HSK 'Language and space' 14: Horizontal convergence of linguistic varieties in a language space Beat Siebenhaar

1. Introduction

In traditional diachronic map-based dialectology, priority is given to divergence in an originally uniform language space (cf. Schrambke, this volume; Harnisch, this volume). Dialect divergence is explained by natural or man-made borders which limit the spread of a change as they impede communication and interaction (Bach 1969: 80–81; Murray, this volume; Paul 1920: § 22-25; Trudgill 1986). Auer (2004) suggests a cognitive interpretation of these borders as mental borders that crystallize out of cultural and political borders. In contrast to this, the focus of this chapter is on the convergence of varieties in a language space. Convergence is a process by which similarities between varieties increase. It implies a historical dimension and therefore language change. If one reverses the above-mentioned argument, convergence and leveling of varieties should be the result of communication between speakers, or of the speakers' idea of a common belonging. Leveling and mixing leads to less diversity and more uniformity, which can imply convergence towards a common standard variety in a dialect-standard language dimension (cf. Røyneland, this volume). On the other hand, there are processes of mixing or leveling between dialects that are beyond the dialect-standard language dimension. This chapter on horizontal convergence deals with these processes. However, in areas with an established standard language it is often difficult to clearly separate horizontal convergence from vertical convergence (cf. Hinskens/Auer/Kerswill 2005, Radtke 2006).

2 Some terms and definitions

Convergence in a broad sense refers to the reduction of differences between varieties. Divergence, in contrast, refers to an increase of differences between varieties. But convergence and divergence often are just two sides of the same coin: When a variety reduces the differences to one variety it normally increases the differences to another, as already argued by Martinet (1962: 105). For instance, convergence of the varieties of Lëtzebuergesch towards central Luxemburgish involves giving up east Luxemburg features and, therefore, a divergence from the Mosel Franconian dialects of German (Gilles 1998, 1999). Similar developments are shown in Siebenhaar (2008) where particular aspects of regional convergence in Bern in Switzerland imply a divergence from features of neighboring varieties although these are closer to standard German. Developments of regional convergence which imply a divergence from the standard variety have also been documented in the Western Central German area (Bellmann 1998).

2.1 Manifestations of convergence

In historical linguistics following the Neogrammarian approach (cf. Murray, this volume) a main focus was laid on explaining language change within a concept of divergence that can be reduced to sound laws that allow no exception. This concept is visualized and idealized in the family tree diagrams of historical linguistics. However, the sound laws show exceptions. Besides analogy, the main explanation of these exceptions was found in lexical borrowings. Borrowings are induced by interaction between speakers and therefore were conceived as externally motivated language change. The consequence of borrowings are dialect mixing and leveling between dialects, thus a reduction of differences, i.e. convergence. Convergence on the horizontal level can manifest itself in three forms. On the one hand there may be a displacement of isoglosses. In these cases, the variety borrowing a feature from a neighboring variety converges to this variety and at the same time diverges from other varieties that maintain this feature. Displacement of isoglosses has often been described in martial metaphors as driving a wedge into a linguistic area, repelling, driving back a variant (cf. the models of areal distribution of linguistic forms in Goossens 1977). A classical example is the Rhenish fan that represents the High German consonant shift in space, and its traditional interpretation, for instance in the work of Theodor Frings. As a second manifestation there can be a dialect leveling, i.e. a convergence of varieties in an area. Each of these varieties looses those features that distinguishes them from the surrounding majority of varieties. Therefore levelling can be seen as a convergence of the minority variety to the majority variety. In this sense leveling is unilateral and corresponds to Mattheier's (1996: 34) advergence. For example, Hinskens (1996) discusses the loss of the /x ~ ç/ allophony rule in the Limburg dialect region of Holland, where /ç/ wins and occupies the place of /x/ in standard Dutch. Christen (1998: 179–185) documents the loss of local phonetic and morphological variants in favor of regional forms in Swiss German dialects. For instance, the local diphthongs [eɪ̯ / oʊ̯] for MHG ê / ô, â in parts of the canton Schwyz (as in Leirer, 'teacher', Oubed 'evening') are given up in favor of Leerer, Aabed which are general Zürich variants. Bothorel-Witz and Huck (2000) document among other phenomena the loss of the Alsatian palatalisation of MHG u: Hünd becomes Hund 'dog', Lümpe becomes Lumpe 'floorcloth'. All these 'winning' forms have a broader acceptance in the dialectological space and partially correspend to standard German. In these cases it is therefore difficult to separate horizontal and vertical convergence. A third form of convergence is koineization, which is the emergence of a de-localized variety. Unlike levelling, where one dialect looses features not present in the other, koineization involves

a mixing of features of different dialects resulting in a stabilized compromise dialect as a result of contact between speakers of mutually intelligible varieties of a language. Koineization therefore cannot be described on the level of single features. It necessarily involves a set of different features. Kerswill (2002a) describes the emergence of a de-localized variety in the new town of Milton Keynes. Trudgill (2008) argues that dialect mixture in the colonial varieties of European languages, such as Brazilian Portuguese, Canadian French, and Australian English, is an inevitable result of dialect contact. A koiné, however, does not necessarily imply that the basic dialects are abandoned. In ancient Greek, the koiné did not replaced the dialects but it was used as lingua franca between speakers of different dialects. In New Zealand, on the other hand, where the speakers of the traditional British English dialects were delocalized, the English koiné emerged as a new vernacular, as the old dialects had lost their speech communities (cf. Lenz, this volume).

