Language Anxiety. Restriction of Saarländisch in the Classroom

Masterarbeit , 2019 , 92 Seiten , Note: A

Sprachwissenschaft / Sprachforschung (fachübergreifend)

This thesis explores how power relationships between language varieties are related to students experiencing language anxiety. It has specifically been looked into the relationship between the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom and students experiencing language anxiety in the context of a primary school located in a rural area in the German federal state Saarland. In this area, the language variety Saarländisch is commonly not accepted within the classroom.

This thesis comprises an empirical study which has been analysed in a mix-method using both qualitative and quantitative data. The sample group consisted of 20 students in grade 4 who have been picked after answering a background questionnaire and who were then given the main questionnaire related to how Saarländisch is viewed in the classroom, the restriction of Saarländisch in school and language anxiety. Furthermore, the two teachers who teach the aforementioned students have been questioned in interviews.

It has been investigated that Saarländisch is seen as inferior to Standard German both in general and within the classroom. Even though, the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom and students’ language anxiety have been found to not have a statistically significant correlation with each other, some qualitatively and quantitatively obtained data indicated a relation between the two variables. Therefore, the definition of language anxiety should be rethought and extended referring to learning and/or using different language varieties rather than only referring to the anxiety that appears when learning and/or using a second/foreign language.

Table of content

Abstract: English

Abstract: German

Table of content

List of tables

List of figures

Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Areas of research and aim of the thesis
1.2 Definitions and explanations of terms
1.2.1 Language, dialect and variety
1.2.3 Saarländisch
1.2.4 The “restriction of Saarländisch” in the classroom
1.2.5 Anxiety
1.2.5.1 Dimensions of anxiety
1.2.5.2 Language anxiety
1.3 Outline of the thesis

Chapter 2. Review of the literature
2.1 An overview of the relationship between power and language
2.2 The power relationship between ‘high’ language varieties and ‘low’ language varieties: diglossia
2.3 An overview of different perspectives of (language) anxiety
2.4 Anxiety in language learning
2.4.1 Communicative anxiety
2.4.2 Test anxiety
2.4.3 Fear of negative evaluation
2.5 Sources of language anxiety
2.5.1 Personal and interpersonal anxieties
2.5.2 Teachers’ beliefs
2.5.3 Students’ beliefs
2.5.4 Interaction between teachers and students
2.5.5 Classroom procedures
2.6 Factors associated with language anxiety
2.6.1 Sex and age
2.6.2 Motivation
2.6.3 Language proficiency
2.7 Effects of language anxiety
2.7.1 Facilitating anxiety
2.7.2 Debilitating anxiety
2.8 Rationale for the present work
2.9 Research questions and hypotheses

Chapter 3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
3.2 Research instruments
3.3 Data collection method
3.4 Evaluation method

Chapter 4. Findings
4.1 The extent to which Saarländisch is restricted in the classroom: why and why not?
4.2 Students’ view of the value of Saarländisch vs. Standard German in general and within the classroom
4.3 The relationship between the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom and language anxiety in students

Chapter 5. Conclusion
5.1 Summary
5.2 Implications for education
5.3 Limitations of the study
5.4 Suggested areas for further research

References

Appendixes
Appendix A: Background questionnaire German (original)
Appendix B: Background questionnaire English (translation)
Appendix C: Main questionnaire German (original)
Appendix D: Main questionnaire English (translation)
Appendix E: Teacher interviews German (original)
Appendix F: Teacher interviews English (translation)

Abstract: English

This master’s thesis explores how power relationships between language varieties are related to students experiencing language anxiety. It has specifically been looked into the relationship between the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom and students experiencing language anxiety in the context of a primary school located in a rural area in the German federal state Saarland. In this area, the language variety Saarländisch is commonly not accepted within the classroom.

