativecontrol).
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:contact-induced and contact-facilitated variation
and change"}Contactinducedandcontactfacilitatedvariationandchangeforaparticular
urbancontactdialectcancoverawidespectrum,withgradualratherthancategorical
differences.Atoneend,wefinddirecttransfersofspecificelementsorpatternsfrom
anotherlanguage,attheotherend,phenomenathataresharedwithother,more
monolinguallybasedvarieties,butmightnotbeasfardevelopedthere.Wewillteasethis
apartinacasestudyfromGermany,inSection0,wherewetakeacloserlookatV3and
someotherpertinentexamples.
2.3Metrolinguismandmarketjargons
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:metrolingualism"}{xe "language contact:urban
scenarios:metrolingualism"}
9KiDKo(“KiezDeutschKorpus)isanannotatedcorpuswithdatafromspontaneous
conversationsamongadolescentsinBerlin,Germany.Themainsubcorpus,KiDKo/Mu,isfroma
multilingualandmultiethnicneighbourhood;inaddition,thereisacomplementarysubcorpus,
KiDKo/Mo,whichprovidescomparabledatafromamoremonolinguallyGermansetting.The
firsttwolettersinspeakercodesidentifythesubcorpus(MuorMo),thelastletteridentifies
speakers’familylanguagerepertoires(additionalfamily/heritagelanguageforbilingual
speakers:e.g.,KKurdish,TTurkish,AArabic,oronlyGermanformonolingualspeakers:D).The
corpus(includingalsosomeothersubcorpora)isfreelyaccessibleat
www.kiezdeutschkorpus.de.
Aninterestingsettingofparticularlyintensecontactandahighdegreeoflinguisticfluidity
areurbanmarketsorbazaars,whichhavelatelyattractedmoreandmoreattentionfrom
linguisticstudies.Insuchlinguisticallyrichsettings,sellersandcustomersactas
multicompetentspeakers(cf.Matras2013)accessingadiversepooloflinguistic
resourcesintheirmarketinteractionsthatallowsthemtocreativelyaddnewelementsto
theirrepertoire.
Accordingly,contactusuallydoesnotsomuchleadtonewdialects,buttoless
stable,highlyfluidpracticesoflinguisticmixingandintegration.Suchsettingshavebeen
inthefocusofsociolinguisticapproachesto“metrolingualism”(cf.PennycookandOtsuji
2015),targetingspatialrepertoiresthataredeterminedbylinguisticallyhighlydiverse
localcontexts(abazaar,butalso,e.g.,arestaurantorashop)andchallengetraditional
conceptslikecodeswitchingorcodemixing.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:urban contact dialects:status as jargons"}Froma
contactlinguisticpointofview,suchmultilingualpracticescouldbeseenassomething
likethe“jargons”describedincreolestudies;cf.Vellupilai(2015:534),whodefinesthis
as“individualadhocsolutionsinindividualcontactsituationsleadingtoahighlyvariable
andunstablecontactlanguage”.Iftakenliterally,thereisnosuchthingasajargon,then,
sincethesesolutionswilldifferfromspeakertospeakerandemergedifferentlyineach
communicativesituation.However,aswewillseebelowfortheexampleoftwourban
marketsinBerlin,onecanoftenfindsomerecurringpatternsinthesesettings,and
perhapsthebestwaytothinkofanurbanmarket’sjargonisasanintegrativelinguistic
practicecharacterisedby(a)accesstoaspatiallydetermined,butprincipallyopenrange
oflinguisticresourcesand(b)aliberaluseofindividualadhocsolutions,butatthesame
time(c)guidedbylocalcustomsoflanguagechoiceandlanguagedominanceand(d)
centeringaroundasharedcoreofrecurringpatterns.
3Acaseinpoint:languagecontactinBerlin
Inourthirdandlastsection,letushavealookatthecityofBerlin.EventhoughGermany’s
largestcitybysomemargin,withabitover3.6millioninhabitants(2019)Berlinisnot
exactlyhugeininternationalterms.However,asavibranturbanmetropole,itoffersa
broadrangeoflanguagecontactsettingsthatallowustoexploreandillustratesomeof
thedifferentfacetsofurbanlanguagecontactwediscussedinthefirsttwosections.
3.1LanguagecontactinthetraditionalBerlindialect
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:language contact in Berlin"}
Berlinhasalwaysbeenasiteoflanguageanddialectcontact,rightfromthestart,withthe
twothirteenthcenturytownsBerlinandCöllnthepredecessorsofpresentdayBerlin
basedontheimmigrationofLowGermanandDutchspeakersfromthelowerRhine
regiontoanareafurthercharacterisedbyaSlaviclanguage,Sorbian,especiallyinrural
settlements(cf.Butz1988).Today,SorbianisaprotectedminoritylanguageinGermany,
spoken,e.g.,insomeoftheSpreewaldregionsouthofBerlininthestateofBrandenburg.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect"}Astypicalforurbanareas,
immigrationbaseddialectcontactledtodialectlevellinginBerlin.Initially,thespoken
languagewasLowGerman,andwritingwasinLatin.InNorthGermancitiesincluding
Berlin,LowGermanwaslaterusedasawrittenlanguageaswell,complementingLatin.
However,inthefifteenth/sixteenthcentury,writingwasconductedmoreandmorein
HighGerman,andintheseventeenth/eighteenthcentury,spokenandwrittenFrench
gainedinimportanceasanadditionalcontactlanguage,fashionablethroughlanguage
practicesofthenobility.ThiswasfurtherboostedbyFrenchspeakingHugenots,and
similarly,otherlanguagesalsogainedthroughimmigration,e.g.,Yiddish.Further
immigrationaddingtothecity’slinguisticdiversitycamefromlowGermanspeaking
ruralareas,withlargenumbersofimmigrants,forinstanceintheaftermathoftheThirty
Years’War(16181648),and,inthenineteenthcentury,asaresultofindustrialisation
whichledtoanimmensegrowthofthecityandtoalinguisticsettingcharacterisedby
intensedialectandlanguagecontact.10
ThiskindofsettingsupportedanurbandialectwhoseHighGermancharacter
reflectsbroaddialectlevelling,butwhichalsointegrateslexicaltransfersfromarangeof
contactlanguages,aswellasretainingsomeremnantsofitsinitiallyLowGermanbasis.
