Show Less
Open access

Linguistic Construction of Ethnic Borders

Edited By Peter Rosenberg, Konstanze Jungbluth and Dagna Zinkhahn Rhobodes

This volume focuses on the linguistic constructs involved in ethnic borders. Ethnic borders have proven themselves to be surprisingly long-lived: in nearly all European countries and beyond, border demarcation, exclusion of foreigners, and minority conflicts are some of the most persistent challenges for nations and societies. Which linguistic factors play a role in the formation of these borders, especially those drawn along ethnic lines? Which linguistic constructs contribute to the negotiation, establishment and maintenance of ethnic groups and identities? Under which conditions can processes of linguistic convergence, hybrids, or transcultural identities be observed?
Show Summary Details
Open access

The permeability of language borders on the example of German-Polish language mixing

Dagna Zinkhahn Rhobodes

(Frankfurt/Oder)

The permeability of language borders on the example of German-Polish language mixing

Abstract: In dem vorliegenden Artikel werden Prozesse der Öffnung und Überschreitung von sprachlichen Grenzen basierend auf der Analyse der deutsch-polnischen Korpusdaten beschrieben und erklärt. Die in diesem Beitrag dargelegte Diskussion bildet einen Teil von einem interdisziplinären Ansatz zur Verschränkung des kulturwissenschaftlich geprägten Begriffs der Grenze mit ihren drei Dimensionen – der Durabilität, Permeabilität und Liminalität – in die linguistische Untersuchung von Sprachkontaktphänomenen. Der Fokus des vorliegenden Artikels liegt insbesondere auf der Diskussion des Aspekts der Permeabilität. Der permeable Charakter der sprachlichen Grenzen wird an unterschiedlichen strukturellen Stellen des Sprachwechsels – von der Satz-, über Phrase- und Wort- bis hin zur Morphemgrenze – erörtert.

Das Ziel des vorliegenden Artikels ist es, einen integrativen Ansatz vorzuschlagen, welcher die Theorie der Grenze in die linguistische Analyse integriert und somit einen interdisziplinären Einblick in die Erforschung der strukturellen Aspekte des Sprachkontakts liefert.

Schlagworte: Sprachgrenze, Permeabilität, deutsch-polnische Sprachmischung

Keywords: language border, permeability, German-Polish language mixing

1.  Introduction

The processes of opening, crossing and blurring of language borders in the context of globalization and migration processes have become a common part of everyday communication in multilingual contexts. Such multilingual settings include border regions characterized by language contact beyond national borders. An example of intense cross-border language contact in various social and situational contexts is the German-Polish border city pair of Frankfurt/Oder and Słubice, considered to be one of the most important points of German-Polish contact in the border region (cf. Kimura 2013, p. 111).1 Through educational, cultural and economic collaboration, Polish and German speakers come into contact with each ← 229 | 230 → other in various institutions (for example, in secondary schools with exchange programs, or at the European University Viadrina, with 75 % German and 10 % Polish students), but also during everyday social interactions of inhabitants from different ages groups and social backgrounds.

This intense language contact often leads to creative use of German-Polish mixed language forms and constructions established and practised in the spontaneous everyday language routine. Such language mixing phenomena2 show that language use in multilingual contexts provides a scope for permeability between language systems: “At the same time phenomena such as code-switching or code-mixing in the language use of multilingual speakers show that languages offer a room for permeability”3 (Cunha et al. 2012, p. 13, my translation).4 From this perspective, I consider the emergence of language mixing phenomena as a result of the opening and crossing of language borders. The language border is regarded here as the structural border between two language systems, mostly phonetically manifested as the site of language switch. Following Greco/Renaud/Taquechel (2013), it can be interpreted from the dialectological tradition as the dividing line between two “language spaces” which can be passed through by moving from the use of one language to another.5 If the language contact is extensive enough that it leads to convergence – and maybe fusion – of morphosyntactic language structures, and in consequence to the emergence of hybrid language forms, it may even lead to the dissolution of language borders.

But what does it actually mean to open and cross a language border? How can these concepts – which have thus far primarily been regarded metaphorically – be ← 230 | 231 → described and explained from a linguistic perspective? Which processes actually take place at the language border between two languages in contact, and what are the structural consequences of these dynamic phenomena? How can the previously mentioned permeability of language borders be systematically examined?

In the following article, I submit a proposal for describing and explaining the concepts of opening and crossing language borders based on the discussion of German-Polish language mixing data selected mainly from Frankfurt (Oder) and its twin city of Słubice. Thus, the term of the border is relevant in two aspects of the study. Firstly, the empirical data are mostly collected along the German-Polish border; secondly, the language border character in the data itself is the main object of research. Based on the analysis of selected examples, I will discuss the permeable character of language borders at different structural sites of language switch, beginning with the language switch at the clause border, followed by the phrase border, word border, and finally the morpheme border.

The data will be analysed by applying the concept of the border from the perspective of cultural science studies (cf. Audehm / Velten 2007, Jungbluth 2012)6,7. Applying this heretofore-underused approach in linguistics, I propose a cultural-studies influenced viewpoint in the investigation of language mixing, and contribute to the theory of borders from the linguistic perspective.