This thesis comprises an empirical study which has been analyzed in a mix-method using both qualitative and quantitative data. The sample group consisted of 20 students in grade 4 who have been picked after answering a background questionnaire and who were then given the main questionnaire related to how Saarländisch is viewed in the classroom, the restriction of Saarländisch in school and language anxiety. Furthermore, the two teachers who teach the aforementioned students have been questioned in interviews.

It has been investigated that Saarländisch is seen as inferior to Standard German both in general and within the classroom. Even though, the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom and students’ language anxiety have been found to not have a statistically significant correlation with each other, some of the qualitatively and quantitatively obtained data indicated a relation between the two variables. Therefore, the definition of language anxiety should be rethought and extended referring to learning and/or using different language varieties rather than only referring to the anxiety that appears when learning and/or using a second/foreign language.

Keywords: language anxiety, language and power, language varieties, Saarländisch, Standard German

Abstract: German

Die vorliegende Masterarbeit erforscht, inwiefern die existierenden Machtbeziehungen zwischen Sprachvarietäten mit der ‘language anxiety‘, oder ‘Sprachangst‘, die Schüler erfahren, in Verbindungen stehen. Es wurde spezifisch untersucht in welcher Beziehung das Verbot von Saarländisch innerhalb des Klassenzimmers und die Sprachangst von Schülern stehen. Dies wurde im Kontext einer Grundschule erforscht, die sich in einer ländlichen Gegend des deutschen Bundeslandes Saarland befindet, wo die Sprachvarietät Saarländisch gewöhnlich im Klassenzimmer keine Akzeptanz findet.

Diese Thesis beinhaltet eine empirische Studie, die sowohl von qualitativ als auch von quantitativ erworbenen Daten Gebrauch macht. Die Probegruppe bestand aus 20 Schülern der vierten Klassen, die nach der Evaluation eines Hintergrundfragebogens ausgewählt wurden und danach den Hauptfragebogen der sich darauf bezog, welchen Stellenwert Saarländisch im Klassenzimmer hat, wie das Verbot von Saarländisch innerhalb des Klassenzimmers betrachtet wird und welche Formen von Sprachangst die Schüler erfahren, beantworteten. Zusätzlich wurden Interviews mit den Klassenlehrern der befragten Schüler durchgeführt.

Es wurde festgestellt, dass Saarländisch als minderwertig im Gegensatz zu Hochdeutsch betrachtet wird, sowohl generell als auch innerhalb des Klassenzimmers. Obwohl die Studie ergab, dass das Verbot von Saarländisch innerhalb des Klassenzimmers und die Sprachangst der Schüler keine statistisch signifikante Korrelation miteinander haben, haben einige qualitativ und quantitativ erworbene Daten gezeigt, dass eine Beziehung zwischen den zwei Variablen besteht. Aufgrund dieses Ergebnisses sollten die Definitionen von ‘language anxiety‘, oder Sprachangst, die sich lediglich auf die Angst, die beim Lernen/Benutzen einer Zweit-/Fremdsprache hervorgerufen wird, überdacht und ausgeweitet werden, sodass dieses sich auf das Lernen/Benutzen von verschiedenen Sprachvarietäten im Allgemeinen beziehen.

Schlüsselwörter: Sprachangst, Sprache und Macht, Sprachvarietäten, Saarländisch, Hochdeutsch

List of tables

Table 1.1 Examples of Saarländisch words differing from Standard German

Table 1.2 Examples of Saarländisch words with French cognates

Table 2.7 Academic, cognitive and social effects of language anxiety

Table 4.2 Quantitative data concerning the power relationship between Saarländisch and Standard German

Table 4.2.1 Quantitative data concerning the students’ belief about the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom

Table 4.3 Quantitative data concerning communicative anxiety in students

Table 4.4 Quantitative data concerning fear of negative evaluation in students

Table 4.5 Quantitative data concerning test anxiety in students

Table 4.6 Correlation between the restriction of Saarländisch in class and language anxiety in students

List of figures

Figure 2.1 The power behind language and the power of language

Figure 2.6 Self-determination theory

Figure 2.7.1 The Yerkes-Dodson-Law

Chapter 1. Introduction

In this chapter, the area of research and the aim of the thesis will be described. Furthermore, definitions and explanations of terms will be given, and the outline of the thesis will be explained.