Forinstance,Bulette‘meatball’,referringtoastapleoftraditionalBerlincuisine,goes
backtoFrench‘boulette’,theparticledalli‘quick/snappy’hasaSlavicorigin(>Polish
dalej),andtheverbzockencameinviaYiddish,meaning‘toplay’,‘toplaycards’.Asa
colloquialterm,zockenusedtobeassociatedprimarilywithgambling,buthasmeanwhile
gainedadditionalcurrencyamongyoungpeople,whouseittorefertoelectronicgames
(whilethemorphologicallyrelated,prefixedabzockenisacolloquialtermmeaning‘torip
off/screwsomeone’).ALowGermaninfluenceisvisible,e.g.,morphologicallyin
deviationsfromtheHighGermanaccusative–dativedistinction,orphonologicallybythe
useof[t]insteadof[s]insomelexicalitems,e.g.,watinsteadofwas‘what’. {xe "language
contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:features"}
ThetwentiethcenturysawseparatedevelopmentsinEastandWestBerlinafter
theirpartitionthroughtheBerlinwall.Thissocialandlinguisticsegregationledto
differencesthatwerestillnoticeableadecadeafterthewallcamedowninthelate1990s,
especiallyindomainsoflexiconandphonology(cf.,forinstance,DittmarandBredel
1999).
InEastBerlin,duringtheperiodoftheGermanDemocraticRepublic(19491990),
statecontractworkers,e.g.,fromNorthVietnam,livedinseparateboardinghouses,and
informalinteractionswiththelocalGermanspeakingpopulationwerenotencouraged,
hencethisdidnothaveanoticeablecontactlinguisticeffectontheBerlindialect.
WestBerlinparticipatedintheintakeoflargelabourimmigrationsincethe{xe
"language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:immigration into Berlin"}1960s,andthese
immigrantscontributedtoavibrantcontactlinguisticsetting.Thiswasparticularlytrue
fortraditionalworkingclassneighbourhoods,e.g.,WeddingandNeukölln,andinareas
thathadbecomeparticularlydisadvantagedthroughtheWall,e.g.partsofKreuzbergthat
werecutoffonthreesidesfromsurroundingareas.Today,theseneighourhoods(and
similarlymultilingualinnercityneighourhoodsinotherGermancities)supportanurban
contactdialectofthekindwediscussedin0,namely“Kiezdeutsch”,lit.‘(neighbour)hood
German’,anewGermanvernacular.
Sincethe1990s,immigrationfromEasternEuropeandincreaseddomestic
immigration(inparticularfromSouthGermany)furthercontributedtothelinguistic
meltingpotofBerlinasawhole,asdidtheinfluxofinternationalcompaniesand
institutionsandtheirworkforceandofrefugeesforcedintoemigrationbypoliticaland
economiccrisesintheMiddleEastandthe‘GlobalSouth’.
Ironically,todaywecanobservesomeethnicandsociallinguisticstratification
whereonlytheolderurbandialectisconstructedasauthenticlocallanguageuse,
indexicalforanimaginedmonolingualGermaningroupofgenuine,ethnically
homogeneous“Berliners”eventhoughthisdialecthasalwaysbeencontactbased,with
10Foranhistoricoverview,cf.SchildtandSchmidteds.(1992).
amixed,immigrationbornespeechcommunity.Incontrasttothis,anewurbandialect
likeKiezdeutschisoftenperceivedasalientothelocallinguisticlandscapeandapotential
threattoit,anditsspeakers,eventhoughtheyaretypicallyatleastsecondgeneration
Germans,areexcludedfromthisingroup.11
3.2ContactrelatedvariationandchangeinKiezdeutsch
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:Kiezdeutsch"}
Kiezdeutschisaninstanceofthesecondkindofcontactlinguisticcodewediscussed
earlier,namelyanewvernacularofthemajoritylanguage(=inthiscase,ofGerman)
whichisnotsurprisinggiventhestrongmonolingualhabituswefindinpresentday
Germany,andtheaccordinglystrongdominanceofGermanasamajoritylanguage(cf.
Gogolin2002,Wiese2015).Kiezdeutschhenceprovidesuswithagoodshowcasefor
teasingapartcontactinducedtransferandcontactfacilitatedinternaldynamics,two
kindsofcontactrelatedlanguagevariationandchangewedistinguishedforsuchurban
contactdialectsin0.Asmentionedthere,thisdistinctionisnotcategorical,butgradual,
andwecanoftenobservebothkindsofdynamicsatwork.Inthepresentsection,letus
havealookatsomeclearcutexamplesaswellasanumberofinbetweencasesfor
Kiezdeutsch.Forthepurposeofthisillustration,wewillconcentrateonphenomena
whereTurkishmightplayaroleasasourcelanguage.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:Kiezdeutsch:features"}Aclear
caseofdirectinfluenceislexicaltransfer.Inthecontextofurbancontactdialects,such
transferleadstointegrationsatgrammatical,andsometimesalsographemiclevels,and
newelementscanbeusedacrossspeakers,independentoflinguisticbackgrounds.
Figure1givesanillustration:12thisisfromamessageonaplaygroundinBerlin
celebratingthelovebetweenIngo+Inga.Inthismessage,thewriter(presumablyIngo)
usesanumberofTurkishloanwordswithinaGermantext.Oneofthem,renderedin
Figure1,isAşkim‘mylove’,aspartofapassage'LiebesiemeinAşkim,DuandIch!”,
lit.‘LovehermyAşkim,youandI!’TheTurkishsource,‘aşkım’,isamorphologically
complexitemconsistingofanominalbase‘aşk’anda1SGpossessivesuffixım’.Inthe
Kiezdeutschexample,AşkimiscombinedwiththeGermanfirstpersonpossessive
pronounmein‘my’,whichsuggeststhatitistreatedasamonomorphematicnoun,that
is,itsintegrationintoGermanhasledtoanerasureoftheinternalTurkishstructure.
Graphematicintegrationisvisibleintwoaspects:thereplacementofTurkishı’,whichis
notagraphemeinGerman,by‘i’,whichis;andthecapitalisationofAşkiminaccordance
withGermanspellingrulesfornouns.Note,though,thattheTurkishş”,whichisnota
graphemeinGermaneither,ispreserved,indicatingthattheintegrationisnotcategorical.
11SeealsoWiese(2015).ForsimilarpatternsinotherEuropeancountries,cf.,e.g.,Kerswill(2014)
onconcernsinthepublicdebateintheUKthatMulticulturalLondonEnglishmightreplace
traditionalCockney.
12fromKiDKo/LL:“Fromthe‘hood’withlove”,alinguisticlandscapesubcorpusofKiDKo(see
alsofn.9above),accessibleviawww.kiezdeutschkorpus.de.
Figure1:Lexicalintegrationinalovemessage(BerlinKreuzberg)
Anexampleforthetransferofapatternabovethelevelofindividualwordsisthem
reduplicationdescribedforKiezdeutsch,13cf.(5):
(5)ersagtzum=meinercousinesofettsackMETTsack [KiDKo,MuH27WT]
hesaystom=mycousinMPfatbagmatbag
‘Hesays,like,“Fatso,Matso!”tomycousin.’
InTurkish,mreduplicationiswellestablishedinspokenlanguage,itissyntacticallyfully
integratedandcanbeusedwithbasesofdifferentsyntacticcategories(e.g.,Stolz2008).
