LANGUAGE USE IN AN OLD ORDER AMISH COMMUNITY IN KANSAS BY Jörg Meindl Submitted ...

226 Pages·2009·1.15 MB·English

by  Joerg Meindl

LANGUAGE USE IN AN OLD ORDER AMISH COMMUNITY IN KANSAS
BY
Jörg Meindl
Submitted to the graduate degree program in Germanic Languages and Literatures of
the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
_________________________________
William D. Keel, Chairperson
_________________________________
Nina Vyatkina, Committee Member
_________________________________
Stephen Dickey, Committee Member
_________________________________
Ernst Dick, Committee Member
_________________________________
James Hartman, Committee Member
_________________________________
Peter Grund, Committee Member

Date defended:_____________________
ii
The Dissertation Committee for Jörg Meindl certifies
that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:
LANGUAGE USE IN AN OLD ORDER AMISH COMMUNITY IN KANSAS
Committee:
_________________________________
William D. Keel, Chairperson
_________________________________
Nina Vyatkina, Committee Member
_________________________________
Stephen Dickey, Committee Member
_________________________________
Ernst Dick, Committee Member
_________________________________
James Hartman, Committee Member
_________________________________
Peter Grund, Committee Member

Date approved: ______________
iii
Abstract
Old Order Amish are a religious group with three languages in its linguistic
repertoire: Pennsylvania German (PG), American English (AE), and Amish High
German (AHG). A considerable amount of research examined PG-speaking
communities, analyzing the causes of language change (whether it is caused by
language contact or internal processes), the factors determining language choice in
situations like family or work, and the spread of linguistic innovations between
speech islands. However, few studies examine the language alternation within speech
situations, language use in the worship service, or language use at the level of
individual utterances (discourse level). Furthermore, rural communities are
underrepresented in research on PG and few studies exist on areas with a low density
of PG-speakers. The present study addresses these research deficits by describing and
analyzing an Old Order Amish speech community in Anderson County, Kansas. The
speech community is geographically distant from other PG-speakers. Data has been
collected through interviews, translation tasks, and participant observation.
The present study analyzes four major areas of the Anderson County speech
community: First, the study describes the social structure as well as cultural and
religious norms of the community. These factors influence language use, linguistic
change, and communicative contacts to PG and AE-speakers outside of the speech
community. The present study sets out to test with ethnographic methods how many
contacts exist to other PG-speakers in geographically distant speech communities.
Second, a detailed analysis of the linguistic structure of Anderson County PG will be
iv
provided, employing comparative linguistic methods, with focus on language change
and contact to AE and other varieties of PG. It will be examined whether changes in
Anderson County PG are caused by internal processes or language contact. Third, two
theoretical models of language choice, the domain model and the network model, are
tested with the data from the Anderson County speech community. Based on these
data, limitations of domain and network models are demonstrated. Finally, the
sociolinguistic structure of the worship service, its theological and social functions,
and the language use in this setting are analyzed with ethnography of speaking and
discourse analysis methods. Focus will be on the sermons. The data from Anderson
County reveal a communicative problem in the sermons, the "preacher's dilemma":
the preachers quote and interpret the scriptures which are in AHG. However,
preachers and other congregation members have only limited AHG-proficiency and,
thus, do not easily understand all words or phrases used. Switching to AE is restricted
by the sociolinguistic norms and PG does not provide the necessary lexical
equivalents of the words in questions. The preachers manage this dilemma by
employing the communication strategies metalinguistic remarks and self-translations.
The analysis of the Anderson County speech community shows that the
community has complex contacts to other PG-speaking communities and undergoes a
change in the employment structure that causes an increase in AE-contacts. The
linguistic data show little AE-influence beyond the lexicon, but ambivalent results
regarding the influence from other varieties of PG. The tested models of language
choice prove to be suitable for some settings, but not applicable for complex and
v
highly regulated speech situations like the worship service. In the sermons, the role of
the preacher and the theological function of the sermons supersede other factors of
language choice including sociolinguistic norms. The use of codeswitching-based
communication strategies in the sermons shows that violations of sociolinguistic
norms are accepted if they serve the main function of the sermons and are kept to the
necessary minimum. The communication strategies are necessary repair mechanisms
for communicative problems. Thus, both problem and solution are connected to the
specific structure of multilingualism in the speech community. Despite the regulated
ceremonial setting and in contrast to implication from past research, the sermons