1.1 Area of research and aim of the thesis

The underlying thesis describes language anxiety in general, and in a group of 4th grade primary school students as well as the power relationships between language varieties in general, and specifically looking at Standard German and Saarländisch. The commonly as less prestigious evaluated Saarländisch is usually restricted in the classrooms within the federal state Saarland. Therefore, the thesis explores how the restriction of Saarländisch in the classroom is connected to language anxiety thought of as a debilitating phenomenon.

During the last decades, a number of scientist have carried out research on power relationships between ‘languages’ and ‘dialects’ (Ferguson, 1959; Wardhaugh, 2006; Cummins, 2017; Hudson, 1969; Van Coetsem, 1992) and others have found different learning variables such as motivation, self-esteem, and beliefs to be connected to the anxiety that appears while learning a second or foreign language (Horwitz et al., 1986; Bailey, 1999; Oh, 1922; Young, 1991). However, the question of how power relationships between ‘high’ language varieties and ‘low’ language varieties (commonly known as ‘standard languages’ and ‘dialects’), and their effects are related to the anxiety that appears when not being allowed to use one’s (‘low’) native language variety and instead being obliged to use the standard language, has not been addressed yet.

Thus, the aim of this paper is to shed light on how the restriction of students’ native language variety in the classroom is connected to them experiencing language anxiety, to eliminate negative beliefs about one language variety being less valuable than another, and to inspire teachers to change their teaching styles in order to reduce language anxiety in students. Furthermore, this paper implies the need to redefine the term ‘language anxiety’ by having a more holistic view and thus, ‘language anxiety’ referring to the anxiety when learning/using language varieties instead of referring to the anxiety when learning/using second/foreign languages.

1.2 Definitions and explanations of terms

1.2.1 Language, dialect and variety

The term ‘language’ is used to either refer “to a single linguistic norm or to a group of related norms” whereas the term ‘dialect’ refers “to one of the norms” (as cited in Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 25). Cummins (2017), however, states that the construct of a ‘language’ is not legitimate as “languages are clearly social constructions with arbitrary boundaries (e.g. between a ‘language’ and a ‘dialect’) but these social constructions generate an immense material and symbolic reality (e.g. dictionaries, school curricula, wars, profits for corporations that teach and test languages, etc.)” (pp.111-112). He furthermore claims that the reason why the society constructs boundaries between ‘languages’ and ‘dialects’, is for it to “to make sense of and act on our world” (Cummins, 2017, p.112).

According to Hudson (1996) a ‘variety’ of a language is “a set of linguistic items with similar distributions” (as cited in Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 25). This definition enables us “to treat all the languages of some multilingual speaker, or a community, as a single variety, since all the linguistic items concerned have a similar social distribution” (as cited in Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 25). This means that a variety can be something that is ‘greater’ than one single ‘language’, but it can also be something that is ‘less’ than a ‘dialect’. Another definition of variety is offered by Ferguson (1972): “any body of human speech patterns, which is sufficiently homogeneous to be analyzed by available techniques of synchronic description and which has a sufficiently large repertory of elements and their arrangement or processes with broad enough semantic scope to function in all formal contexts of communication” (as cited in Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 25). This definition indicates that in each ‘language’, ‘dialect’, speech group and even in each individual person of a speech group, there are variations. Consequently, “Hudson and Ferguson agree in defining ‘variety’ in terms of a specific set of ‘linguistic items’ or ‘human speech patterns’ (presumably, sounds, words, grammatical features, etc.) which we can uniquely associate with some external factor (presumably, a geographical area or a social group)” (Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 25). Therefore, this thesis makes use of the term ‘language variety’ referring both to ‘dialects’ and to ‘languages’.