The paper is divided into six sections. After presenting the theoretical framework in chapter two, the object of investigation and the methodological approach will be described in chapter three. The data analysis approach will be presented in chapter four. The fifth section is dedicated to the discussion of some examples of German-Polish language mixing. Chapter six summarizes the article with conclusions. ← 231 | 232 →

2.  The concept of the border and contact linguistics

2.1  Language mixing as a result of crossing of language borders

The concept of language mixing as a crossing of language borders has already been mentioned in the language contact literature as “Sprachgrenzen überspringen” (“to jump over language borders”) (Hinnenkamp / Meng 2005),8 “Überschreiten von Sprachgrenzen” (“crossing the language borders”) (Cunha et al. 2012, p. 13) or “crossing” (Rampton 2005).9 Gogolin (1998)10 calls the language mixing routine of multilingual speakers “sprachliches Grenzgängertum”.11

Földes (1996)12 illustrates language mixing as a crossing of language borders:

One of their essential characteristics is that the bilingual speaker (in the bilingual discourse or interaction mode) regularly takes elements, structures and patterns from the other language (or variety) and/or alternately uses the languages, which leads to the emergence of different types of language mixing. […] Members of bi- or multilingual communities do not usually keep their languages separated, but rather creatively cross the language borders in their spoken communicative everyday practice by using communicative patterns of different linguistic and cultural systems for their effective communication.13 (Földes 1996, p. 12, my translation) ← 232 | 233 →

Greco/Renaud/Taquechel (2013) provide an interesting approach in which the authors analyse linguistic practices in multilingual workplaces, taking a conversational analysis perspective. They consider the alternating use of two or more languages within one conversation as “border-crossing”, understood as “leaving one language space for another” (Greco/Renaud/Taquechel 2013, p. 36).14

However, in the aforementioned citations, the concept of the language border and the processes of its crossing are considered mostly metaphorically. The actual character of the language border and its dynamic change during the “crossing” and “moving” has not been a direct object of systematic investigation. Jungbluth (2012) offers an important contribution to the discussion of the character of language borders. She discusses and compares the alteration and grade of language border violation at different structural points of language switch in several language pairs, including Spanish-German, Italian-German, Brazilian/Portuguese-German, English-German and Polish-German.

2.2  Durability, permeability and liminality of language borders

In this chapter, the three essential concepts for the language borders analysis – durability, permeability and liminality – will be introduced. The following schematic diagrams are simplified illustrations representing the concepts of durability, permeability and liminality. The three circles stand for the three levels of analysis in my corpus data: phonetic (P), morphological (M) and syntactic (S).

Durability refers to the density and the stability of borders. Durable language borders are clearly identifiable and constitute an impermeable barrier between two languages. There is no reciprocal phonetic, morphological or syntactic influence between the language systems, and they are consequently assumed to be clearly ← 233 | 234 → separated from one another. The language switch is often anticipated through flagging (cf. Poplack 1980)15 – realised as pause, interjection, explicit metalinguistic commentary, laughing etc. – which draws attention to the following switch.

Figure 1:  Durability of language borders

img

Permeability refers to the opening and transgressing of borders. Permeable language borders are still observable, but they are not stable and impassable. They constitute a penetrable threshold which enables reciprocal phonetic, morphological and/or syntactic impact between two languages in contact.

Figure 2:  Permeability of language borders16

img

← 234 | 235 →

The concept of liminality was coined by Turner (1964, 1998),17 and reflects the idea that borders are not simply lines, but that they also constitute border zones. These border zones can be considered as transition areas, overlapping spaces, “lieux de passage” (Erfurt 2005, p. 19) or “grey areas” (Clyne 2000, p. 273;18 McCormick 2002).19

Figure 3:  Liminality of language borders

img

Border zones can also be understood as “third spaces” and “in-between spaces” according to Bhabha (1994).20 Such overlapping spaces can also arise at the border between two languages in contact, forming “new spaces of multilingualism” (Erfurt 2003, p. 6) or “third spaces in the language” (Gugenberger 2005).21

In these liminal spaces, as I will call them, hybrid, syncretic, and sometimes even autonomous language forms may emerge as a result of the reciprocal influ ← 235 | 236 → ence and blending of grammatical structures. Here, it is no longer clear where exactly the language border runs. The classification and allocation of linguistic elements to one language or the other becomes difficult.

In this paper, I will concentrate on the analysis of the aspect of permeability. Two other qualities of the border – durability and liminality – are discussed in Zinkhahn Rhobodes (forthcoming) as well as in my dissertation (Zinkhahn Rhobodes, forthcoming).

3.  Methodology

The data collection was carried out in three investigation sites. The first two are both educational institutions situated in Frankfurt (Oder) and Słubice. The initial part of the empirical study took place at the European University Viadrina, where Polish students have established a German-Polish mixed speech. This mixed language routine is widely practiced as their common group code in everyday interactions. Its speakers call this language routine Viadrinisch (from the name of the University) or Poltsch (from the names of languages involved Polnisch/polski and Deutsch). The audio recordings were conducted with Polish law and cultural science students during several semesters. All of the informants are Polish native speakers from different parts of Poland who learned German as a foreign language in secondary school.