Atthesemantic/pragmaticlevel,itexpressesvaguenessandcanalsohavepejorative
effects.InGerman,mreduplicationseemstobeanovelphenomenon,sofarrestrictedto
themultilingualcontextscharacteristicofKiezdeutsch.Inthesecontexts,though,itisnot
simplytakenoverasis,butdevelopsitsowndynamicsandacquireslanguagespecific
characteristics.Syntactically,mreduplicationseemstobelessflexibleandlargely
(althoughnotexclusively)restrictedtonominalbasesinGerman.Phonological
integrationintoGermanisachievedbyreplacingthewholeonsetby[m](whileinTurkish,
onlythefirstconsonantisreplaced).Pragmatically,Kiezdeutschaddsayouthlanguage
aspecttotheconstruction:byusingmreduplication,speakerspresentthemselvesas
‘cool’or‘chilled’.14Hence,thisisanexampleforcontactinducedchangesincecontact
triggersthedevelopmentofanewpattern,however,onethattakesonalifeofitsown
whenitisintegratedintothereceivinglanguage.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:features:parallels to heritage
languages"}Afurtherstepinthedirectionofinternalchangecanbeseenindevelopments
thathaveparallelsinaheritagelanguage,butalsoaclearinternalmotivationfromwithin
thegrammaticalsystemofthemajoritylanguage.Acandidateforsuchatwofoldsource
inKiezdeutschistheuseofgib(t)slit.‘gives.it’asanexistentialparticle,cf.(6):
(6)WEIßtedoch,diedieinverschiedeneFARbengibs?[KiDKo,MuH9WT]
knowyouCLPARTthosethatPLindifferentcoloursgibs
‘Youknowthemthosethatcomeindifferentcolours?’
Theform“gib(t)s”derivesfromexistential“gibtes”lit.‘givesit’.Intheoriginalpattern,a
3SGverb“gibt”iscombinedwithanexpletivepronominalsubject“es”andanaccusative
objectfortheTheme,i.e.,“EsgibtNPACC”,withameaningsimilartoEnglish“ThereisNP”.
Inspokenlanguage,“es”iscliticised,yielding“gibts”orphonologicallyreduced“gibs”
whenwehavetheorder“gibtes”.ThisisinaccordancewithageneralruleinGermanthat
pronounsinthatposition(afterthefiniteverb)arecliticised,whichfrequentlyhappens
inmaindeclarativeswithasentenceinitialadverbial.Thisgenerallyyields“gibs”insuch
sentencesas,e.g.,“Hiergibts…”,lit.‘Heregivesit…’(“Here,thereare…”).However,this
rulecannotcapturethenoveluseof“gibs”insubordinatesentencesrequiringSOVorder,
asin(6).AndthereissomeevidencefortheKiezdeutschconstructionmovingeven
furtherawayfromstandardGerman,withtheThemeNPasasubjectratherthanan
accusativeobject(cf.Wiese2013).Thissuggeststhat“gibs”istreatedasamono
13Wiese(2013);WieseandPolat(2016);cf.alsoŞimşek(2012:Ch.4.2)onexamplesform
reduplicationinGermanTurkishlanguagecontact.
14Cf.WieseandPolat(2016)foradetailedanalysisoftheconceptualdomainsandpragmatic
networksinvolvedhere.
morphematicform,makingthesubjectpositionvacant,whichcanthenbeappropriated
bytheTheme.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:features:derivations from
Turkish"}UnlikestandardGerman,Turkishpossessesaconstructionlikethis,basedonthe
existentialparticle“var”(negated“yok”),whichthusmakesaplausiblesourceforthisuse
of“gibs”inKiezdeutsch.However,acloserlookatGermanshowsthatthenewuseof
“gibs”getsalsoasolidmotivationfromwithin,sincetheconventionalpatternsitsrather
uneasilyinthegenerallayoutofthesyntaxsemanticsinterface.Withtheexpletivesubject
“es”itcontainsasyntacticargumentthatdoesnothaveasemanticcounterpart,and
relatedtothisthehighestthematicrole(theTheme)doesnotcorrespondtothesubject,
asitnormallyshould,buttotheobject.Seenfromthispoint,thedevelopmentin
Kiezdeutschcanbemotivatedbysyntaxsemanticsalignment:monomorphematisation
of“gibs”getsridofthesemanticallyemptyelement“es”,andreinterpretationofthe
accusativeasanominativeallowsanassociationofthehighestthematicrolewiththe
subject.
SucharegularisationcandrawontwolinesofsupportwithinGerman(cf.Wiese
2013foradiscussion).Forone,thereisageneraltendencyinspokenGermantowardsa
univerbationofexistentialgibtestogib(t)s,basedonfrequentcliticisation.Second,in
modernGerman,accusativeandnominativeformsareoftenidenticalatthesurface,which
providesabasisforreinterpretation(e.g.,in(6)above,theexpressionfortheTheme,third
personsingularfemininedie,couldbenominativeaswellasaccusative).Thissuggestsa
stronginternalappealforthedevelopmentofgibs.ThisGermaninternalmotivationis
furthersupportedbysuchevidenceasin(7),whichcomesfromGermaninNamibia
(Wieseetal.2014):
(7)dagibsauchnberühmterSÄNgerhierinnamibia
theregibsalsoaCLfamoussingerhereinNamibia
‘ThereisalsoafamoussingerhereinNamibia.’
ThisdataisfrominformalconversationsinaspeechcommunitywhereGermanisspoken
asafirstlanguageandisalsoembeddedinamultilingualcontext.UnlikeinGermany,
Turkishdoesnotplayasignificantrolehere.Nevertheless,wedofindthegibs
constructionand,sincetheexpressionfortheTheme(nberühmterSänger)isamasculine
singular,thisisoneofthecaseswherewecanevenidentifyadistinctnominative.This
suggeststhatthemotivationfromwithinthegrammaticalsystemofGermanisacrucial
forcebehindthedevelopment,pointingtoaprimarilycontactfacilitated,ratherthan
contactinducedpattern.Atthesametime,thisdoesnotruleoutthattheTurkish
existentialconstructiongivesthedevelopmentofgibsanadditionalboostinKiezdeutsch
inGermany,especiallysinceTurkishcompetencesarewidespreadinitscommunity.