2.2 Linguistic variables: from the lexicon to phonetics and pragmatics

In principle, convergence in space can be found on every level of the linguistic system. However, there has been more research in the traditional dialectological fields of phonetics, morphology, and lexicon, while it is harder to find studies on phonology and pragmatics. Convergence in syntax is often the focus of typological studies. Since the Neogrammarians, lexical borrowing has been seen as a main trigger of horizontal convergence. Borrowings are easily integrated into the open system of the receiving language's lexicon. Such borrowings are more often observed in vernacular varieties near the language found than in the interior or a language area (cf. the documentations of French borrowings in Swiss German by Steiner 1921, in Alsatian by Bothorel-Witz and Huck 2000, in the Saarland dialects by Braun and Treib 2008). Lexical borrowings, however, are more likely in closely related varieties than cross languages. The Swiss-German dialects are all Alemannic dialects, and mutually intelligible. In the linguistic atlas of German-speaking Switzerland (SDS; IV 83) the verb 'to nudge' is represented by 15 lexical types with some phonetic variants. In the midlands there is an eastern type stupfe/stüpfe and a western type mupfe/müpfe. The areal distribution of the wedge-shaped isogloss suggest that the eastern type stupfe/stupfe has been borrowed into the western area, thereby driving back the traditional mupfe/müpfe type. The lexical difference of the two dialects decreases, and the dialects are levelled out, i.e. they are converging. Borrowings on the lexical level normally mark the first step of convergence referred to as Mischung 'mixing' by the Neogrammarians, while morphemes and sounds are only later transferred on the basis of a large number of borrowed words (Paul, 1920: §274–285). An

example of such a morphological convergence from language contact is the import of French derivational suffixes into medieval German and English. A multitude of French loan words of the courtly milieu ending in -erie caused the transfer of this French suffix into MHG (-erîe > -erei) and ME -erie > -ery. The suffixes are still productive and can be used with Germanic stems as in Bäckerei/bakery, Schweinerei/piggery. Again, morphological borrowing within a language from one dialect to another is more common than between languages because the morphemes can be directly transferred and must not be derived from a class of borrowed words. For instance, Renn (1994: 106 ff.) reports borrowing of Bavarian verbal flexiv -s for the 2. Person Pl. into eastern Swabian dialect areas around Augsburg: Swabian ihr geh+t 'you (Pl.) go', which corresponds to standard German ihr geh+t, is pushed back in space by the Bavarian form ihr geh+ts. It is one of the many variables that show a convergence of this traditionally Alemannic dialect region to the dialect of the political centre within the state of Bavaria (cf. SBS 1997–2008). Another example comes from the Swiss midlands where there are two paradigms for the verbal plural: the western dialects still show the two forms -e, -ed, -e like in standard German, in the eastern dialects we find a newer uniform suffix -ed for all three persons. However, there are two distinct isoglosses for the suffixes of the full verbs and the monosyllabic short verbs (such as sii 'to be', haa 'to have', tue 'to do', gaa 'to go', staa 'to stand', choo 'to come'). While the isogloss for the full verbs follows the river Reuss, the isogloss for the short verbs is found 40 km to the West. Between these two isoglosses there is a region with two different paradigms for full verbs and short verbs. Bangerter (1951: 6 and 110) interprets this situation as one in which the western forms advance while Hotzenköcherle (1984: 90) believes that of the eastern forms are advancing. His interpretation is supported by recent empirical evidence (Siebenhaar 2000: 141–146). In the central part of this region even a new compromise form has emerged for the full verbs: the combination of the eastern uniform plural and the western morphemes of the first and third persons plural has resulted in an -e-plural for all three persons, accommodating the paradigm of the full verbs to that of the short verbs. Leveling in this region is not only borrowing but results in a fusion of the two paradigms. Therefore, paradoxically, convergence results in a new paradigm that leads to divergence in this area from both neighbouring areas. Convergence on the phonetic and phonologic level can follow the same patterns. In the Neogrammarian terminology this is referred to as sound substitution (Lautersatz) in opposition to sound change (Lautwandel), which is discussed below. Once more convergence between dialects is more common but often less evident than convergence between languages, because in most cases the phoneme system is not affected; it is only a substitution of a sound in specific words (Lautersatz) or substitution of words (Wortverdrängung) that increases the relative frequency of a