Data from the second location were collected in Frankfurt (Oder) at the Karl-Liebknecht-Gymnasium. The informants are pupils of the 10th and 11th grade who – like the students of the European University Viadrina – are Polish native speakers. They mostly come from Słubice or Polish villages and towns near the border region.

The third investigation site is the Robert-Jungk-Oberschule in Berlin, which is also a secondary school particularly known for its German-Polish educational profile (SESB – Staatliche Europaschule Berlin). Similar to the Karl-Liebknecht-Gymnasium, the interviewed pupils of Polish origin attended the 10th and 11th grade. However, contrary to the students and pupils in Frankfurt (Oder), they attended primary school, and some even went to kindergarten in Germany.

In these three educational institutions, Poles study and learn in German together with German classmates and use the linguistic material of the Polish and German languages as a resource for their everyday communication, and in doing so, they form creatively mixed German-Polish forms.

The basis for the qualitative part of the investigation is a series of audio recordings. The interviews were conducted with 36 informants and provided language ← 236 | 237 → material totalling 12 hours. The informants were asked, among other things, to describe their typical day at school or university, as well as their favourite subjects and hobbies. The interviews were conducted mostly on the school/university campus with groups of 2–5 Polish native speakers.22

In the following chapter, some examples from the corpus will be discussed. The analysis forms part of my dissertation and represents the current stage of work on my thesis.

4.  The approach

In order to examine the concept of language mixing with its wide spectrum of language contact-induced phenomena, I focus on its characteristics at different levels of increasing morphological, syntactic and phonetic cross-linguistic influence. The examples of language mixing from the corpus are thus divided into four groups, following the continuum of increasing impact on language structures. The starting point in the continuum is a language switch at the clause boundary. The second group contains examples of language switch taking place at the intra-sentential level – at the phrasal boundary. In the next group, language switch affects the language structures even more – it occurs at the word boundary. And the last level includes examples with highest impact on language structures: the language switch at the grammatical unit of the morpheme boundary.

Aside from the differentiation of language switch at different structural borders, the character of these language borders is analysed at each of the mentioned levels, applying the three introduced aspects of the border theory: namely durability, permeability and liminality. Thus, language switch at each of four structural borders is discussed according to its durable, permeable and liminal characteristics: ← 237 | 238 →

Figure 4:  Analysis model

img

In the following, the aspect of permeability will be discussed based on selected examples from the corpus. Concerning the analysis of the remaining two qualities of language borders – the durability and liminality – I refer interested readers to Zinkhahn Rhobodes (forthcoming) where I discussed the durable, permeable and liminal character of language switch at the morpheme border as well as to my dissertation (Zinkhahn Rhobodes, forthcoming), where the complete model is presented and each of its levels is thoroughly discussed showing various examples from the corpus.

5.  The analysis of selected examples

5.1.  Language switch at the clause border

Example 1:  Mamy Potenzregel

img

← 238 | 239 →

Let’s focus on the character of the language border between the German-Polish mixed clause Mamy Potenzregel, and the Polish clause No ona mówi o tym, że (…). The switch between the German noun Potenzregel and the Polish clause can be considered as alternation (Muysken 2000, p. 7), as there is no embedding of a constituent from one language into a construction of another. However, although Polish and German are clearly separated from each other, there is a cohesion across the language border between the German Potenzregel and Polish clause No ona mówi o tym, że. This cohesion is created by the Polish pronoun ona (she), showing a number and gender agreement with the German noun Potenzregel from the previous clause. We observe a clear agreement in gender between these two elements: Regel is feminine (as well as its Polish counterpart reguła) and the pronoun ona in the next clause reflects the same gender. Furthermore, there is no distinct pause anticipating the language switch, which can thus be considered as “smooth”24 according to Poplack (1987, p. 54).25 Accordingly, due to building of cohesion and transfer of grammatical features across the language border at the site of language switch between the German noun and the Polish clause, the language border in this example can be considered as permeable.

5.2  Language switch at the phrase border

Let’s analyse the language switch at the phrase border between the Polish demonstrative pronoun and the German nominal phrase in the following example:

Example 2:  Taki große Übung

img

← 239 | 240 →

The German nominal phrase große Übung is integrated into the sentence through the Polish demonstrative pronoun taki. Interestingly, the ending -i in the pronoun taki expresses the masculine gender, whereas the noun Übung is feminine. It could be interpreted as a violation of congruence, but in fact we can observe here an interesting way of building bi-lingual gender agreement. The masculine morphological ending in the pronoun taki can be explained by applying Polish norms of gender assignment with the phonological criterion playing the key role: the final sound of the lemma determines its gender (cf. Kreja 1989: 89).27 The masculine flexion morpheme of the pronoun is related to the consonant final sound – in this case g – of the German noun, which is decisive for masculine gender in Polish.28 Thus, the German noun is considered by a speaker as a Polish element, and integrated into the sentence according to Polish norms of gender assignment.