1.2.2 Standard German

Standard German, also called High German or Standard High German, is the standardized variety of the German language that is used in formal contexts such as government institutions, e.g. schools, job-related contexts, in any kind of media, or in order to communicate with people who would usually use a different German language variety. Even though, there are language legislations that state that ‘German’ is the language of the public administrations (§23, section 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act) and of the court (§184, section 1 of the Courts Act) (as stated in Adler and Beyer, 2017), it is not specified, which variety of German is being referred to. Regarding its origins, Standard German did not originate as a specific language variety from a certain region, but as a written language that was developed over several hundred years. It differs regionally, with the most accepted distinctions between different national varieties of it being German Standard German, Austrian Standard German and Swiss Standard German. These differ in a few features such as vocabulary and pronunciation, and more seldom in grammar and orthography. Regarding the Standard German orthography, the recommended spelling and punctuation which the three above mentioned German national varieties have in common and any user of a German variety is required to use, is published by the Council for German Orthography. Even though, it is, due to the standardization of written German, impossible to know, where a German user is from by just looking at their writings, in the spoken language, the different varieties of Standard German are easily recognized by most speakers (Schmidt, 2017, p.106). There is no officially recommended standard when it comes to the pronunciation, however, there clearly is a standardized pronunciation of Standard German that society sees as ‘correct’ and ‘acceptable’. Nevertheless, this pronunciation is, in fact, an invented accent rather than originating from a specific German-speaking region (Schmidt, 2017). Regarding the Standard German grammar, it makes use of three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), with the gender of nouns that do not have a natural gender, not being predictable. Furthermore, there are four cases in Standard German (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative) that inflect nouns, adjectives, articles and pronouns. There are different ways of forming the plural, with words ending in “n”, “en”, “e”, “er”, “s”, etc. depending on the gender and case. Looking at the Standard German syntax, the sentences follow a subject, verb, object pattern with the pattern being inverted for questions and subordinate phrases.

1.2.3 Saarländisch

Saarländisch is a German language variety spoken in the smallest German federal state called Saarland which neighbors France and Luxembourg and inhabits around 1 million people. Saarländisch is categorized as a Western-middle-high-German ‘dialect’ which is divided into Moselfränkisch (Mosel-Franconion) and Rheinfränkisch (Rhein-Franconion). The reason why Saarländisch is divided into Moselfränkisch and Rheinfränkisch is a religious one as the Rheinfränkisch area of Saarland used to belong to the western protestant authority and the Moselfränkisch part belonged to the catholic electorate Trier. Therefore, people wanted to be recognized as being either protestant or catholic by the way they speak. Saarländisch has phonetical, grammatical and lexical differences to Standard German. Phonetically speaking, the Saarländisch consonants are devoiced, there is no difference being made between sch [ʃ] and ch [ç], syllables are stressed differently than in Standard German, etc. Regarding grammatical differences, the conjugation differs from the conjugation in Standard German, there is a different use of past tenses, no differentiation is being made between the first person singular present and the infinitive, and the four cases are used differently (accusative is used for nominative and dative is used for genitive), which also leads to a different use of pronouns and articles. Lexically speaking, most words used in Standard German are also used in Saarländisch, but with a different pronunciation. However, there are also many words in Saarländisch that differ greatly from their Standard German equivalents. The following chart shows a few example thereof:

Table 1.1 Examples of Saarländisch words differing from Standard German

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Furthermore, there are many Saarländisch words which show much greater similarity to French than to Standard German as can be seen in the following examples:

Table 1.2 Examples of Saarländisch words with French cognates

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Since there is no official spelling of Saarländisch, and Saarländisch people are required to use the official Standard German spelling, the Saarländisch examples above are written phonetically.

1.2.4 The “restriction of Saarländisch” in the classroom

The “restriction of Saarländisch” as mentioned in the title, refers to speaking and writing not being tolerated by teachers in the classroom, which also leads to there being no listening of Saarländisch and no reading in Saarländisch. Therefore, all the four language skills solely cover Standard German.