sound. However, these substitutions may lead to phonological reorganization. An example: The region around Zürich has a very differentiated system of closing diphthongs with traditionally six closing diphthongs (/oʊ̯/ /æʊ̯/ /øɪ̯/ /œɪ̯/ /eɪ̯/ /æɪ̯/) (cf. Fleischer/Schmid 2006). Western dialects of Switzerland only have three closing diphthongs with a close-mid first segment (/oʊ̯/ /øɪ̯~œɪ̯ / /eɪ̯/) while we find three corresponding variants with an open-mid or open first segment in the eastern Swiss German dialects (/æʊ̯/ /œɪ̯/ /æɪ̯/). The Zürich system is now in a stage of reorganization as the close-mid diphthongs (/oʊ̯/ /øɪ̯/ /eɪ̯/) which have a low type frequency are replaced by the more open variants (/æʊ̯/ /œɪ̯/ /æɪ̯/) that have a high type frequency. Fleischer/Schmid (2006: 248) already report the merger of /øɪ̯/ and /œɪ̯/. Actual recordings in the eastern (Siebenhaar, unpublished) and in the western parts (Siebenhaar 2000) also unveil insecurities in the use of traditional /oʊ̯/ and /eɪ̯/. So frei 'free' can now be found with the traditional /eɪ̯/ as well as with a new /æɪ̯/, Sou 'sow' is realized with traditional /oʊ̯/ and with new /æʊ̯/. This substitution of sounds will result in a merger of /eɪ̯/ and /æɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/ and /æʊ̯/, respectively. The mergers level out a difference between the Zürich dialect region and the eastern dialects where these sounds have merged a long time ago; we are therefore dealing with an instance of convergence in space. However, it is also possible to link this change to the standard German system, which for the closing diphthongs is the same as the one of the eastern Swiss German dialects; in this case this change would have to be interpreted as a case of vertical convergence (Røyneland, this volume) which would have nothing to do with space. Modern examples for the spreading of sound changes in space, which seem not to originate from a word-by-word adoption, but from innersystematic principle of maximal dispersion corresponding to the Neogrammarian Lautwandel, are published in the Atlas of North American English (Labov/Ash/Boberg 2005). These maps document the phonetic dynamics of sound changes in progress and their phonological implications. Labov/Ash/Boberg base their maps not only on auditory transcriptions but also use acoustic measurements of formants, which allows to discover sound changes in progress and to reconstruct the progress of a sound change in geographical space. Implicational relationships between phonologically coherent developments shed a light on the notion of not only divergence from a uniform American English, but as well of regional convergence in the new vernaculars.

As historical pragmatics has only moved into focus in the last decades, aspects of pragmatic convergence have not yet been studied in detail. For instance, address systems have changed in most European languages as documented in the volume edited by Taavitsainen/Jucker (2003); this prominent pragmatic change is not discussed within the concept of convergence although interrelations between the different systems are often mentioned. An example may be found in

the German dialects of Bern and Freiburg, which are adjacent to the French language area. These dialects have conserved the honorific 2nd person plural pronoun and verbal form, while in most German speaking areas the 3rd person plural forms are used to express politeness. Convergence towards the new German system has therefore not yet had an influence in this area. However, over the past years, the penetration of the 3rd person plural forms has been deplored by dialect purists. Likewise, changes of communicative genres can be analyzed as part of a cultural history of communication (Linke 2007). It is possible to interpret these changes as pragmatic convergence. Until now, they are rarely linked to space. Yet, this connection could revitalize interdisciplinary cooperation of cultural anthropology and dialectology, as it was characteristic for the first half of the 20th century in the German speaking area. The following example is illustrative of this phenomenon: On the level of dialect contact, Cheshire, Kerswill, and Williams (2005) discuss the use of the discourse particles like and innit in three British towns: Hull, Milton Keynes and Reading. Like as a focus marker and a marker of reported speech has not only been observed in Britain but in urban centers throughout the English-speaking world. Its origin is supposed to be in southern California. The rapid spread of like has been associated with youth culture with an international dimension. Space can only be referred to here in the metaphoric sense of a global village, where distance does not play a crucial role any longer. However, in young people's speech there is a social class difference in Hull with the middle-class using like more often than the working-class, while in the other towns there are no such differences. The discourse marker innit has been reported to be used by young people in London for twenty years, and it is now also used by middle class Londoners. London working class youth use it non-paradigmatically, and it is exclusive to working class speakers in Hull, Milton Keynes and Reading. Cheshire, Kerswill, and Williams (2005: 156) suggest that the convergence in the use of globally innovative features such as like is not led by any single social group due to their international dissemination by US films and TV-shows. Its spread demonstrates that a convergence need not be bound by space or social class; the communicative space goes beyond the traditional geographical understanding of space. Innit on the other hand spreads in a regionally and socially defined way. Convergence here shows the classical way from one social group to the other and from one region to the other. However, Cheshire, Kerswill, and Williams (2005: 158) problematize their results asking if convergence in this case can be tied to the use of a new, invariant tag, or whether it represents a convergence in interactional style that becomes more involved and addressee-oriented, which includes new politeness strategies.

Up to now, convergence has been discussed mainly with a focus on singular phenomena. But convergence understood as a loss of structural differences normally affects more than single features. For instance, von Polenz' (1954) description of the relict area of Altenburg in Thüringen shows a bundle of concentric circles around the town. Swiss German dialectology has described the Brünig-Napf-Reuss-Grenze (Haas 2000, Weiss 1947), where many isoglosses separating eastern and western linguistic forms coincide. Wiesinger's (1983) map of the German dialect areas shows central dialect areas with only few isoglosses and transition areas that are marked by isogloss bundles. Such distributions with a coincidence of many isoglosses suggest that a spread of new forms will also stop at the isogloss bundles. Additional isoglosses therefore increase divergence at these borders and increase convergence within the more coherent areas. Actual data on this aspect is rare, albeit some evidence can be found in the MRhSA. Here, ongoing changes of the realization of MHG â, MHG a or MHG üe seem to bundle at the isogloss of the voiced and unvoiced variants of /z/. Similar results for the Main Fraconian area are reportet by Schunk (1999). In this area, the isogloss separating palatal and velar realizations of a is reinforced by the actual development of regional dialects, which are the result of dialect convergence.

