![Titel: Realizing [χ] for /r/ in Eifel German and Corresponding Attitudes](https://cdn.openpublishing.com/thumbnail/products/497958/large.webp)
It has been proposed that in Modern Standard German no other phoneme is as variable in terms of pronunciation as /r/. Although the IPA system includes seven types of rhotics in its system, it has been argued that several more r-sounds exist which are not included in the class of rhotics due to a lack of a consistent definition. One of these r-sounds, not included in the class of rhotics, is the voiceless uvular fricative [χ] which has been found to be frequently used for /r/ by speakers of Eifel German in the Eifel area.
Past research has suggested a steady decline in the use of dialects and regiolects, which are becoming more and more gerontolects. This is also true for Eifel German which has been proposed to be rather used by older generations nowadays. In addition to age, it has been claimed that speech style also has an effect on speakers of a certain dialect altering their speech behavior in careful and casual speech styles. While several studies exist on peoples’ assessment which specific pronunciations are most frequently used in the area in which they live, no systematic study exist on the actual speech behavior of the people living in the Eifel area in which speech styles are varied, as to the knowledge of the author.
This study tries to fill this research gap by, first of all, investigating whether there is a difference in the realization [χ] for /r/ across age groups, secondly, the effects of different speech styles in actual speech behavior and lastly analyzing informants’ attitudes towards Eifel German. By analyzing four age groups ranging from 20 to 59 and varying speech styles, the study tries to gain greater insights into age differences and the effect of careful and casual speech styles on actual linguistic behavior from people coming from the Eifel area. Two informants were used for each age group amounting to a total of eight participants. To elicit casual speech data a taboo game was used, whereas as wordlist-reading task was used to gather careful speech data. Based on previous findings, the study aims at finding out whether the Eifel German dialect is in decline and how people living in the Eifel feel about this dialect. The paper starts with the theoretical background providing a comprehensive
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Realization of /r/ in Germany
2.2. Realizations of /r/ in the Rhineland
2.3. Attitudes Towards Dialects
3. Methodology
3.1. Informants
3.2. Research Instruments
3.3. Data Collection Procedure
3.4. Coding Scheme
4. Results
4.1. Age Comparison
4.2. Speech Style Comparison
4.3. Attitudes towards Eifel German
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this study is to investigate the linguistic behavior of speakers from the Eifel region regarding the realization of the phoneme /r/ in post-vocalic positions, specifically focusing on the voiceless uvular fricative variant [χ]. The research addresses the potential decline of the Eifel dialect across different age groups and examines how varied speech styles and personal attitudes influence the frequency of this specific phonetic realization.
- Phonetic realization of /r/ in Eifel German
- Age-related differences in dialect usage
- Impact of speech styles (casual vs. careful) on phonological variation
- Sociolinguistic attitudes toward the Eifel dialect
- Overt and covert prestige in language use
Excerpt from the Book
2.3. Attitudes Towards Dialects
It can be argued that it is not only a subtle generation-based issue that dialects seem to be not as frequently heard as they used to, but it might also be a conscious decision by a speech community to let go of a dialect as it might not have a good reputation. German studies on perceptual dialectology have shown that dialects are highly divisive in terms of attitudes towards them which explains why Saxon German, for example, is a popular but at the same time very unpopular dialect (cf. Anders, Hundt & Lasch 2010: 13). Dialects do not only give insights into where people come from, but can also reveal a lot about a person’s identity. What people associate with dialects is directly transferred onto its speakers (Anders, Hundt & Lasch 2010: 13). Associations like “gemütliche[s] Bayrisch” (engl. “slow-paced Bavarian”) or “hässliche[s] Sächsisch” (engl. “ugly Saxon”) are not only targeted at the dialect, but also at the speakers themselves (Anders, Hundt & Lasch 2010: 13).
Plewnia and Rothe (2010: 53–55) have demonstrated that, next to others, Rhineland German is to be located mid-table in terms of likability and thus rather perceived as positive. By using self and external evaluations, their study further reveals that most speakers of dialects also like their own dialect which is not surprising. If it is, however, not liked, this could lead people to consciously suppress their dialect.
Effects like overt and covert prestige can not be excluded to have an influence as well in this regard. Holmes and Wilson (2017: 517) define overt prestige as "favourable connotations generally associated with the features of the language variety used by influential members of society" and further state that "people my deliberately use such features to convey an educated or cultured impression". This is connected to standard forms of a language as for example Modern Standard German. Covert prestige on the other hand is defined as "favourable connotations associated with the use of vernacular forms" which might be used by people to "show that they belong to a particular work group" (Holmes and Wilson 2017: 506).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research gap regarding the variability of /r/ in Eifel German and outlines the study's aim to analyze age-related and stylistic phonetic shifts.
2. Theoretical Background: Defines the phonetics of /r/ in German, discusses regional variations in the Rhineland, and explores the sociolinguistic concepts of prestige and dialect attitudes.
3. Methodology: Details the empirical design, including the recruitment of eight informants from Mechernich, the use of taboo games and word lists for data elicitation, and the coding procedures.
4. Results: Analyzes the phonetic data across age groups and speech styles, demonstrating a preference for vocalization and fricative variants over the specific Eifel [χ] realization.
5. Discussion: Interprets the findings in the context of sociolinguistic theories, suggesting that negative attitudes and overt prestige lead speakers to avoid the local dialectal variant.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the study’s findings and limitations, confirming that while age differences are present, the Eifel dialect is increasingly marginalized due to sociolinguistic pressures.
Keywords
Eifel German, phonetics, /r/-realization, sociolinguistics, dialect decline, age groups, speech styles, voiceless uvular fricative, language attitudes, overt prestige, covert prestige, Rhineland German, Modern Standard German, phonetic variation, gerontolect
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The study examines the linguistic realization of the /r/ phoneme, specifically the voiceless uvular fricative [χ], among speakers in the Eifel region of Germany.
What are the central thematic areas?
The core themes include phonetic variation, the impact of age and speech style on language behavior, and the sociolinguistic attitudes toward regional dialects.
What is the primary research objective?
The aim is to determine if there is a shift in the usage of the Eifel-specific [χ] variant across different generations and whether this varies between casual and formal speech contexts.
Which methodology was applied in this study?
The researcher used a mixed-method approach, combining phonetic analysis of speech data (gathered via taboo games and word lists) with qualitative interviews to assess speaker attitudes.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
It covers the definition of rhotics in German, the specific dialectological features of the Rhineland, the empirical methodology, the statistical results, and a sociolinguistic discussion of prestige and dialect perception.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Eifel German, /r/-realization, sociolinguistics, dialect decline, phonetic variation, and language attitudes.
How does speech style affect the realization of the [χ] variant?
The study found that the [χ] variant occurred exclusively in casual speech contexts, suggesting that speakers consciously avoid it in formal situations.
What role does prestige play in the decline of the dialect?
Participants frequently associated the Eifel dialect with being "uneducated" or "farmer-like," leading to the use of Modern Standard German variants as a form of overt prestige to appear more professional.
Why was the town of Mechernich chosen for this study?
Mechernich was the selected site for data collection; however, the author acknowledges that its history of mining and migration may have influenced the stability of the local dialect.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Katja Grasberger (Autor:in), 2018, Realizing [χ] for /r/ in Eifel German and Corresponding Attitudes, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/497958