Anexamplethatisevenfurthertowardstheendofthescalewhereinternaltrends
aredominant(ratherthaninfluencesofspecificcontactlanguages),istheV3wordorder
inmaindeclarativesthatwediscussedinSection0,thatis,theoptiontoplacetwo
constituents,ratherthanjustone,beforethefiniteverb.Asarguedabove,thefactthat
thereisconvergingevidenceforthisoptionfromarangeofGermanic“verbsecond”
languages,pointstoaninternalmotivation.Atthesurface,thispatternshowssome
similaritywithSVOordersknownfromearlystagesoflanguageacquisition,andsome
earlieraccountsfromGermanywhoassociateditprimarilywithyoungspeakersofa
TurkishheritagebackgrounddescribeditasatransformationofV2toSVO(e.g.,Auer
2003).However,subsequentstudieshaverevealedstructuralfeaturesthatindicatethe
integrationofthispatternintothetopologyofGermansentences(includingsentential
bracketsthatdelineatethesocalled“forefield”intheleftperipheryandthe“middlefield”
followingit).15Furthermore,crosslinguisticevidencepointstoageneralinformation
structuralmotivationforthepattern:V3optionsallowspeakerstoplaceboth
framesettersandtopicsintheleftperiphery,alinearisationthatmightreflectgeneral,
languageindependentpreferencesfororderinginformation.16InKiezdeutschcontexts,
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:features:learner SVO"}learnerSVOcan
befound,e.g.,intheGermanoftheoriginalimmigrants,oftentheparentsorgrandparents
ofsomeofthespeakers,andspeakerswillhencebefamiliarwithit.Accordingly,its
surfacesimilaritymightaddafurthersource,butthispresumablyplaysaminorrolein
thedevelopmentofV3.
FurthersupportforthiscomesfromV3evidenceinmoremonolingualcontextsof
presentdayGerman(Wiese2013;WieseandMüller2018).Inthesecontexts,V3isnot,
astraditionalwisdomhasit,ruledoutbyastrictV2constraint,butcaninfactbeobserved
ininformalspeech,whereitfollowsthesamepatternfoundforKiezdeutschcontexts,but
mightbequantitativelylessfrequent(WieseandRehbein2015).Thisishenceacase
wherethemultilingualcontextofKiezdeutschdoesnotsomuchprovideanovel
grammaticalblueprint,butrathercontributestothegenerallinguisticdynamics,giving
urbancontactdialectsaquantitativeadvantageoverlanguageusefrommore
monolingualsettings.
SuchoutcomesarecharacteristicofurbancontactdialectslikeKiezdeutschthat
taketheformofnewmajoritylanguagevernacularsunderthepressureofamonolingual
societalhabitus.However,evenundersuchsocietalconditions,wealsofindurban
settingsofsuchintensecontactthatpracticesofsubstantiallanguagemixingaretherule
ratherthananexception.Aprimeexampleforsuchsettingsareurbanmarkets,where
speakerscanintegrateelementsfromarichpooloflinguisticresources.Foran
illustration,letusnowhavealookattwosuchmarketsinBerlin.
3.3Twourbanmarketsassitesofintenselanguagecontact
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:urban markets and contact"}
Urbanmarketswiththeirrichpoolofdiverselinguisticresourceshavebeeninthefocus
ofapproachesto“metrolingualpractices”(seeSection0above)investigatingthespecific
spatialrepertoiresthatemergeatsuchplaces.Twoexamplesfrom(socio)linguistically
differentpartsofBerlinaretheMaybachufermarketinBerlinNeuköllnandtheDong
XuanCenterinBerlinLichtenberg.TheMaybachufermarket,alsoknownasthe“Turkish
market”,isastreetmarketinavibrantmultiethnicandmultilingualneighbourhood,with
alinguisticecologythatincludesKiezdeutschandthetraditionalBerlindialectaswellas
heritagevarietiesofTurkish,Arabic,Kurdish,andalargerangeofotherlanguagesand
dialects.TheDongXuanCenter,ontheotherhand,issetinthemoremonolingually
GermanneighbourhoodofBerlinLichtenberg.Thecentreisacoveredwholesaleand
retailmarketfoundedbyaVietnameseimmigrantwhohadinitiallycometoEastBerlin
asacontractworkerduringDDRtimes.
Intermsofproducts,stallowners’backgrounds,andcustomerfocus,the
MaybachufermarkethasamoremiddleEasternandMediterraneanorientation,
comparedtotheDongXuanCenter’smoreEastAsiancharacter.However,bothmarkets
15E.g.,Wiese(2013),teVelde(2017);cf.alsoKernandSelting(2009)fordeviationsfromV2in
bilingual(TurkishGerman)settings.
16Cf.Wiese(2011;2013)forKiezdeutsch;Freywaldetal.(2015)foracrosslinguistic
confirmation(fromurbancontactdialectsbasedonGermanicmajoritylanguages);Walkden
(2017)foradiachronicperspective.
catertomulti‐ andmonolinguallocals,broaderimmigrantcommunities,andtourists
alike,andbothsupportarichcontactlinguisticsetting.WhileGermanisstillafrequently
usedlinguafrancaininterethnicencountersamonglocals,itiscomplementedbyTurkish
orVietnameseasasalientmarketlanguageontheMaybachuferandDongXuanmarket,
respectively;byEnglishasagloballanguage(e.g.,inencounterswithtourists),plusa
rangeofotherlanguages,includingheritagelanguagesofstallowners(someofthemfirst
generationimmigrants)andarangeofadditionallanguagesusedbydifferentgroupsof
customers;whichallformpartofthemarkets’linguisticecologiesandcanenterspeakers’
repertoires.Inthissetting,Germandoesnotexertitsusuallyoverwhelmingdominance
asamajoritylanguageanymore,butisintegratedintoamorediversesetting,asreflected,
e.g.,byanabundanceofmultilingualsigns.ThephotosinFigure2illustratethese
typologicallydifferent,butsimilarlydiverselinguisticlandscapesofthetwomarkets.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:linguistic landscape"}
Figure2:Multilingual(andmultiscript)signsatDongXuanandMaybachufermarkets
ThesignonthetopisbyaVietnamesebackgroundshopownerinaDongXuanmarket
hallandbringstogetherfourlanguagesandtheirrespectivescripts,namelyVietnamese
(ontop,“AsiaHoàngDúcidentifyingtheowner’sname),German(below,“Asian
groceries”),Mandarin(bottomleft,“Asianfoodwholesaleselfservicemarket”)andThai
(bottomright,“Asianfoodwholesalemarket”).Thesignsonthebottomarefroma
MaybachuferperfumestallownedbyasellerofmonolingualGermanbackground,who
askscustomersnottoputbottlesdirectlytotheirnoses,usinghandwrittensignsinthree
languages,Arabic,German,andTurkish,togetherwithprintedsignsinformingcustomers
thatperfumesareforwomenandmen,inGerman,French,Italian,andEnglish.Notethat
inbothcases,Germanispartofthelinguisticselection,butunlike,e.g.,onmultilingual
officialsignsinBerlin,itisnotdistinguishedbyaprominenttoporleftmostposition,a
largerfontsize,etc.