3 Diachronic and synchronic evidence

Convergence has an intrinsically diachronic dimension. Research on language in space collects data in different places to represent spatial diversity. Adding a diachronic perspective at least doubles the amount of data needed. Moreover, over the years research interest change, so that directly comparable data recorded with the same method at different times and places are rarely available. In most cases the old questionnaires and methods are adapted to the new questions (e.g. Bigler 1979, Cornips/Corrigan, 2005, Schifferle 1995). Yet, Bailey (2002) stresses that even small differences in sampling procedures may have significant effects on the results. Furthermore, demographic changes influence the results and must not be confused with actual linguistic change. Panel studies with the same subjects after a certain time pose practical problems. For the interpretation of the results it has to be kept in mind that individual speakers can change their linguistic behavior in different ways, as documented in Bausch (2000) or Siebenhaar (2002) in two of the few panel studies on German dialects. Although a direct analysis of convergence or, generally, language change in space is therefore often not possible, the real-time diachronic dimension can be substituted by synchronic evidence. Since Labov's (1963, 1966) famous studies on Martha's Vineyard and in New York City the apparent-time construct, which interprets synchronic variation as change in time, has become an established substitute for the real-time observations of language change. One of the atlases that use the apparent-time method is the Mittelrheinische Sprachatlas (MRhSA, cf. the methodological discussion in Bellmann 1986). Many phenomena are presented in two maps, one

displaying the traditional dialect of the NORMs, while the other represents the realizations of the middle aged generation that is more mobile. Differences between corresponding locations can be interpreted as language change. When these changes occur in coherent areas or when they bundle at one side of the isoglosses they can be interpreted as changes in space.

Figure 1 West Germanic p: pfeifen 'to pipe/to whistle' (MRhSA 1999: 320); The red symbols mark differences

between the first (older speakers) and the second (younger speakers) recording series. Fig. 1 gives an example for this biserial mapping. The red symbols indicate places where the younger mobile subjects use another variant than the older subjects. The map shows that at the along the lower Moselle the younger mobile subjects replace the voiceless labiodental fricative– dominant in the greater part of the investigation area and, moreover, corresponding to the standard German form – (here, in the intervocal position in the word pfeifen ‘to whiste’) by a new, voiced bilabial or labiodental fricative. The apparent-time construct allows for the interpretation of this difference as language change, and a convergence towards a regional dialect. Another, more traditional substitute for the temporal dimension is of course areal distribution. Based on the assumption that language change spreads in space, linguistic maps can be interpreted historically. An example is given in fig. 2 which shows the distribution of the personal

pronoun uns ('us', dative and accusative) in the Swiss-German dialects. The OHG accusative form unsih is first transformed to üns (following German sound laws: umlaut u > ü before i and syllable reduction). This form of the pronoun is still found in the southwest of Bern. Emanating from this form we find two developments. The result of the first development is insch/ünsch in eastern Wallis and Graubünden. Here, s is palatalizid to sch [ʃ] and partially ü [y] is unrounded to i. The second development again starts from the form üns: the area with the form üs [y:s] shows elision of n and a lengthening of the vowel, a development known as Staub's law. In the area with öis, then, the long vowel is diphthongized. Finally, in the northeast (Basel), the standard German form is adopted, which is the reflex of the dative form OHG uns.

Figure 2: uns 'us' (dative/accussative) (Hotzenköcherle 1961: 221)

Following this line of argument, the areal distribution reflects diachronic change. Any of these steps is a divergent step away from the previous variant. Fig. 3 shows the classical example of the Rhenish fan: The gradual progression of the High German consonant shift in space which results in a graded landscape (Staffellandschaft). In the southern dialects all voiceless plosives are affected by the consonant shift. The northern German dialects do not take part in this sound change, whereas in the central German dialects, the sounds are only partially affected, and furthermore only in certain contexts. In the entire upper and central German area intervocalic voiceless plosives became geminated fricatives (maken/machen

in fig. 3), or postvocalically, in final position, single fricatives. However, the highly frequent articles (dat/das in fig. 3) show isoglosses further down south, and the pronouns (sik/sich, ik/ich) isoglosses further up north. In initial position, in the geminate and after a consonant the voiceless plosives /t, p, k/ became affricates /ts, pf, kx/; /pf/ was later simplified to /f/ after liquida. The shift /t/>/ts/ affected all central and upper German dialects, while /k/>/kx/ only affected the south Alemannic and south Bavarian dialects. The shift /p/>/pf/ shows a gradual distribution in the central German dialects: a shift after a liquid consonant south of the Eifel (dorp/dorf in fig. 3), an additional shift after nasals and in the geminate in the south of Speyer (appel/apfel in fig. 3), and finally some kilometers further south, a shift in all positions (pund>pfund.

Figure 3: Rhenish fan (Wolf 1983: 1118)

Frings (1957, based on earlier studies) interprets this areal distribution as a development that started in the southern dialects and affected more and more northern dialects; therefore, it reflects a convergence of northern to southern dialects. However, this monogenetic approach is not uncontroversional today (cf. the discussion in Wolf 1983).

4 Factors leading to convergence

Convergence is mainly understood as being contact induced and therefore externally motivated. Yet internal factors such as homogenization and simplification as well as reduction of

intrasystemic quantitative variation can also be part of convergence. Often, internal and external factors are hard to distinguish. Moreover, what is an internal sound change in one variety can be transferred to another by borrowing and lexical diffusion. The above-mentioned reduction of the diphthong system in Zürich is an example for this pattern of an ongoing contact induced phonemic merger. On the basis of opening and closing of vowels, Haas (1978) has shown how internal changes within one dialect can spread to other dialects through contact. In the different dialects which have adopted the features, the new sounds can lead to different inner-systematic homogenizations and thus to different systems. And these new systems can again be diffused. The following sections try to separate internal and external motivations of convergence in space.