Accordingly, the language border between German and Polish at the site of language switch between the Polish pronoun and German nominal phrase reveals a permeable character, as it allows a transfer of grammatical features that are decisive for the integration of the German phrase. It is still observable, but it constitutes a penetrable and passable “threshold”.

Interestingly, although the German noun Übung is introduced through the Polish pronoun taki with the masculine ending -i, the following German adjective große has a feminine suffix –e. So, we observe here a mixed nominal phrase with two different gender assignations to the same noun. ← 240 | 241 →

5.3  Language switch at the word border

Example 3:  Ten Prüfung cały

img

In the example above, the German noun Prüfung is integrated as an element of the Embedded Language into the morphosyntactic frame of the Matrix Language of Polish (vgl. Myers-Scotton 2010 (2002)). This type of language switch may be interpreted according to Muysken (2000) as insertion: “a single constituent B (with words b from the same language) is inserted into a structure defined by language A, with words a from that language” (Muysken 2000, p. 7). Insertions display an A…B…A nested structure and their striking structural characteristic is the morphological integration into the Matrix Language.

An interesting aspect is that, according to Poplack’s (1980) Equivalence Constraint,29 the language switch between the noun Prüfung and the adjective cały should not be possible, as it violates word order in German (NP → Det ADJ N).

The integration of the German noun occurs according to the Polish rules of gender assignment, with the phonological criterion as the most significant: although Prüfung is feminine, it receives – due to its consonant final sound – the masculine gender. This attributed masculine gender is then decisive for the agreement established through the demonstrative pronoun ten, as well as the adjective cały. Thus, the consonant-final sound of the German noun influences the form of Polish pronoun and the adjective by determining their masculine singular morphological endings -i and –y, respectively. Through their inflectional forms, they match the aforementioned ascribed values of the grammatical categories of the noun Prüfung. This grammatical relationship achieved through gender and number agreement is an indication of the permeability of the language border at ← 241 | 242 → the analyzed site of language switch. The language border between German and Polish constitutes a “membrane”, which allows a transfer of grammatical features between these two languages.

5.4  Language switch at the morpheme border

An example of the permeable character of the language border at the language switch between lexical stem and bound morpheme is the substantive Bundesverfassungsgerichtem:

Example 4:  Bundesverfassungsgerichtem

img

The German noun Bundesverfassungsgericht receives the Polish morphological ending –em, which marks the instrumental case, singular number and masculine gender. The process of the assignment of this exact declension morpheme can be clearly traced back to Polish morphological rules.30 As in the examples 2 and 3, the noun Bundesverfassungsgericht receives a masculine gender due to its consonant-final sound. The instrumental case is determined by the preposition przed and its ← 242 | 243 → case government. According to Polish declination rules, a noun which ends with the consonant -t acquires the –em ending in singular instrumental (cf. Tokarski 2001).31

In this mixed utterance, we notice the opening of the word boundary for the integration of the morpheme. However, at the same time, we can observe that the language border is still maintained: the lexeme and morpheme from both languages “meet” each other at an easily identifiable dividing line.

Another interesting example is the noun Readera. It presents an even clearer opening of the internal word border accompanied by a further increased degree of permeability:

Example 5:  Readera

img

The English noun reader – incorporated from English into German and frequently used at German universities – is altered through the addition of the Polish declension ending –a. In contrast to the prior example, the rules of morpheme assignment are no longer so unambiguous. Let’s proceed exactly like in example 4, examining the three decisive aspects for the declension ending in Polish, namely case, number and gender. As the noun reader ends with a consonant, its gender according to Polish norms is masculine. The valence of the verb skopiować is accusative. It is very interesting that the speaker uses the morpheme –a, because according to the Polish declension rules, inanimate masculine substantives have no ending at all in the accusative. The ending –a undoubtedly violates Polish morphological rules; however, in current spoken Polish, the use of the morphological ending –a in the accusative with inanimate substantives is indeed very frequent ← 243 | 244 → (Bugajski 2008).32 Thus, it is interesting to notice that language mixing also reflects language variation in the current Polish language.

Aside from morphological alternation, there is also a phonological change: the consonant r at the border between the English loanword and the Polish morphological ending is rolled and pronounced according to Polish phonological rules as [r] instead of English alveolar approximant [ɹ] or German [img]. The phonological influence and the morphological integration are indications of the permeable character of the language border. In fact, the phonological influence beyond the language border may be even interpreted as sign of the emergence of a liminal space as the sphere of impact between these two languages increases and does not stop at the morpheme border, but in fact goes beyond. This example can thus be located between the categories of permeability and liminality.

6.  Conclusion

The aim of this article was to deliver an insight into German-Polish language mixing, and to propose a theoretical framework illustrating and explaining the language contact-induced processes of language border opening and crossing.

The data analysis shows that – in the process of border crossing – the permeability of language borders enables transfer of grammatical features from two languages in contact through building of a coherence and agreement, morphological integration or phonetic alternation.