Asthefollowingtranscriptfromcommunicationsatavegetablestallon
Maybachuferillustrates,suchasettingfavoursacreativeintegrationoflinguistic
resources.ThesellerisafirstgenerationimmigrantfromTurkeywithTurkishand
Kurdishashisheritagelanguages,thecustomerspeakinghereisalocalwitha
monolinguallyGermanbackground.Turkishelementsaremarkedbyboldscript,English
onesbyunderlining,andKurdishonesareinsmallcaps.17{xe "language contact:urban
scenarios:Berlin dialect:features of Turkish and Kurdish speakers"}
(8)seller(topassersby):Karpuz!Melone,Gurken!
water.melonmeloncucumbers
 (toItaliantourist):OneStückfünfzigCent.FiftyCent.
oneclfiftycentfiftycent
customer(toseller): İkitaneAubergine,bitte.
twocleggplantplease
seller(tocolleague):BADINCAN!
eggplant
 (tocustomer):Bittschön,zweiAuberginen.Alles?EinÖro.
please twoeggplantseverythingoneeuro
Inthiscommunication,bothsellerandcustomerspontaneouslyintegrateelementsfrom
arangeoflanguagesintheirutterances.Asdiscussedin0above,suchmultilingual
practicescouldbecharacterisedasacontactlinguistic“jargon”.OntheMaybachufer
market,thisjargonincludessomerecurringpatterns,suchasthefrequentuseofnumeral
classifiers(Stück,tane),similartowhatwewouldfindinTurkish,andtheabsenceof
pluralmarkingformeasurenouns(Cent),whichisinaccordancewithbothGermanand
Turkishgrammar,whileEnglishwouldrequirepluralforms(e.g.,fortheexamplein(8),
itwouldbefiftycents,notcent).Somerecurringlexicalcharacteristicsofthismarket
jargonaresellers’useofMadameasatermofaddress,whichoftenservesasanattention
gettingdevicetowards(female)customers,thusclosingalexicalpragmaticgapin
standardGerman,whichiscurrentlylackingatermconventionallyusedforthis.The
traditionalBerlindialecthas“jungeFrau”,lit.‘youngwoman’,forsuchcases,witha
counterpartjungerMann,lit.‘youngman’(sincethisisusedindependentlyofthe
addressee’sage,itoftencausesirritationifusedtowardsnonlocals).
Otherrecurringcharacteristicsofthemarketjargonaresome
phonetic/phonologicalmodificationsofGermanwords,inparticular[Ɂø͜͜ro](transcribed
asÖroin(8))forEuro(standardGerman[Ɂɔi͜ro]),andrecurringbittschön‘please’/‘here
youare’asavariantofstandardGermanbitteschön.
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:features:semantic innovation"}A
semanticinnovationonaTurkishbasisistheuseofçıtır,illustratedonthemarketsign
in
Figure3:thissignadvertisescucumber(GermanGurke)as‘crunchy’,usingan
adjectiveçıtırinaninterestingcombination:instandardTurkish,çıtırwouldnotbe
appliedtovegetables,butrathertoflatdryfoods(e.g,potatocrisps),whereasvegetables
wouldbecharacterisedwithkütür.
17FromMaybachuferfieldnotes(H.Wiese);‘cl’numeralclassifier.
Figure3:Crunchycucumbers:useofçıtırontheMaybachufermarket
Ifsuchnoncanonicalpatternsstabiliseandgetfurtherestablishedwithinthemarket’s
linguisticpractices,theymighteventuallyformthebasisofashared,spatiallybound
marketgrammar;inthewordsofaTurkishGermansellerataMaybachufermoccastall:
(9)“Onealsolearnsalotoflanguagesinaddition,afterall,fromcustomers,neighbours
attheotherstalls;sometimesjustafewwords,forinstance,‘uno,dos,tres’,butone
createsone’sowngrammarthen.”18
{xe "language contact:urban scenarios:Berlin dialect:creative exploitation of resources"}The
creativeintegrationandfurtherdevelopmentofdifferentlinguisticresourceswecanthus
observeonurbanmarketsbringsbacksomemultilingualnormalitytoEuropeancities:a
linguisticecologywherelanguagecontactisembracedasanenrichmentratherthana
challenge,andtheengagementwithdiverselinguisticresourcesisacceptedasanormal
andpositiveconditionofhumancommunication.
Conclusion
Inthischapter,wehaveencounteredcitiesassitesofrichlanguagecontact,characterised
byapronouncedsocialandlinguisticfluidity,aconstantintakeofnewspeakersand
speakergroups,andthewealthoflinguisticresourcesandmultilingualcompetencesthat
comeswiththis.Fromacontactlinguisticpointofview,wedistinguishedtwokindsof
newlinguisticformsthatoftenemergeinsuchsettings:newmixedvarietiesandnew
versionsofexistingones.
Instancesofthefirstkindhavebeendescribedforscenariosofdialectlevelling,
wherekoinesemergeasnewmixeddialects.Thesenewvarietiesdrawonarangeof
differentregionaldialectscontributedbynewarrivalstothecity,includingfromthe
surroundingcountryside.OtherinstanceswediscussedareMultilingualMixed
Languages,whichdrawonlinguisticallymoredistantvarietiesandlanguages.Thelocal
linguisticecologythatsupportsMultilingualMixedLanguagesaremultiethnicurban
neighbourhoodscharacterisedbyarangeofheritagelanguagesasaresultofimmigration.
Theirprimaryspeakerbasearenottheimmigrantsthemselves,butlocallybornyoung
people,oftendescendantsofimmigrants,whogrowupinsuchneighbourhoodsandforge
anew,urbanmultiethnicidentity.Suchlanguagestypicallyemergeinurbanareasunder
theumbrellaofasocietalmacrocontextwheremultilinguallinguisticpracticesare
acceptedasnormalandprevailineverydayencounters,as,forinstance,inmanyAfrican
countriestoday.
Instancesofthesecondkindofcontactlinguisticoutcomearecasesofdialect
changewhereanexistingdialectacquiresnewfeaturesasaresultofimmigration,ashas
beenthecase,forinstance,forthetraditionalBerlindialect.Otherinstanceswediscussed
arenewmajoritylanguagevernacularsthatemergeinmultiethnicurbanneighbourhoods
similartotheonessupportingMultilingualMixedLanguages.Unlikethelatter,theydo
notintegratedifferentlanguagesalike,butratherstaywithintherealmofthelanguage
thathasthestatusofamajoritylanguageinthebroadersociety.Thesocietalmacro
settingofsuchnewvernacularsistypicallycharacterisedbyastrongmonolingualhabitus
andacorrespondinglypronounceddominanceofthismajoritylanguage,whichimpedes
theformationoffullyblownmixedlanguages.AswehaveseenfortheexampleofGerman
18FromMaybachuferfieldnotes;Germanoriginal,mytranslation[H.Wiese].
Kiezdeutsch,thecontactrelatedvariationandchangeweseeinsuchdialectscanbe
locatedonacontinuumfromcontactinducedphenomenadrawingonotherlanguage
patternstocontactfacilitatedphenomenathatreflectinternaltendenciesofthemajority
language.