4.1 Sociolinguistic factors

Traditionally, differences between dialects are explained by natural or man-made borders, which impede or restrict communication (Bach 1969: 80–81; Murray, this volume; Paul 1920: § 22-25; Trudgill 1986). As a consequence, linguistic features are kept from spreading, and the coherence of the systems on both sides of the border is strengthened, as Schifferle (1995) shows for the border of Germany and Switzerland, and Harnisch (this volume) for the former border between East and West Germany. Schönfeld, Reiner, Grünert (2001) document the linguistic differences in the formerly divided city of Berlin, where the dialect has converged to BRD or GDR norms on the western and eastern side of the border respectively. Another example is the Northern Cities Shift in American English. The shift does not cross the political border between the United States and Canada (Boberg 2000, Labov/Ash/Boberg 2005). In reversing the argument, Aubin, Frings, Müller (1926) use linguistic borders to reconstruct and explain cultural history (cf. Knobloch, this volume). Since in the last decades the political boundaries have become less relevant in Europe, and since modern means of transportation surmount natural borders, one would expect the linguistic effects of borders to disappear; nevertheless, the linguistic borders coinciding with the political borders remain and are even reinforced, as Auer (2004) shows for the political borders of Germany. He argues that the political borders do not directly influence the communicative and linguistic borders, but that instead, divergence at these borders is a result of cognitive structures; the idea of a linguistic space, which is bound to (former) political borders, also creates linguistic borders. The consequence is that speakers who believe to be speaking the same dialect give up linguistic features that separate them from the group they want to belong to. Convergence therefore is a consequence of the speaker's believe of speaking the same variety. Mobility and migration favor convergence as the contact between formerly distinct varieties increases. This aspect is not only important for language contact, but also for convergence between dialects, which are affected by commuters' movements and by small-scale internal migration. Convergence occurs as migrants from nearby areas do not or only partially adapt to

local forms that in consequence disappear. Wolfensberger (1967) has shown this process in an early apparent-time study for the small town of Stäfa that came within the linguistic sphere of influence of the metropolis Zürich. The opposite holds for commuters (Muhr 1981, Siebenhaar 2000) who disfavor local variants and adopt variants of a greater regional acceptance, which again leads to convergence. Convergence is a notion on an interactional, on an individual and on a grammatical level and it is one of the key concepts of accommodation theory (Giles 1984). Within this interactionist theory the focus lies on the performance of the individual. In an interaction, an individual accommodates to his interlocutors either in a converging or in a diverging way. In converging s/he avoids the distinctive features of his/her own variety or even adopts those of his/her coparticipant. Converging accommodation – linguistically and on other behavioral dimensions – is seen as a psychologically motivated effort to gain the interlocutor's respect or to show solidarity. Based on Bell's audience design (Bell 1984, 2006) and Le Page and Tabouret-Keller's acts of identity model (1985), Auer/Barden/Großkopf (1998) propose an identity projection model. In this model speakers do not only converge towards their interlocutors but also towards linguistic stereotypes of positively connotated groups. On the other hand, accommodation can also be diverging: in order to indicate dissent, a speaker can increase the linguistic and behavioral distance from his or her interlocutor. This short-term accommodation within an interaction is not permanent. However, if speakers regularly accommodate in a similar way over a longer period of time, this can lead to a long-term accommodation (Trudgill 1986: 11-38). If it stabilizes, it leads to a convergence on the level of the linguistic system. In recent years, many publications have identified prestige and attitudes as driving forces in language change. In the vertical dimension prestige seems to be one of the prominent factors for convergence. Up to now, however, there is no clear support for this claim on the horizontal dimension. Three recent studies on language change and positive attitudes towards the place (Ortsloyalität) carried out in Switzerland (Hofer 1997, Leuenberger 1999, Siebenhaar 2000) are quite critical with respect to the causal link between attitudinal factors and language change. On the other hand, Barden and Großkopf (1998) can establish attitudes as an explaining factor for long-term accommodation of former GDR migrants in the west of Germany. For Schirmunski (1930), the salience of primary dialect features is a major stimulus for convergence. Without reference to Schirmunski, Trudgill (1986) identifies salience as one of the factors favoring accommodation as well, thereby moving the focus from language change to individual adaptation. However, salience is still a concept which is hard to define, as subjective

factors such as attitude, prestige and stigmatizing effects, as well as objective factors like frequency, inner-systemic transparency, and linguistic contrast are involved independently of each other. Furthermore, Auer, Barden, and Großkopf (1998) have shown that objective and subjective salience factors play different roles in the accommodation of lexicalized and non-lexicalized features. Salience thus seems to be important for convergence of dialects. Nevertheless, it is only a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a linguistic feature to be affected by accommodation.

4.2 Structural factors

Although external factors are seen as the main reason for convergence, there are some structural aspects that have to be taken into account. Horizontal convergence in space may be supported by the standard variety, if the standard has the same form as the converged-to dialect. The opposite may hold if dialects converge in order to increase the distance from the standard. The expansion of l-vocalization from the western to the eastern Swiss-German dialects (Christen 2001), the emergence of regional substandard varieties in northern Germany in the 16th century (Elmentaler 2005) and the spread of the coronalization of the voiceless velar fricative [ç]> [ɕ] in western Germany (Herrgen 1986) are examples. In general, already similar structures favor convergence while distinct structures favor divergence. Intra-systematic coherence is the main factor of internally motivated language change for the structuralists. Already in 1918, Pfalz formulated the theory that vowels change in ‘rows’ (Reihenschritte), meaning that front and back vowels of the same height and tension undergo the same sound changes. Wiesinger (1970) applied this concept to all of the German dialects. Likewise, Labov's principles of vowel shifting (1994: 116) for English can be seen in the context of an intrasystematic coherence of sound change. As internal and external factors co-occur (cf. Torgersen/Kerswill 2004), it can be observed that a change is often not singular in nature; instead structurally related aspects change along with it in a similar way. This does not only apply to the sound system but also to morphology. Siebenhaar (2000) has shown that convergence affects the parts of a subsystem in a similar way; convergence of one subsystem, however, must not affect other subsystems. For the dialect of the small town of Aarau in Switzerland, factor analysis revealed that the vowel system tends to converge to the western dialects and to standard German, while morphology tends to converge to the eastern dialects. A growing number of studies within the framework of Optimality Theory discuss phonological and morphological change in regional substandard varieties (cf. Bresnan/Deo/Sharma 2007, Herrgen 2005, Wegener 1999). Convergence within this model can be seen as a transfer of