The presented data analysis reveals that especially the theory of the border can be fruitful for the discussion of language-mixing phenomena. This approach gives an innovative opportunity to bring together phonetic, morphological and syntactic aspects into the analysis, which so far have been rarely integrated into a single framework (cf. Muysken 2013, p. 193). Through the incorporation of the concept of the border into the linguistic analysis, I provide interdisciplinary insight into the investigation of structural aspects of language mixing, and contribute to the theory of the border from a linguistic perspective. ← 244 | 245 →

List of gloss abbreviations

ADJA – attributive adjective

APPR – preposition

GEN – genitive

INSTR – instrumental

M – masculine

NN – common noun

NP – nominal phrase

PDAT – attributive demonstrative pronoun

PP – prepositional phrase

PPER – non reflexive personal pronoun

SING – singular

VAFIN – auxiliary verb, finite

VP – verbal phrase

VVFIN – full finite verb

VVINF – full infinitive verb

Literature

Audehm, Katrin / Velten, Hans Rudolf: Transgression, Hybridisierung, Differenzierung, Zur Performativität von Grenzen in Sprache, Kultur und Gesellschaft. Rombach: Freiburg 2007.

Belliger, Andréa / Krieger, David J. (ed): Ritualtheorien. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen/Wiesbaden. 1998.

Berthoud, Anne-Claude / Grin, François / Lüdi, Georges (eds.): Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism: The DYLAN project. Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2013.

Bugajski, Marian: „Puszczam strzala, bo mam stresa“. In: Dąbkowski, Grzegorz (ed.): Reverendissimae Halinae Satkiewicz cum magna aestimatione. Warszawa 2008, pp. 67–75.

Bhabha, Homi: The Location of Culture. Routledge: London 1994.

Cichon, Peter / Czernilofsky, Barbara / Tanzmeister, Robert / Hönigsperger, Astrid (eds.): Entgrenzungen. Für eine Soziologie der Kommunikation. Praesens: Wien 2005.

Clyne, Michael: „Constraints on code-switching: how universal are they?” In: Wei, Li (ed.): The Bilingualism Reader. Routledge: London 2000, pp. 257–80. ← 245 | 246 →

Cunha, Conceicao et al. (eds.): Über Grenzen sprechen. Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa und der Welt. Königshausen & Neumann: Würzburg 2012.

Dąbkowski, Grzegorz (ed.): Reverendissimae Halinae Satkiewicz cum magna aestimatione. Warszawa 2008.

Erfurt, Jürgen (ed.): „Multisprech“: Hybridität, Variation, Identität. (Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, Bd. 65). Osnabrück 2003.

Erfurt, Jürgen (ed.): Transkulturalität und Hybridität. L’espace francophone als Grenzerfahrung des Sprechens und Schreibens. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/M. et al. 2005.

Erfurt, Jürgen: „’de même I hope j’te bother pas’: Transkulturalität und Hybridität in der Frankophonie“. In: Erfurt, Jürgen (ed.): Transkulturalität und Hybridität. L’espace francophone als Grenzerfahrung des Sprechens und Schreibens. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/M. et al. 2005, pp. 9 – 36.

Erfurt, Jürgen: „’Multisprech’: Migration und Hybridisierung“. In: Erfurt, Jürgen (ed.): „Multisprech“: Hybridität, Variation, Identität. (Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, Bd. 65). Osnabrück 2003, 5–34.

Földes, Csaba: Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachenkontakt und Sprachenmischung. (Flensburger Papiere zur Mehrsprachigkeit und Kulturenvielfalt im Unterricht; 14/15). Flensburg 1996.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim/Mein, Georg (eds.): Schriftkultur und Schwellenkunde. transcript: Bielefeld 2008.

Gogolin, Ingrid / List, Günther / Graap, Sabine (eds.): Über Mehrsprachigkeit. Stauffenburg-Verlag: Tübingen 1998.

Gogolin, Ingrid: „Sprachen rein halten – eine Obsession“. In: Gogolin, Ingrid/ List, Günther/ Graap, Sabine (eds.): Über Mehrsprachigkeit. Stauffenburg-Verlag: Tübingen 1998, pp. 71 – 96.

Greco, Luca / Renaud, Patrick / Taquechel Roxana. “Chapter 2. The practical processing of plurilingualism as a resource in professional activities”. In: Berthoud, Anne-Claude / Grin, François / Lüdi, Georges (eds.): Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism: The DYLAN project. Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2013, pp. 33–58.

Gugenberger, Eva: „Der dritte Raum in der Sprache. Sprachliche Hybridisierung am Beispiel galicischer Migrant/inn/en in Buenos Aires“. In: Cichon, Peter / Czernilofsky, Barbara / Tanzmeister, Robert / Hönigsperger, Astrid (eds.): Entgrenzungen. Für eine Soziologie der Kommunikation. Praesens: Wien 2005, pp. 354–376.

Hinnenkamp, Volker / Meng, Katharina (2005): „Sprachgrenzen überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis: Einleitung“. In: Hinnenkamp, Volker / Meng, Katharina (eds.): Sprachgrenzen überspringen. ← 246 | 247 → Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis. Narr: Tübingen 2005, pp. 1–16.