1.2.5 Anxiety

Anxiety is described as being related to feelings of tension, fear, nervousness, and worry and being a physical reaction to an (assumed to be) dangerous situations (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 129). It can cause symptoms of elevated heart rate, breaking out in sweat, shaking and shortness of breath. Furthermore, “anxiety is a complex multidimensional affective variable that can influence the process of language learning” (Santos, 2017, p. 93).

1.2.5.1 Dimensions of Anxiety

Anxiety is often categorized into three different dimensions:

- Trait anxiety: Trait anxiety refers to individuals who experience anxiety in an overly quick or overly strong matter and whose anxiousness is seen as a character trait (Spielberger, 1976).
- State anxiety: State anxiety is “an apprehension expected at a particular moment in time as a response to a definite situation” (Spielberger, 1976, p. 24).
- Situation-specific anxiety: MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) state that situation-specific anxiety “can be seen as trait anxiety limited to a given context” (p. 86). It arises in specific situations such as during written exams, giving a speech, talking with a native speaker in a foreign language, etc.

1.2.5.2 Language anxiety

Language anxiety, also known as ‘foreign language anxiety’, is a fixed term that is specifically related to feelings of anxiety in second or foreign language learning and therefore different from other types of anxiety (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989). As language anxiety especially arises in specific situations (often in the foreign/second language classroom), it is classified as a kind of situation-specific anxiety (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994). Language anxiety is marked by negative, self-centered thoughts and emotions of insufficiency, and the fear of failing (Oh, 1922). It commonly entails speaking, writing, listening, reading in and/or listening to a foreign/second language (see Santos, 2017). In this thesis however, language anxiety is also being considered to be appearing in situations in which a different language variety, not necessarily a second/foreign language, is to be used by students. This is because the concepts of second/foreign languages being based on a monolingual view, seeing languages separated from each other, rather than seeing an individual having one linguistic repertoire with all their language varieties to draw from.

1.3 Outline of the thesis

This thesis contains five chapters followed by the list of references and the appendixes.

Chapter 1 serves as the introduction of the thesis and describes the area of research and the aim of the thesis as well as giving definitions and explanations of terms and including the outline of the thesis.

Chapter 2 includes the literature review on the topics of relationship between language and power, power relationships between language varieties, anxiety and language anxiety as well as presenting the hypotheses that can be made from the theoretical contributions, and the resulting research questions thereof.

Chapter 3 explains the design of the empirical study providing information about participants, research instruments, data collection method and evaluation method.

Chapter 4 analyses the gathered data according to the research questions.

Chapter 5 addresses the main conclusion of the thesis taking into account the review of the literature, the research questions and the empirical findings. It also discusses implications for education, the limitations of the underlying study, and suggestions for further research.

Chapter 2. Review of the literature

2.1 An overview of the relationship between language and power

The relationship between language and power is multidimensional. The socially created separation between ‘languages’, rather than seeing them as language varieties lying on a spectrum, added to the power relationships that exist between them. Therefore, in point 2.1 will be made use of the term ‘language’, rather than ‘language variety’, in order to stress the division between languages and the power connected to them.

Hung Ng and Deng (2009) summarize five language-power relationships that can be grouped into ‘the power behind language’ and ‘the power of language’ and can be seen in the following figure (retrieved from Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p. 5):

Figure 2.1 Power behind language and power of language

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Regarding the power behind language, it indicates that language has an underlying preexisting power. In this case, language can both reveal and reflect power. Language revealing power “is a speaker’s possession of a weapon, money, high social status, ore other attractive personal qualities- by revealing them in convincing language, the speaker influences the hearer” (Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p. 6). Language reflecting power is linked to the power of the communities that speak the language. The most prominent examples of this is the dominance of English as a lingua franca. Its power is connected to the sociohistorical and cultural status of its language community both on a national and an international level. Therefore, its power “has less to do with its linguistic quality and more to do with the ethnolinguistic vitality of English-speakers worldwide that it reflects” (Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p. 1). The power of a language is commonly reflected in its use within the government, in education, in media etc. This is due to underlying language policies which often install the language as its nation’s only official language. “In short, the dominant language of a nation is one that comes from and reflects the high ethnolinguistic vitality of its language community” (Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p.6).