constraints or rankings of constraints from one variety to another, which may – but need not – result in convergence in the surface systems.

4.3 Frequency

Another relevant factor is the frequency of the respective form, as already pointed out by Jakobson (1931). Highly used positions with a high functional load in a phoneme system are strengthened, while weakly used positions with a low functional load tend to be lost (see Martinet 1955: 91 for another formulation of this position). Frequency in this sense means frequency of linguistic structures. However, frequency of social contacts can also matter. Bloomfield (1933: 476) postulated a principle of density which says that people automatically influence each other's language whenever they speak to each other. This principle is applied again by Labov (2001) who believes that the diffusion of a linguistic change can be reduced to a simple calculation and that "the principle of density implicitly asserts that we do not have to search for a motivating force behind the diffusion of linguistic change. The effect is a mechanical and inevitable one; the implicit assumption is that social evaluation and attitudes play a minor role." (Labov 2001: 20) However, the concept of frequency is not as simple as it seems: type frequency and token frequency have to be separated, different levels of the linguistic system may interfere with different frequencies, and measuring frequency in spoken interaction is still a challenge. So, in actual research on convergence frequency effects have rarely been analysed.

5. Conclusions

Convergence is a process by which varieties become more similar due to frequent communication between speakers or due to the speakers' believe to speak a common variety (and belonging to one social group). It is observed both on the vertical, dialect-standard language dimension and on the horizontal, dialect-dialect dimension. A clear distinction is often not possible. Convergence can be observed in all parts of the linguistic system, from phonetics to pragmatics. Nevertheless, lexical borrowings are often seen as the starting point of convergence. Out of lexical borrowings, morphological or phonological elements can be generalized, which may lead to grammatical convergence. However, if the varieties are closely related, it is also possible that morphemes, phonemes and phonetic features are directly borrowed from one system into another. On the horizontal level, convergence becomes manifest in a) a displacement of isoglosses, b) unilateral convergence or advergence, or c) koineization, which is the emergence of a de-localized variety. Most often convergence can be found in closely related varieties with intensive contact of their speakers. Methodologically, convergence can be documented by real-time comparison. The apparent-time construct interprets synchronic variation as a consequence of changes in time and is used as a substitute for real-time observation. The areal distribution of linguistic features may

also be interpreted as a function of time. Convergence is most often explained as contact induced and therefore externally caused. Explanations for convergence in space can be seen in structural factors such as a roofing language that influences horizontal convergence, or frequency. However, external aspects are mostly believed to be the main factors: sociogeographic or mental structures, migration, overt and covert prestige, attitudes and salience have been considered as having an impact on convergence. Most of these explanations can directly or indirectly be related to an accommodation model of speech.

References

Aubin, Hermann, Frings, Theodor, and Josef Müller 1926 Kulturströmungen und Kulturprovinzen in den Rheinlanden. Geschichte, Sprache, Volkskunde. Bonn: Röhrscheid. Auer, Peter 2004 Sprache, Grenze, Raum. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 23/2, 149–179. Auer, Peter, Birgit Barden, and Beate Großkopf 1998 Subjective and objective parameters determining 'salience' in long-term dialect accommodation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2, 163–187. Bach, Adolf 1969 Deutsche Mundartforschung. Ihre Wege, Ergebnisse und Aufgaben. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Winter. Bailey, Guy 2002 Real and Apparent Time. In: J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.): The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden MA, Oxford UK: Blackwell: 312–332. (= Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics) Barden, Birgit and Beate Großkopf 1998 Sprachliche Akkommodation und soziale Integration. Sächsische Übersiedler und Übersiedlerinnen im rhein-/moselfränkischen und alemannischen Sprachraum. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Phonai 43) Bausch, Karl-Heinz 2000 Dialektologie und interpretative Soziolinguistik am Beispiel des Sprachwandels im Rhein-Neckar-Raum. In: Stellmacher, Dieter (ed.): Dialektologie zwischen Tradition und Neuansätzen. Beiträge der Internationalen Dialektologentagung, Göttingen, 19.-21. Oktober 1998. Stuttgart: F. Steiner: 78–98. (= ZDL Beihefte 109) Bell, Allan 1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204. Bell, Allan 2006 Speech Accommodation Theory and Audience Design. In: Keith Brown (ed.): Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 648–651. Bellmann, Günter 1986 Zweidimensionale Dialektologie. In: Bellmann, Günter (ed.): Beiträge zur Dialektologie am Mittelrhein. Stuttgart: F. Steiner: 1–55. (= Mainzer Studien zur Sprach- und Volksforschung 10) Bellmann, Günter 1998 Between Base Dialect and Standard Language. Folia linguistica, 32, 23–34.