Hinnenkamp, Volker / Meng, Katharina (eds.): Sprachgrenzen überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis. Narr: Tübingen 2005.

Jańczak, Barbara / Jungbluth, Konstanze / Weydt, Harald (eds.): Mehrsprachigkeit aus deutscher Perspektive. Narr: Tübingen 2012.

Jungbluth, Konstanze: „Aus zwei mach eins: Switching, mixing, getting different“. In: Jańczak, Barbara/ Jungbluth, Konstanze/ Weydt, Harald (eds.): Mehrsprachigkeit aus deutscher Perspektive. Narr: Tübingen 2012, pp. 45–72.

Kimura, Goro Christoph : “Strategie komunikacji językowej na polsko-nemieckim pograniczu.” In: Koutny, Ilona / Nowak, Piotr (eds.): Język. Kommunikacja. Informacja. Language. Communication. Information. (Poznań), 8/2013, pp. 109–124.

Koutny, Ilona / Nowak, Piotr (eds.): Język. Kommunikacja. Informacja. Language. Communication. Information. (Poznań), 8/2013.

Kreja, Bogusław: Z morfonologii i morfotaktyki współczesnej polszczyzny. Ossolineum: Wrocław 1989.

Laskowski, Roman: “Mechanismen der morphologischen Adaptation deutscher Nomina im Polnischen.” In: Pohl, Alek / Vincenz, Andre (eds.): Deutsch-polnische Sprachkontakte. Böhlau: Köln 1987, pp. 113–130.

McCormick, Kay: Language in Cape Town’s District Six. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2002.

Muysken, Pieter: “Two linguistic systems in contact.” In: Bhatia, Tei K. / Ritchie. William C. (eds.): The Handbook of Bilingualism. Blackwell: Oxford 2013, pp. 147–168.

Muysken, Pieter: Bilingual speech: a typology of code-mixing. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2000.

Myers-Scotton, Carol: Contact Linguistics. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2010 (2002).

Pohl, Alek / Vincenz, Andre de (eds.): Deutsch-polnische Sprachkontakte. Böhlau: Köln 1987.

Pohl, Alek: „Zum Problem des Genus deutscher Lehnwörter im Alt- und im Mittelpolnischen.“ In: Pohl, Alek / Vincenz, Andre de (eds.): Deutsch-polnische Sprachkontakte. Böhlau: Köln 1987. pp. 191– 205.

Poplack, Shana: “Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities.” In: Wande, Erling / Anward, Jan / Nordberg, Bengt / Steensland, Lars / Thelander, Mats (eds.) Aspects of multilingualism. Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism. Brtstrom: Upsala 1987, pp. 51–77. ← 247 | 248 →

Poplack, Shana: “Sometimes I´ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Español: Toward a typology of code-switching”. In: Linguistics 18, 1980, pp. 581–618.

Rampton, Ben: Crossing: language and ethnicity among adolescents. St. Jerome Press: Manchester 2005.

Parr, Rolf: „Liminale und andere Übergänge. Theoretische Modellierungen von Grenzzonen, Normalitätsspektren, Schwellen, Übergängen und Zwischenräumen in Literatur und Kulturwissenschaft“. In: Geisenhanslüke, Achim/Mein, Georg (eds.): Schriftkultur und Schwellenkunde. transcript: Bielefeld 2008, pp. 11–64.

Tokarski, Jan: Fleksja Polska. PWN: Warszawa 2001.

Turner, Victor W.: “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage”. In: Helm, June (ed.): Symposium on New Approaches to the Study of Religion: Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society. American Ethnological Society: Seattle 1964, pp. 4–20.

Turner, Victor W.; “Liminalität und Communitas”. In: Belliger, Andréa / Krieger, David J. (ed): Ritualtheorien. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen/Wiesbaden. 1998, pp. 251–262.

Wande, Erling / Anward, Jan / Nordberg, Bengt / Steensland, Lars / Thelander, Mats (eds.) Aspects of multilingualism. Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism. Brtstrom: Upsala 1987.

Wei, Li (ed.): The Bilingualism Reader. Routledge: London 2000. ← 248 | 249 →


1  Kimura, Goro Christoph : “Strategie komunikacji językowej na polsko-nemieckim pograniczu.” In: Koutny, Ilona / Nowak, Piotr (eds.): Język. Kommunikacja. Informacja. Language. Communication. Information. (Poznań), 8/2013, pp. 109–124.

2  I use the term language mixing phenomena according to Földes (2005, pp. 68–69, 71) as generic term for a variety of language contact inducted phenomena characterized by synchronic lexical and structural combination of two languages (or varieties). They include:

a)  the alternating use of more than one language by a single speaker within a conversation

b)  the language-contact-induced phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical influence between the languages.

3  “Gleichzeitig zeigen Phänomene wie beispielsweise Code-switching oder Code-mixing bei multilingualen Sprechern, dass Sprachen Spielraum für Durchlässigkeit bieten.”

