Coherence and language contact

The role of minority language bilingualism in spotting agreement attraction errors

“…In this context, we explain the results of the Italian-Agrigentino group by highlighting the constant use of a strongly influenced linguistic system, where traits belonging to another language (in this case, the dialect) are not only accepted but may further lead to a higher tolerance with respect to what does not conform to the expected linguistic norm (e.g., grammatical deviations such as agreement mismatches). This is very likely to occur in sociolinguistic contexts where a standard language and a non-standard language coexist since the latter is not defined by linguistic standardization [107][108][109][110]. In contrast, in bilingualism with standard languages, the two linguistic systems may be more rigidly demarcated, and rather than being on a linguistic continuum where structural traits from different languages are mixed, they are separately used by the speaker in a more defined code-switching mode [see 111 for the specific situation of Italian dialects; 112,113].…”

Grammatical Innovations in German in Multilingual Namibia: The Expanded Use of Linking Elements and Gehen ‘Go’ as a Future Auxiliary

“…NG is not a homogenous variety and is best described using a continuum, one end of which represents a standard-based variety of NG (that is, a variety close to SG, as spoken in Germany) and the other end approximates a nonstandard variety of NG (that is, Südwesterdeutsch/ Nam-Släng/Namdeutsch/Namlish). NG features are used cross-generationally (Wiese et al 2017:234, Zimmer forthcoming), and the frequency in the use of typical NG features depends on a number of variables; these may relate to the speaker (such as age, gender, L1 of parents, school attended) and/or to the situation at hand (such as topic of conversation, degree of formality, presence of in-group versus out-group speakers; Zimmer 2020, Wiese & Bracke 2021, Wiese et al 2022). The use—conscious or unconscious—of highly marked NG features, and in particular the extensive borrowing of lexical items from Afrikaans and English, is more typical of informal spoken speech (Bracke 2021, Wiese & Bracke 2021) and is particularly frequent in discussion of topics for which German-speaking Namibians do not have the necessary German vocabulary at their disposal (for instance, when talking about their profession, for which they were educated/trained in either English or Afrikaans).…”

“…The community is generally proud of their ability to speak German and of the variety of German they speak (see Wiese et al 2022 on the tension between standard language ideology and pride in local NG characteristics). For this close-knit speech community, language is considered an in-group marker and seems to constitute a significant component of their unique Namibian-German identity, allowing them to demarcate themselves from the “other Germans”, that is, Germans from Germany, as well as from other Namibian ethnic groups (see also Schmidt-Lauber 1998:308–309, Wecker 2017, Wiese et al 2017:7, Bracke 2021, Wiese & Bracke 2021, Wiese et al 2022).…”

“…3See, for example, Shah 2007, Riehl 2014, Wiese et al 2014, 2017, Kellermeier-Rehbein 2015, Zimmer 2020, 2021a,c,forthcoming, Stuhl & Zimmer 2021, Wiese & Bracke 2021, Wiese et al 2022.…”

“…49Register differentiations can clearly be observed here. For register differentiations among German-speaking Namibians in general, see Wiese & Bracke 2021 and Wiese et al 2022.…”