Bigler, Niklaus Jakob 1979 Mundartwandel im mittleren Aargau. Eine Untersuchung zu den heutigen Sprachverhältnissen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ost- und Westschweizerdeutsch. Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Las Vegas: Lang. (= Europäische Hochschulschriften I, 264) Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt. Boberg, Charles 2000 Geolinguistic Diffusion and the U.S.-Canada Border. Language Variation and Change, 12, 1–24 Bothorel-Witz, Arlette und Dominique Huck 2000 Die Dialekte im Elsaß zwischen Tradition und Modernität. In: Stellmacher, Dieter (ed.): Dialektologie zwischen Tradition und Neuansätzen. Beiträge der Internationalen Dialektologentagung, Göttingen, 19.-21. Oktober 1998. Stuttgart: F. Steiner: 143–155. (= ZDL Beihefte 109) Braun, Edith and Evelyn Treib 2008 Keine Fisimatenten: Französische Wörter in saarländischen Mundarten. Merzig: Gollenstein. Bresnan, Joan, Ashwini Deo, and Devyani Sharma 2007 Typology in Variation: A Probabilistic Approach to be and n't in the Survey of English Dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 11.2, 301–346. Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, and Ann Williams 2005 Phonology, grammar, and discourse in dialect convergence. In: Auer, Peter, Frans Hinskens, and Paul Kerswill (eds.): Dialect Change: The Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in Contemporary Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 135–167. Christen, Helen 1998 Dialekt im Alltag. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur lokalen Komponente heutiger schweizerdeutscher Varietäten. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= RGL 201) Christen, Helen 2001 Ein Dialektmarker auf Erfolgskurs: Die /l/-Vokalisierung in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 68, 16–26. Cornips, Leonie and Karen P. Corrigan 2005 Convergence and Divergence in Grammar. In: Auer, Peter, Frans Hinskens, and Paul Kerswill (eds.): Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 96–134. Elmentaler, Michael 2005 Die Rolle des überregionalen Sprachkontakts bei der Genese regionaler Umgangssprachen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 124, 395–415. Fleischer, Jürg and Stephan Schmid 2006 Zurich German. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 36/2, 243–253. Frings, Theodor 1957 Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 3rd ed. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer. Gilles, Peter 1998 Virtual Convergence and Dialect Levelling in Luxemburgish. Folia Linguistica, XXXII, 1/2, 69–82. Gilles, Peter 1999 Dialektausgleich im Lëtzebuergeschen. Zur phonetisch-phonologischen Fokussierung einer Nationalsprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (= Phonai 44)

Goossens, Jan 1977 Deutsche Dialektologie. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. (= Sammlung Göschen 2205) Haas, Walter 2000 Die deutschsprachige Schweiz. In: Bickel, Hans and Robert Schläpfer (eds.): Die viersprachige Schweiz. Aarau u.a.: Sauerländer: 57–138. (= Reihe Sprachlandschaft 25) Herrgen, Joachim 1986 Koronalisierung und Hyperkorrektion. Das palatale Allophon des /CH/-Phonems und seine Variation im Westmitteldeutschen. Stuttgart: F. Steiner (= Mainzer Studien zur Sprach- und Volksforschung 9). Herrgen, Joachim 2005 Sprachgeographie und Optimalitätstheorie. Am Beispiel der t-Tilgung in Auslaut-Clustern des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 72. 278–317. Hinskens, Frans 1996 Dialect Levelling in Limburg. Structural and sociolinguistic aspects. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 356) Hinskens, Frans, Peter Auer, and Paul Kerswill 2005 The study of dialect convergence and divergence: conceptual and methodological considerations. In: Auer, Peter, Frans Hinskens, and Paul Kerswill (eds.): Dialect Change. Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1–50. Hofer, Lorenz 1997 Sprachwandel im städtischen Dialektrepertoire. Eine variationslinguistische Untersuchung am Beispiel des Baseldeutschen. Tübingen/Basel: Francke. (= Stadtsprache – Sprachen in der Stadt am Beispiel Basels 1 / Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 72) Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf 1961 Zur Raumstruktur des Schweizerdeutschen. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, 28, 207–227. Jakobson, Roman 1931 Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 247–267. Kerswill, Paul 2002a Models of linguistic change and diffusion: new evidence from dialect levelling in British English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 187–216. Kerswill, Paul 2002b Koineization and Accommodation. In: Chambers, J. K., Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.): The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden MA, Oxford UK: Blackwell: 669–702. (= Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics) Labov, William 1963 The Social Motivation of Sound Change. Word, 19, 273–309. Labov, William 1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington. Labov, William 2001 Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, William, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg 2005 The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Sound Change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Le Page, Robert B., and Andrée Tabouret-Keller 1985 Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to ethnicity and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leuenberger, Petra 1999 Ortsloyalität als verhaltens- und sprachsteuernder Faktor. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Tübingen und Basel: A. Francke. (= Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 74) Linke, Angelika 2007 Communicative genres as categories of a cultural history of communication. In: Elspaß, Stephan, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth, and Wim Vandenbussche (eds.): Germanic language histories "from below" (1700-2000). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 473–494. (= Studia linguistica Germanica 86) Martinet, André 1962 A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mattheier, Klaus J. 1996 Varietätenkonvergenz. Überlegungen zu einem Baustein einer Theorie der Sprachvariation. Sociolinguistica, 10, 31–52. MRhSA = Bellmann, Günter, Joachim Herrgen, and Jürgen Erich Schmidt 1994–2002 Mittelrheinischer Sprachatlas. 5 Bde. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Muhr, Rudolf 1981 Sprachwandel als soziales Phänomen. Eine empirische Studie zu soziolinguistischen und soziopsychologischen Faktoren des Sprachwandels im südlichen Burgenland. Wien: Wilhelm Braunmüller (= Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich 7). Paul, Hermann 1880/1920 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Pfalz, Anton 1918 Reihenschritte im Vokalismus. Beiträge zur Kunde der bayerisch-österreichischen Mundart I (= Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien - Philosophisch-historische Klasse - Sitzungsberichte, 190/2), 22–42. Polenz, Peter von 1954 Die altenburgische Sprachlandschaft. Untersuchungen zur ostthüringischen Sprach- und siedlungsgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 1) Radtke, Edgar 2006 Konvergenz und Divergenz regionaler Varietäten. In: Ammon, Ulrich, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, and Peter Trudgill (eds.): Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. 2nd ed. : De Gruyter: 2189–2197. (= HSK 3.3) Renn, Manfred 1994 Die Mundart im Raum Augsburg. Untersuchungen zum Dialekt und zum Dialektwandel im Spannungsfeld großstädtisch-ländlicher und alemannisch-bairischer Gegensätze. Heidelberg: Winter. (= Sprache – Literatur und Geschichte 9) SBS = Sprachatlas von Bayerisch-Schwaben (1997–2008), herausgegeben von Werner König, bearbeitet von Andrea Zeisberger. Heidelberg: Winter. Schifferle, Hans-Peter 1995 Dialektstrukturen in Grenzlandschaften. Untersuchungen zum Mundartwandel im nordöstlichen Aargau und im benachbarten südbadischen Raum