TheexampleofMultilingualMixedLanguagesandsuchnewmajoritylanguage
vernacularshighlightedtheimpactofthesocietalmakrocontextoncontactlinguistic
outcomes.Toemphasisethesimilarityoftheirspeakerbaseinmultiethnicurban
neighbourhoods,Ibroughtthemtogetherundertheconceptof“urbancontactdialects.”
Interestingly,wesawthatevenunderconditionsofasocietalmonolingualbias,
onecanalsofindsystematiclanguagemixing.Apertinentexamplearemultilingualmixed
marketjargonsthatemergeonurbanmarketswithalinguisticallyhighlydiversebaseof
sellersandcustomers.AswesawfortheexampleoftwoBerlinmarkets,suchjargonscan
bedescribedasintegrativelinguisticpracticesthataccessabroadrangeofspatially
determinedlinguisticresourcesandallowindividualadhocsolutions,howevertheydo
notfollowsome“anythinggoes”policy,butareguidedbylocalcustomsoflanguagechoice
anddominanceandcontainacoreofrecurringpatterns.
Takentogether,ourexplorationofcitiesassitesoflanguagecontacthasshedalightona
numberofthreadsthatareinterestingforcontactlinguisticresearch,amongthemthe
statusofurbancontactdialectsinmultiethnicareas,therelationshipofmixedlanguages
andnewurbanvernaculars,theimpactofamultilingualvs.monolingualsocietalhabitus
oncontactlinguisticdevelopments,andtheemergenceofmultilingualmarketpractices
thatseemtodefythestrongdominanceofasinglemajoritylanguage,atleastatalocal
levelwithinaspatiallydetermined(andrestricted)linguisticsetting.Forfutureresearch,
itwouldbeparticularlyinterestingtofurtherinvestigatesuchmarketpracticesfroma
contactlinguisticperspective,andalsofromabroaderperspectiveoflinguisticpractices
andlanguagestructure.Ifweembracemultilingualismasthenormalconditionofhuman
language,itisinsuchsettings,wheretherestrictionsofcodifiedmonolingualnormsare
loosened,thatwecanexpectamorenaturallanguageuse,somethingwemightthinkof
as“freerangelanguage”.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research for this article was supported by funding of the German Research Foundation
(DFG) for Collaborative Research Centre 1278 / project A01, and Research Unit FOR 2537 /
projects P6 and Pd.
REFERENCES
Auer,Peter(2003).'Türkenslang':EinjugendsprachlicherEthnolektdesDeutschenund
seineTransformationen.In:AnnaliesHäckiBuhofer(eds.),Spracherwerbund
Lebensalter.Tübingen:Francke,pp.255264.
Blackwood,Robert(ed.)(2017).Methodologyinlinguisticlandscaperesearch.Linguistic
Landscape/SpecialIssue2017;3(3).
Blommaert,Jan;Rampton,Ben,andSpotti,Massimiliano(eds.)(2011).Languageand
Superdiversities.Diversities[SpecialIssue]13;2.
Bommes,Michael;Mass,Utz(2005).Interdisciplinarityinmigrationresearch:onthe
relationbetweensociologyandlinguistics.In:MichaelBommesandEwa
Morawska(eds.),InternationalMigrationResearch.Constructions,Omissionsand
thePromisesofInterdisciplinarity.Utrecht:Ashgate,pp.179202.
Butz,Georg(1988).GrundrißderSprachgeschichteBerlins.In:NorbertDittmarandPeter
Schlobinski(eds.),WandlungeneinerStadtsprache.BerlinischinVergangenheitund
Gegenwart.Berlin:Colloquium,.pp.140.
Chambers,JackK.,andTrudgill,Peter(1980).Dialectology.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Coulmas,Florian(2018).AnIntroductiontoMultilingualism.LanguageinaChanging
World.OxfordUniversityPress.
deSmit,Merlijn(2010).Modellingmixedlanguages:someremarksonthecaseofOld
HelsinkiSlang.JournalofLanguageContactVARIA3:119.
Dittmar,Norbert,andBredel,Ursula(1999).DieSprachmauer.DieVerarbeitungder
WendeundihrerFolgeninGesprächenmitOst‐ undWestberlinerInnen.Berlin:
Weidler.
Dursteler,EricR.(2012).Speakingintongues:languageandcommunicationintheEarly
ModernMediterranea.PastandPresent217:4777.
Eckert,Penny(2000).LinguisticVariationasSocialPractice.Oxford:Blackwell.
Freywald,Ulrike;Cornips,Leonie;Ganuza,Natalia;Nistov,Ingvild,andOpsahl,Toril
(2015).Beyondverbsecondamatterofnovelinformationstructuraleffects?
EvidencefromNorwegian,Swedish,GermanandDutch.In:NortierandSvendsen
(eds.),pp.7392.
García,Ofelia(2009).Education,multilingualismandtranslanguaginginthe21stcentury.
In:AjitK.Mohanty,MinatiPanda,RichardPhillipson,andToveSkutnabbKangas
(eds.),MultilingualEducationforSocialJustice:GlobalisingtheLocal.NewDelhi:
OrientBlackswan,pp.140158.
Gogolin,Ingrid(2002).LinguisticandculturaldiversityinEurope:achallengefor
educationalresearchandpractice.EuropeanEducationandResearchJournal1;1:
123138.
Gupta,AnthearFraser(2000).Bilingualisminthecosmopolis.InternationalJournalofthe
SociologyofLanguage143:107119.
Heinrich,Patrick,andSmakman,Dick(2018)(eds.),UrbanSociolinguisticsTheCityasa
LinguisticProcessandExperience.NewYork:Routledge
Hinskens,Frans(2011).EmergingMoroccanandTurkishvarietiesofDutch:ethnolectsor
ethnicstyles?InFriederikeKernandMargretSelting(eds.),EthnicStylesof
SpeakinginEuropeanMetropolitanAreas.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:Benjamins,
pp.101139.
Hüning,Matthias;Vogl,Ulrike,andMolinerOlivier(eds.),StandardLanguagesand
MultilingualisminEuropeanHistory.Amsterdam,Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Hurst,Ellen(ed.)(2014),SouthAfricanLinguisticsandAppliedLanguageStudies32(2),
SpecialIssue:Tsotsitaalstudies:urbanyouthlanguagepracticesinSouthAfrica.
Källström,Roger,andLindberg,Inger(eds.)(2011).YoungUrbanSwedish.Variationand
ChangeinMultilingualSettings.UniversityofGothenburg
Kern,Friederike,andMargretSelting(eds.)(2011),EthnicStylesofSpeakinginEuropean
MetropolitanAreas.Amsterdam:Benjamins
Kerswill,Paul(1996).Children,adolescents,andlanguagechange.LanguageVariation
andChange8:177202.