4  Cunha, Conceição et al. (eds.): Über Grenzen sprechen. Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa und der Welt. Königshausen & Neumann: Würzburg 2012.

5  „More in resonance with the viewpoints and ambitions of linguistic anthropology (Duranti 1997), we therefore finally converged on the dialectological tradition, on that is familiar with the concept ‘speech variety’ (fr. parler) and its problematic borders (Straka/Gardette 1973) and sensitive in its empirical approach to the organisation by the witnesses themselves of their day-to-day experience of linguistic diversity and its ‘borders’ or ‘discontinuities’, crossed in moving from one way of speaking to another as well as in the geographical traversal of a fragmented space (Walt et al. 1973, Poche 1996)” (Greco/Renaud/Taquechel 2013, p. 44).

6  Cf. Audehm, Katrin / Velten, Hans Rudolf (eds): Transgression, Hybridisierung, Differenzierung, Zur Performativität von Grenzen in Sprache, Kultur und Gesellschaft. Rombach: Freiburg 2007.

Jungbluth, Konstanze: „Aus zwei mach eins: Switching, mixing, getting different“. In: Jańczak, Barbara/ Jungbluth, Konstanze/ Weydt, Harald (eds.): Mehrsprachigkeit aus deutscher Perspektive. Narr: Tübingen 2012, pp. 45–72.

7  Further cultural science studies focussing on the concept of the border are among others:

Faber, Richard / Naumann, Barbara (eds.): Literatur der Grenze – Theorie der Grenze. Königshausen & Neumann: Würzburg 1995.

Rolf Parr: „Liminale und andere Übergänge. Theoretische Modellierungen von Grenzzonen, Normalitätsspektren, Schwellen, Übergängen und Zwischenräumen in Literatur und Kulturwissenschaft“. In: Geisenhanslüke, Achim/Mein, Georg (eds.): Schriftkultur und Schwellenkunde, transcript: Bielefeld 2008, pp. 11–64.

Geisen, Thomas / Karcher, Allen (eds.): Grenze: Sozial – Politisch – Kulturell. Ambivalenzen in den Prozessen der Entstehung und Veränderung von Grenzen. IKO-Verlag: Frankfurt am Main 2003.

8  Hinnenkamp, Volker / Meng, Katharina (eds.): Sprachgrenzen überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis. Narr: Tübingen 2005.

9  Rampton, Ben: Crossing: language and ethnicity among adolescents. St. Jerome Press: Manchester 2005.

10  Gogolin, Ingrid: „Sprachen rein halten – eine Obsession“. In: Gogolin, Ingrid / List, Günther / Graap, Sabine (eds.): Über Mehrsprachigkeit. Stauffenburg-Verlag: Tübingen 1998, pp. 71 – 96.

11  “‘Linguistic border crossing’, as one of the central results of our study, is a common feature of the linguistic practice of multilingual speakers. Blending of or switching between languages not only occur ‘out of necessity’ or unnoticed by the speakers itself [...]. It is rather, as it seems, a ‘stylistic device’ of multilingual people and often a result of a conscious choice.” (Gogolin 1998: 75, translation D.Z.R.)

„‚Sprachliches Grenzgängertum’ so eines der zentralen Ergebnisse unserer Untersuchung, ist ein gewöhnliches Merkmal der sprachlichen Praxis Mehrsprachiger. Das Vermengen von oder Wechseln zwischen Sprachen geschieht keineswegs nur ‚der Not gehorchend’ oder als von den Sprechenden selbst unbemerkt vollzogene Routine […]. Vielmehr ist es, wie es scheint, darüber hinaus ein ‚Stilmittel’ mehrsprachiger Menschen, nicht selten Ausdruck einer bewussten Wahl.“ (Gogolin 1998: 75)

12  Földes, Csaba: Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachenkontakt und Sprachenmischung. (Flensburger Papiere zur Mehrsprachigkeit und Kulturenvielfalt im Unterricht; 14/15). Flensburg 1996.

13  „Eines ihrer hervorstechender Merkmale besteht darin, dass der bilinguale Sprecher (im zweisprachigen Diskurs- bzw. Interaktionsmodus) z. B. regelmäßig aus der jeweils anderen Sprache (bzw. Varietät) Elemente, Strukturen und Muster übernimmt und/oder die Sprachen abwechselnd benutzt, was zu verschiedenen Arten von Sprachmischung führt. […] Mitglieder zwei- bzw. mehrsprachiger Gemeinschaften trennen nämlich ihre Sprachwelten in aller Regel nicht strikt, sondern überschreiten in ihrer gesprochensprachlicher kommunikativen Alltagspraxis kreativ die Grenzen einer Sprache, indem sie kommunikative Möglichkeiten aus mehreren sprachlichen und kulturellen Systemen in den Dienst einer effektiven Kommunikation stellen.“

14  „Inspired by the tradition of dialectological investigations and by forming an analogy with the concept of ‚dialect variation areas’, we examined, in the ‘language space’ opened by any interaction, the implementation of phenomena we have called ‘border crossing’, which can signify on the one hand the limit reached by specific ‘ways of doing’, and on the other the anchoring of this process in a new ‘language space’ categorised and treated as referring to other ‘ways of doing’” (Greco/Renaud/Taquechel 2013, p. 34).