prove to be dynamic speech events in which all languages of the repertoire fulfill
important functions.
The dissertation addresses research deficits in four different areas that have
little been addressed in research so far: First, a profile of language structure and
language use in a isolated, rural PG-speech community is presented. Second,
hypotheses on the sources of language change in PG are tested. Third, the language
use in the worship service is described in detail and, fourth, language use on the
discourse level is analyzed.
vi
For my parents Annette Meindl and Gerhard Meindl
vii
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to the success of this research project. I want to
mention first those who remain anonymous, but are the most important for this
project: I am deeply indebted to all informants in the Anderson County Amish
community who donated their time, shared their knowledge, and welcomed me in
their houses. During two years of research, friendships have grown. I am very grateful
for the loving support of parents and brothers. My parents made this all possible –
thank you so much for giving me this opportunity, for all your patience and help, for
the freedom to follow my interests.
Many friends have supported me throughout the time and provided crucial
support. I am deeply thankful for my great friend Summer Eglinski. She has been a
great source of strength and motivation. Scott Seeger shared his friendship and
expertise with me, many times. Regine Kroh provided advice and motivation and
Bernadette Zacharias enabled me to get to Anderson County in times where I lacked
car or horse and buggy.
Certainly, this project could not have been completed without the mentorship
of my adviser Professor William Keel. I also want to thank others who provided
academic advice for the project, especially Nina Vyatkina, Carmen Taleghani-
Nikazm. I owe much to Klaus Mattheier who introduced me to the world of dialect
research and opened the door to Kansas for me.
I also want to thank the Max Kade Foundation and the Department of
Germanic Languages and Literatures for financial support.
viii
Abbreviations
AE = American English
AHG = Amish High German
CS = Codeswitching
NHG = New High German
OOA = Old Order Amish
PG = Pennsylvania German
ix
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
1) Desiderata in PG-Research 2
2) Informants and Data 4
3) Methodology 9
4) Structure of the Study 10
I) Ethnographic and Social Context 12
I.1) Pennsylvania Germans in Kansas 13
I.1.1) Research on German Speakers in Kansas 13
I.1.2) Migration and Settlement Patterns in Kansas 16
I.1.3) Concentrations of German Speakers in Kansas 19
I.1.4) The Connection of Anderson County with Reno County 22
I.1.5) Migration History of Old Order Amish in Kansas 24
I.2) Ethnographic Profile of Anderson County OOA 27
I.2.1) Settlement-structure today 28
I.2.2) Lifestyle and Social Norms (Ordnung) 29
I.2.3) Occupational Structure 32
I.2.4) Mobility 33
I.2.5) Education 35
I.2.6) Media 36
I.2.7) Worship services 38
I.3) Conclusion 39
II) Linguistic Profile of Anderson County PG 41
II.1) Syntax and Morphosyntax 42
II.1.1) Word Order 42
II.1.2) Relative Pronouns 45
II.1.3) Periphrastic /du:n/ 46
II.1.4) Infinitive constructions 48
II.1.5) Progressive 50
II.2) Case morphology 52
II.2.1) Case Reduction and Its Causes 52
II.2.2) Dative and Accusative Case 52
II.2.3) Causes of Case Merger 53
II.2.4) Expanded Use of the Object Case 54
II.3) Loan Words 55
II.3.1) Identifying Loan Words 55
II.3.2) Types of loans 56
II.3.3) Translating and Recalling Words 58
II.4) Morphology: Integration of Loans and Hybrids 59
II.4.1) Degree of integration 60
II.4.2) Inflection 61
II.4.3) Compound-Words 61
II.4.4) Homophones 62
x
II.4.5) Semantic Transfers and Shifts 63
II.4.6) Phonologically Integrated Loans 65
II.5) Midwestern Pennsylvania German 65
II.5.1) Phonological Change: Monophthongization of /ei/ 66
II.5.2) Grammatical Change 68
II.5.3) Phonology and Lexicon 69
II.6) Amish High German and its Use 71
II.6.1)The Structure of Amish High German 71
II.6.2) The use of Amish High German 76
II.7) Conclusion 78
III) Language Choice in Anderson County 81
III.1) Models for Language Choice in Multilingual Speech Communities 81
III.1.1) Language Contact and Language Loss 83
III.1.2) Codeswitching and Borrowing 84
III.1.3) Speech Situations, Domains, and Language Choice 87
III.1.3.1) Domains 87
III.1.3.2) Diglossia 89
III.1.3.3) Stable Bilingualism 89
III.1.4) Network Models of Language Choice 90
III.2) Speech Situations and Communication Networks
in Anderson County 93
III.2.1) Networks in the Anderson County Speech Community 97
III.2.2) Integration into Communicative Networks
in Anderson County 104
III.2.2.1) Type 1: Family Farmer 105
III.2.2.2) Type 2: Non-farming occupation on the farm 107
III.2.2.3) Type 3: Off-farm occupation 108
III.2.2.4) Type 4: Retirees 113
III.2.2.5) Type 5: Non-baptized teenagers 113
III.3) Conclusion 115
IV) The Speech Event Sermon 119
IV.1) The Ethnography of Speaking-Approach 120
IV.1.1) Speech Events 121
IV.1.2) Roles and Rules 123
IV.2) Speech Events and Language Use in the Worship Service 125
IV.3) Amish High German as Factor of Identity 131
IV.4) Conclusion 138
V) Communication Strategies 137
V.1) Functions of Communication Strategies 137
V.1.1) Managing Communicative Problems 137
V.1.1.1) Communicative Competence and Communication Strategies 139
V.1.1.2) Integration of the Audience 140
V.1.1.3) Reduction and Achievement Strategies 141
V.1.2) Codeswitching and Communication Strategy 142