Kerswill,Paul(2002).Koineizationandaccomodation.In:JackK.Chambers,Peter
TrudgillandNathalieSchillingEstes(eds.),TheHandbookofLanguageVariation
andChange.London:Blackwell,pp.669702.
Kerswill,Paul(2014).Theobjectificationof‘Jafaican’.Thediscoursalembeddingof
MulticulturalLondonEnglishintheBritishmedia.In:JannisAndroutsopoulos
(ed.),MediatizationandSociolinguisticChange.Berlin,NewYork:deGruyter,pp.
427456.
Kießling,Roland,andMous,Maarten(2004).UrbanYouthLanguagesinAfrica.
AnthropologicalLinguistics46,3.
Labov,William(1972).LanguageintheInnerCity.StudiesinBlackEnglishVernacular.
Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Lim,Lisa,andAnsaldo,Umberto(2016).LanguagesinContact.CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Lucassen,Jan,andLucassen,Leo(2013).Europeanmigrationhistory.In:StevenJ.Gold
andStephanieJ.Nawyn(eds.),RoutledgeInternationalHandbookofMigration
Studies.London,NewYork:Routledge,pp.5263.
Mackey,WilliamF.(2005).MultilingualCities.In:UlrichAmmon,NorbertDittmar,Klaus
J.Mattheier,andPeterTrudgill(eds.),Sociolinguistics.AnInternationalHandbook
oftheScienceofLanguageandSociety.Volume2/1.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter[HSK
2/2],pp.13041312.
Mansel,Philip(2014).CitiesoftheLevantthepastforthefuture?AsianAffairs45;2:
220242.
Matras,Yaron(2009).LanguageContact.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Matras,Yaron(2013).Languagesincontactinaworldmarkedbychangeandmobility.
RevueFrançaisedeLinguistiqueAppliquée:Languesencontact18;2:713.
Matras,Yatron(2011).Universalsofstructuralborrowing.In:PeterSiemund(ed.),
LinguisticUniversalsandLanguageVariation.Berlin,NewYork:deGruyter,pp.
204233.
Meakins,Felicity(2013).Mixedlanguages.InPeterBakkerandYaronMatras(eds.),
ContactLanguages:aComprehensiveGuide.Berlin,NewYork:deGruyter,pp.159
228.
Mensah,Eyo(ed.)(2016),SociolinguisticStudies10;12:SpecialIssue:TheDynamicsof
YouthLanguageinAfrica.
Mihm,Arend(2001).OberschichtlicheMehrsprachigkeitund'LanguageShift'inden
mitteleuropäischenStädtendes16.Jahrhunderts.ZeitschriftfürDialektologieund
Linguistik68;3:257287.
Mufwene,Salikoko(2008).LanguageEvolution:Contact,Competition,andChange.
London:Bloomsbury.
Nassenstein,Nico,andHollington,Andrea(eds.)(2015).YouthLanguagePracticesin
AfricaandBeyond.Berlin,NewYork:deGruyter.
Nortier,Jacomine,andSvendsen,BenteA.(eds.)(2015).Language,Youth,andIdentityin
the21stCentury.OxfordUniversityPress.
O’Quinn,Daniel,andHeffernan,Teresa(eds.)(2012),LadyMaryWortleyMontague:The
TurkishEmbassyLetters.Peterborough,ON:BroadviewPress.
Pavlenko,Aneta(2018).Superdiversityandwhyitisn’t.Reflectionsonterminological
innovationandacademicbranding.In:StephanBreidbach,LutzKüster,and
BarbaraSchmenk(eds.),SloganizationsinLanguageEducationDiscourse.
Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
Pennycook,Alastair,andOtsuji,Emi(2015).Metrolingualism.LanguageintheCity.
London,NewYork:Routledge.
Quist,Pia(2000).Nykobenhavnsk“multietnolekt.”Omsprogbrugblandtungeisprogligt
ogkultureltheterogenemiljoer.DanskeTalesprog.Vol.1,pp.143212.Institutfor
DanskDialektforskning.Kopenhagen:C.A.ReitzelsForlag.
Quist,Pia(2010).Untyingthelanguagebodyplaceconnection:astudyonlinguistic
variationandsocialstyleinaCopenhagencommunityofpractice.In:PeterAuer
andJürgenErichSchmidt(eds.),LanguageandSpace:TheoriesandMethods.Berlin,
NewYork:deGruyter[HSK30.1].pp.632648.
Quist,Pia,andSvendsen,BenteAilin(eds.)(2010).MultilingualUrbanScandinavia:New
LinguisticPractices.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
Rehbein,Ines;Schalowski,Sören,andWiese,Heike(2014).TheKiezDeutschKorpus
(KiDKo)Release1.0.In:ProceedingsoftheNinthInternationalConferenceon
LanguageResourcesandEvaluation(LREC'14;Eds.NicolettaCalzolari,Khalid
Choukri,ThierryDeclerck,HrafnLoftsson,BenteMaegaard,JosephMariani,
AsuncionMoreno,JanOdijk,SteliosPiperidis.),39273934.Reykjavik,Iceland.
Schildt,Joachim,andSchmidt,Harald(1992).Berlinisch.GeschichtlicheEinführungindie
SpracheeinerStadt.Berlin:AkademieVerlag.
Selting,Margret,andKern,Friederike(2009).Onsomesyntacticandprosodicstructures
ofTurkishGermanintalkininteraction.JournalofPragmatics41:24962514.
Shohamy,Elana,andGorter,Durk(eds.)(2009).LinguisticLandscape.Expandingthe
Scenery.London,NewYork:Routledge.
Şimşek,Yazgül(2012).Türkendeutsch:FormenundstrukturelleMerkmale.In:Barbara
Jańczak,KonstanzeJungbluthandHaraldWeydt(eds.),Mehrsprachigkeitaus
deutscherPerspektive.Tübingen:Narr,pp.155179.
Stolz,Thomas.2008.Totalreduplicationvs.echowordformationinlanguagecontact
situations.In:PeterSiemundandNoemiKintana(eds.):LanguageContactand
ContactLanguages.Amsterdam:Benjamins,pp.107132.
Strauss,Johann(2011).LinguisticdiversityandeverydaylifeintheOttomancitiesofthe
EasternMediterraneanandtheBalkans(late19th–early20thcentury).TheHistory
oftheFamily16;2:126141.
teVelde,John(2017).TemporaladverbsintheKiezdeutschleftperiphery:combininglate
mergewithdeaccentuationforV3.StudiaLinguistica71;3:301336
Thomason,SarahGrey(2001).LanguageContact:AnIntroduction.Washington:
GeorgetownUniversityPress.
UN(2015).UnitedNations,DepartmentofEconomicsandSocialAffairs/Population
Division:WorldUrbanizationProspects,The2014Revision.NewYork:United
Nations.