Waldshut. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt, New York, Paris, Wien: Peter Lang. (= Europäische Hochschulschriften I, 1538) Schirmunski, Viktor M. 1930 Sprachgeschichte und Siedlungsmundarten. I - II. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, 18, 113–122 and 171-188. Schönfeld, Helmut, Ruth Reiner, and Sabine Grünert 2001 Berlinisch heute: Kompetenz – Verwendung – Bewertung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Schunk, Gunther 1999 Regionalisierung von Dialekten. ein lautlicher Stadt-Land-Vergleich in Mainfranken. Heidelberg: Winter. (= Schriften zum Bayerischen Sprachatlas 1) SDS = Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz (SDS). Begründet von Heinrich Baumgartner und Rudolf Hotzenköcherle. In Zusammenarbeit mit Konrad Lobeck, Robert Schläpfer, Rudolf Trüb und unter Mitwirkung von Paul Zinsli herausgegeben von Rudolf Hotzenköcherle. 1962–1997 Bern, Bd. VII und VIII Basel: Francke. Siebenhaar, Beat 2000 Sprachvariation, Sprachwandel und Einstellung. Der Dialekt der Stadt Aarau in der Labilitätszone zwischen Zürcher und Berner Mundartraum. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. (= ZDL Beihefte 108) Siebenhaar, Beat 2002 Sprachwandel von Sprachgemeinschaften und Individuen. In: Häcki Buhofer, Annelies (ed.): Spracherwerb und Lebensalter. Tübingen und Basel: A. Francke: 313 – 325. (= Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 83) Siebenhaar, Beat 2008 Sprachwandel und Sprachgeographie – der Einfluss der Stadt Bern auf die Region. In: Krefeld, Thomas (ed.): Sprachen und Sprechen im städtischen Raum. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang: 173–195. (= Spazi comunicativi - kommunikative Räume 2) Steiner, E[mil] 1921 Die französischen Lehnwörter in den alemannischen Mundarten der Schweiz; kulturhistorisch-linguistsche Untersuchung mit etymologischem Wörterbuch. Wien-Basel: A. Holzhausen – Wepf-Schwabe. Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.) 2003 Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (= Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107) Torgersen, Eivind and Paul Kerswill 2004 Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: Dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8/1, 23–53. Trudgill, Peter 1986 Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, Peter 2008 Colonial dialect contact in the history of European languages: on the irrelevance of identity to new-dialect formation. Language in society, 37(2), 241–280. Wegener, Heide 1999 Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen – ein Versuch im Rahmen der Optimalitätstheorie. Linguistik online, 4. (8.10.2008) Weiss, Richard 1947 Die Brünig-Napf-Reuß-Linie als Kulturgrenze zwischen Ost- und Westschweiz auf volkskundlichen Karten. Geographica Helvetica, 2, 153–175. Wiesinger, Peter 1970 Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. Berlin. (= Studia Linguistica Germanica 2/1 and 2/2)

Wiesinger, Peter 1983 Ergebnisse dialektologischer Beschreibungen: areale Bereiche deutscher Dialekte im Überblick. In: Besch, Werner, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.): Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter: 807–900. (= HSK 1.2) Wolf, Norbert Richard 1983 Durchführung und Verbreitung der zweiten Lautverschiebung in den deutschen Dialekten. In: Besch, Werner, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.): Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter: 1116–1121. (= HSK 1.2) Wolfensberger, Heinz 1967 Mundartwandel im 20. Jahrhundert. Dargestellt an Ausschnitten aus dem Sprachleben der Gemeinde Stäfa. Frauenfeld: Huber & Co. (= Beiträge zur schweizerdeutschen Mundartforschung 14) Prof. Dr. Beat Siebenhaar Universität Leipzig Institut für Germanistik Beethovenstr. 15 04207 Leipzig Germany siebenhaar@uni-leipzig.de http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sieben/