Considering the power of language, it indicates that it is connected to language’s communicative versatility. Firstly, language maintains and reproduces existing power. Looking back to the examples of English, it has become a crucial medium for non-native English speaking countries in order to be able to be part of and participate in the globalized world. Even though, the spread of English has increased multilingualism of nations that are non-native English speaking, English native speakers coming from native English-speaking nations, have mostly remained English- speaking only. “This puts pressure on the rest of the world to accommodate them in English, the widespread use of which maintains its preeminence among languages” (Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p. 9).

Secondly, language unites and divides nations. The power of language uniting people is connected to language being such an important part to their identity. Thus, this power has often been used by national leaders to unify countries. Nevertheless, language can also divide nations. “The tension can be seen in competing claims to official-language status made by minority language communities, protest over maintenance of minority languages, bilingual education, and outright language wars” (as cited in Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p. 10).

Thirdly, language creates power and influence through single words, oratories, conversations and narratives in political campaigns, etc. This is because not only referential meanings are attached to language, but also connotative meanings which can reflect power. These connotative meaning “with their own social-cognitive consequences […] underpin the power of single words, [phrases, texts or any other kind of language use]” (Hung Ng and Deng, 2009, p. 10).

It can be said that the aforementioned language-power relationships are interrelated and influence each other with each of them drawing from different functions of language such as identity, social, communicative, and cognitive functions. This results into some languages having power over other languages and consequently, the language that a person uses reflecting the power behind that language and of that language.

Fairclough (2001) has a different approach to the relationship between power and language. He specifically looks into the linguistic field of pragmatics which is concerned with context contributing to meaning, speech acts and seeing language as a form of action, hence, pragmatics explores discourse. Fairclough (2001), therefore, describes the relationship between power and language as in fact being the relationship between power and discourse with discourse being the view of “language as a form of social practice” (Fairclough, 2001, p. 22). This means that:

- Language is a part of society and cannot be seen as being separate from it.
- Language can be viewed as a social process.
- Language is socially conditioned by other parts of society that are non-linguistic

Fairclough (2001) summarizes the relationship between discourse and power as can be seen in the following (adapted from Fairclough, 2001, p. 17):

- Language and discourse: the conception of language we need for CLS (critical language study) is discourse, language as a social practice determined by social structures.
- Discourse and order of discourse: actual discourse is determined by socially constituted orders of discourse, sets of conventions associated with social institutions.
- Class and power in capitalist society: orders of discourse are ideologically shaped by power relations in social institutions and in society as a whole.
- Dialectic of structures and practices: discourse has effects upon social structures, as well as being determined by them, and so contributes to social continuity and social change.

Similarly to Hung Ng and Deng (2009), Fairclough (2001) sees language and power having a dual relationship. While Hung Ng and Deng (2009) focus on the power behind language and the power of language, Fairclough (2001) looks at the power behind discourse and in discourse. He argues that “power is exercised and enacted in discourse, and on the other hand that there are relations of power behind discourse” (p. 73).

It can therefore be concluded that sociolinguistic conventions, both language as a whole, but also particularly discourse have a dual relation to power. On the one hand, they are responsible for power differences, on the other hand, “they arise out of – and give rise to – particular relations of power” (Fairclough, 2001, pp.1-2). These power relationships, however, do not only exist between what is socially categorized into ‘languages’ but also between ‘high’ and ‘low’ language varieties as it is described in the following.

