The principle of pragmatic detachability in borrowing: English-origin discourse markers in Pennsylvania German

Abstract

Different discourse markers (DMs) have been argued to have different levels of pragmatic detachability, based on whether they are lexical and content-oriented or nonlexical and operational in nature (Matras 1998). DMs that are nonlexical and operational in nature are claimed by Matras to be high in the pragmatic-detachability hierarchy and thus can be borrowed more easily in language contact. The present study addresses this claim with data from Pennsylvania German (PG) and analyzes discourse markers of both German and English origin. The findings support the claims about pragmatic detachability as a motivation for borrowing of DMs. The DMs well and so, which are highly pragmatically detachable, have been borrowed into PG and do not have German-origin counterparts. The DMs y'know and but, which rank somewhat lower on the pragmatic-detachability scale, have also been borrowed but are used in variation with their German-origin counterparts. Finally, the German-origin DMs ja and mol, which have no English counterparts, are still in use but are infrequent in these data. These DMs are very low on the pragmatic-detachability scale, indicating that not only borrowing but also loss may be controlled by the principle of pragmatic detachability.

Bilingual Discourse Markers in Indigenous Languages

“…While there is no long-term evidence that I know of from indigenous contact languages to support Fuller's (2001) notion that differentiated functions are necessary if both languages are to survive, data from other contact language situations may shed light on this question. Goss and Salmons (2000) study the evolution of a bilingual discourse marking system in the case of Texan German varieties in contact with English where German is the subordinate language, which is used less and less with each generation.…”

“…Brody posits that the Spanish markers might be used to emphasise or highlight portions of a text. According to Fuller (2001), the use of bilingual markers without a distribution of functions does not bode well for maintenance of the subordinate language. She hypothesises that only when doublets assume different functions can both languages survive.…”

The Imperative ofSayas a Pragmatic Marker in English and Dutch

“…Second, pragmatic markers constitute a domain in which languages seem to influence one another quite easily. The body of literature about their borrowing, for instance, is fairly extensive (see Brody 1987, Salmons 1990, Fuller 2001, and many others). On Matras' (2007:61) frequency-based hierarchy of categories borrowed crosslinguistically, discourse markers are the third most common category (nouns and conjunctions are ranked first, verbs second).…”

Discourse Markers across Speakers and Settings

“…Like words, discourse markers may also be borrowed from one language to another. One proposal is that the borrowing of discourse markers is related to pragmatic detachability, which is the extent to which a marker has lexical content and is tied to propositional information (Fuller 2001). Those that are more detachable, such as well (“not easily analyzed in terms of lexical meaning”), will be borrowed sooner than those that are less detachable, such as you know (“highly lexical,”Fuller 2001:355).…”