Vanderkerckhove,Reinhild(2010).Urbanandrurallanguage.In:PeterAuerandJürgen
ErichSchmidt(eds.),LanguageandSpace:TheoriesandMethods.Berlin,NewYork:
deGruyter,pp.315332.
Velupillai,Viveka(2015).Pidgins,CreolesandMixedLanguages.AnIntroduction.
Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Vertovec,Steven(2007).Superdiversityanditsimplications.EthnicandRacialStudies
30;6:10241054.
Walkden,George(2017).LanguagecontactandV3inGermanicvarietiesnewandold.
JournalofComparativeGermanicLinguistics20;1:4981.
Wiese,Heike(2009).GrammaticalinnovationinmultiethnicurbanEurope:newlinguistic
practicesamongadolescents.Lingua119:782806.
Wiese,Heike(2011).Theroleofinformationstructureinlinguisticvariation:Evidence
fromaGermanmultiethnolect.In:Gregersen,Frans;Parrott;Jeffrey,andQuist,Pia
(eds.),LanguageVariationEuropeanPerspectivesIII[ProceedingsofICLaVE5]
Amsterdam:Benjamins,pp.8395.
Wiese,Heike(2013).Whatcannewurbandialectstellusaboutinternallanguage
dynamics?Thepoweroflanguagediversity.LinguistischeBerichte19:208245.
Wiese,Heike(2015).'Thismigrants’babbleisnotaGermandialect!'Theinteractionof
standardlanguageideologyand‘us’/‘them’dichotomiesinthepublicdiscourseon
amultiethnolect.LanguageinSociety44;3:341368.
Wiese,Heiketoappear.Urbancontactdialects.Toappearin:SalikokoMufweneandAnna
MaríaEscobar(eds.),TheCambridgeHandbookofLanguageContact.Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Wiese,Heike,andMüller,HansG.(2018.).ThehiddenlifeofV3:anoverlookedwordorder
variantonverbsecond.LinguistischeBerichte:202223(SpecialIssue25,Non
CanonicalVerbPositioninginMainClauses,ed.MailinAntomoandSonjaMüller).
Wiese,Heike,andPolat,NilginTanış(2016).Pejorationincontact:mreduplicationand
otherexamplesfromurbanGerman.In:RitaFinkbeiner,JörgMeibauer,andHeike
Wiese(eds.),Pejoration.Amsterdam:Benjamins,pp.243268.
Wiese,Heike,andRehbein,Ines(2015).Coherenceinnewurbandialects:acasestudy.
Lingua172/173:4561[SpecialIssueCoherence,CovariationandBricolage,ed.
GregoryGuyandFransHinskens].
Wölck,Wolfgang(2002).Ethnolects‐betweenbilingualismandurbandialect.In:LiWei,
JeanMarcDewaele,andAlexHousen(eds.),OpportunitiesandChallengesof
Bilingualism.Berlin,NewYork:deGruyter,pp.157170.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
In examples as (i), there are two constituents, rather than one, occupying the domain in front of the finite verb (the "forefield") in a German sentence, in violation of the Germanic V2 rule. (i) Heute ich werd meine Zigaretten mitbringen today I will my cigarettes with-bring 'Today, I will bring my cigarettes with me.' Accordingly, such examples are typically marked as "ungrammatical" in discussions of word order options. Yet, over the last years, such data has been attested in a range of Germanic "V2 languages", indicating a systematic option. While initial observations came from multilingual communities, lately there has also been some evidence from monolingual contexts. We pick up on this by showing, through corpus analyses on spontaneous speech from multilingual and monolingual speakers, that what we find here is a genuine V3 option that is integrated into the general topological layout that also supports V2. We argue that this is a systematic-if comparably less frequent-and possibly diachronically old option with a broad distribution that can shed a special light on the nature of verb-second. This variant has been overlooked in analyses so far, underlining the importance of taking into account the whole gamut of language variation for grammatical theory, rather than only standard-close language use.
Article
Full-text available
Diversity of languages and cultural backgrounds is a common reality in European societies. But European educational systems do not adapt very well to this reality. It can be observed that a linguistic and cultural background different from the respective national one serves as a means of exclusion, of prevention from equal access. The contribution offers reflections about the question, if and how the traditional notion of nation contributes to the-in a democratic society-unwelcome stratification effects for children from immigrant minorities in Europe.
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates evidence for linguistic coherence in new urban dialects that evolved in multiethnic and multilingual urban neighbourhoods. We propose a view of coherence as an interpretation of empirical observations rather than something that would be "out there in the data", and argue that this interpretation should be based on evidence of systematic links between linguistic phenomena, as established by patterns of covariation between phenomena that can be shown to be related at linguistic levels. In a case study, we present results from qualitative and quantitative analyses for a set of phenomena that have been described for Kiezdeutsch, a new dialect from multilingual urban Germany. Qualitative analyses point to linguistic relationships between different phenomena and between pragmatic and linguistic levels. Quantitative analyses, based on corpus data from KiDKo (www.kiezdeutschkorpus.de), point to systematic advantages for the Kiezdeutsch data from a multiethnic and multilingual context provided by the main corpus (KiDKo/Mu), compared to complementary corpus data from a mostly monoethnic and monolingual (German) context (KiDKo/Mo). Taken together, this indicates patterns of covariation that support an interpretation of coherence for this new dialect: ourfindings point to an interconnected linguistic system, rather than to a mere accumulation of individual features. In addition to this internal coherence, the data also points to external coherence: Kiezdeutsch is not disconnected on the outside either, but fully integrated within the general domain of German, an integration that defies a distinction of "autochthonous" and "allochthonous" German, not only at the level of speakers, but also at the level of linguistic systems.
Article
Full-text available
This article investigates a public debate in Germany that put a special spotlight on the interaction of standard language ideologies with social dichotomies, centering on the question of whether Kiezdeutsch , a new way of speaking in multilingual urban neighbourhoods, is a legitimate German dialect. Based on a corpus of emails and postings to media websites, I analyse central topoi in this debate and an underlying narrative on language and identity. Central elements of this narrative are claims of cultural elevation and cultural unity for an idealised standard language ‘High German’, a view of German dialects as part of a national folk culture, and the construction of an exclusive in-group of ‘German’ speakers who own this language and its dialects. The narrative provides a potent conceptual frame for the Othering of Kiezdeutsch and its speakers, and for the projection of social and sometimes racist deliminations onto the linguistic plane. (Standard language ideology, Kiezdeutsch, dialect, public discourse, Othering, racism by proxy)* Open Access: doi:10.1017/S0047404515000226
Article
Full-text available
Certain recently-attested varieties of Germanic V2 languages are known to deviate from the strict V2 requirement characteristic of the standard. This is the case, for example, for Kiezdeutsch, a new German dialect, as well as urban vernacular varieties of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: descriptively speaking, in these varieties, subject-verb inversion may be abs