2.2 The power relationship between ‘high’ language varieties and ‘low’ language varieties: diglossia

There are many speech communities in which the speakers use more than one variety of the same

´language’ in different contexts or under different conditions. This situation can be described with the term ‘diglossia’. Langslow (2002) states that diglossia is “the alternate use, […], of a ‘High’

(H) and a ‘Low’ (L) variety of a single language, whereby H is nobody’s first language” (p. 2). This definition implies that there are prestige differences between the two varieties with the ‘low’ variety being subordinate to the ‘high’ variety due to it functioning as an overarching standard. Ferguson (1959), furthermore, points out that “diglossia is not assumed to be a stage which occurs always and only at a certain point in some kind of evaluation […]. Diglossia may develop from various origins and eventuate in different language situations.” (p.160). The reason why one language variety is seen as ‘high’ and the other as ‘low’, “normally goes together with the growth of political, economic and cultural supremacy of the region in question. In this context, to become dominant means that a ‘dialect’, which is a local language with a restricted functionality, broadens its domain of operation” (Van Coetsem, 1992, p. 43). Even though, this describes a very common case which, for instance, can be seen in France, where the power, the king, was situated in Paris, where ‘French’ was spoken, it is not the case in Germany. This is because, as already mentioned in point 1.2.2, Standard German did not originate as a specific language variety from a certain region, but as a written language that was developed over several hundred years.

The most familiar examples of diglossia are the use of a standard language and a regional dialect, such as it is the case in Saarland. People usually use Saarländisch to communicate with friends, family or people who have the speak variety, and Standard German in more formal settings, public occasions, or to communicate with people that speak another language variety. Therefore, in Saarland, the two language varieties Standard German and Saarländisch exist side-by-side with each of them having a different role to play. Looking a little bit further into the two varieties’ functions, it becomes clear, how important it is to use the right variety in the right situation in order to be socially accepted. Ferguson (1959) exemplifies this as followed: “An outsider who learns to speak fluent, accurate L and then uses it in a formal speech, is an object of ridicule. A member of the speech community who uses H in a purely conversational situation or in an informal activity like shopping, is equally an object of ridicule” (p. 162).

Regarding the acquisition of the standard language, now specifically looking at Standard German, and the ‘low’ language Saarländisch, children in Saarland usually learn Saarländisch as their mother tongue as that is the variety that adults use when speaking to them, and the variety that children themselves use when speaking with each other. However, children are exposed to Standard German through all kinds of media (radio, tv, etc.), and specifically learn it through formal education. Therefore, the rules and patterns of Saarländisch are learnt automatically, whereas the rules and patterns of Standard German are learnt in terms of norms to be imitated.

One of the greatest differences between the ‘high’ language variety and the ‘low’ language variety is that the ‘high’ language variety usually is the one being standardized and therefore holds power over the ‘low’ language varieties. “Standardization is being strongly promoted by sociopolitical, socio-economic and sociocultural changes, by increasing industrialization and technological advances, by greater mobility, and by the development of mass media” (Van Coetsem, 1992, p. 41). In the case of Standard German, this means that there is an established norm for grammars, pronunciation, orthography, and vocabulary which is being reflected in dictionaries, grammatical treaties, and treaties on style. In the case of Saarländisch, there is no settled grammar, pronunciation, orthography or vocabulary. Even though, there are Saarländisch-Standard German dictionaries, they are not based on any norms, they rather are incomplete vocabulary lists in which the Saarländisch words are spelled differently, depending on the author. Furthermore, there is an important political aspect to standardization as the “acceptance of a standard by the relevant population as the variety of the community - usually, in fact, as the national language, is a requirement" (Van Coetsem, 1992, pp. 47-48).

[...]

• Hochschule: Universidad del Pais Vasco
• Note: A
• Autor: Marie-Louise Meiser (Autor:in)
• Erscheinungsjahr: 2019
• Seiten: 92
• Katalognummer: V1021150
• ISBN (eBook): 9783346418548
• ISBN (Buch): 9783346418555
• Sprache: Englisch
• Schlagworte: language, anxiety, restriction, saarländisch, classroom