15  Poplack, Shana: “Sometimes I´ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Español: Toward a typology of code-switching”. In: Linguistics 18, 1980, pp. 581–618.

16  As we will see in the analysis of the examples of German-Polish language mixing, the transfer of the phonetic, morphological or syntactic elements will be rather asymmetrical.

17  Turner, Victor W.: “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage”. In: Helm, June (ed.): Symposium on New Approaches to the Study of Religion: Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society. American Ethnological Society: Seattle 1964, pp. 4–20.

Turner, Victor W.; “Liminalität und Communitas”. In: Belliger, Andréa / Krieger, David J. (ed): Ritualtheorien. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen/Wiesbaden. 1998, pp. 251–262.

18  Clyne, Michael: „Constraints on code-switching: how universal are they?” In: Wei, Li (ed.): The Bilingualism Reader. Routledge: London 2000, pp. 257–80.

19  McCormick, Kay: Language in Cape Town’s District Six. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2002.

20  Bhabha, Homi: The Location of Culture. Routledge: London 1994.

21  Gugenberger Eva: „Der dritte Raum in der Sprache. Sprachliche Hybridisierung am Beispiel galicischer Migrant/inn/en in Buenos Aires“. In: Cichon, Peter/ Czernilofsky, Barbara/ Tanzmeister, Robert/ Hönigsperger, Astrid (eds.): Entgrenzungen. Für eine Soziologie der Kommunikation. Praesens: Wien 2005, pp. 354–376.

22  Data were collected during the time period 05.2012 – 03.2013.

23  Abbreviations: A – first latter of the informants name, 12 – class/semester, RJO – acronym of the school/university name (Robert Jungk Oberschule), KLG (Karl-Liebknecht Gymnasium), EUV (Europa-University Viadrina).

24  “Characteristics of smooth CS include copious occurrences, smooth transitions between languages, and lack of rhetorical effect.” (Poplack 2004, p. 593)

25  Poplack, Shana: “Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities.” In: Wande, Erling / Anward, Jan / Nordberg, Bengt / Steensland, Lars / Thelander, Mats (eds.) Aspects of multilingualism. Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, Brtstrom: Upsala 1987, pp. 51–77.

26  The data is annotated with the Stuttgart-Tübingen Tagset (see the list of abbreviations at the end of this article)

27  Kreja, Bogusław: Z morfonologii i morfotaktyki współczesnej polszczyzny. Ossolineum: Wrocław 1989.

28  Pohl (1987) explains the gender assignement of German loanwords in Polish as follows: „This decision is usually not made according to the gender which the particular loanword has in German, but according to its morphophonemic representation. The final sound of the German noun plays a a key role here. If the final sound is a consonant, the loanword will very probably receive the masculine gender (…).”(Pohl 1987, p. 192–193. my translation).

“Diese Entscheidung wird jedoch – in der Regel – nicht aufgrund der Kenntnis des Genus getroffen, das das jeweilige Lehnwort im Deutschen hat, sondern aufgrund seiner morpho-phonetischen Repräsentation. Dabei spielt der Auslaut des deutschen Nomen die entscheidende Rolle. Lautet das Lehnwort z. B. konsonantisch aus, so wird ihm – in der Regel – das Genus Maskulinum zugeordnet (…).“

29  “The Equivalence Constraint: Code-switches will tend to occur at points in discourse where the juxtaposition of L1 and L2 elements does not violate a syntactic rule of either language, i.e. at points around which the surface structure of the two languages map onto each other.” (Poplack 1980, p. 586)

30  This example confirms the mechanism of morphological adaptation of German nouns in Polish described by Laskowski (1987): „(...) The foundation for the inflectional adaptation is the reinterpretation of the German noun in its first person singular form into the nominative form of the first person singular in Polish. The primary factor is hereby the phonological form of the final sound in the nominative singular in the source language, the gender of the borrowed noun plays merely a subordinate role.” (Laskowski 1987, p. 129, my translation)

“(…) istota mechanizmu fleksyjnej adaptacji sprowadza sie die reinterpretacji niemieckiej formy mianownika 1.poj. danego rzeczownika jako formy mianownika 1. poj. w jezyku polskim, przy czym podstawowym czynnikiem determinujacym kierunek tej reinterpretacji jest fonologiczna postac wyglosu formy N.sg. w jezyku zrodlowym, podczas gdy rodzaj gramatyczny zapozyczonego rzeczownika odgrywa jedynie role podrzedna.”

31  This example can be considered as insertion according to Muysken (2000), as the noun Bundesverfassungsgericht is modified morphologically and embedded into the structure defined by Polish as the Matrix Language providing the case morpheme -em.

32  Bugajski, Marian: „Puszczam strzala, bo mam stresa“. In: Dąbkowski, Grzegorz (ed.): Reverendissimae Halinae Satkiewicz cum magna aestimatione. Warszawa 2008, pp. 67–75.