To what extent does the use of Swiss German and attitudes towards this variety suggest that dialect is replacing standard in diglossic Switzerland

Contents

List of illustrations

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction

2. The empirical study: issues of data collection
2.1 The indirect method
2.2 The postal questionnaire
2.3 The respondents
2.4 Grouping the data collected

3. The use of dialect in relation to the standard
3.1 Dialect and standard in education
3.1.1 Primary and Secondary education
3.1.2 University education
3.1.3 Summary
3.2 Dialect and Standard in oral communication
3.2.1 Informal oral communication
3.2.2 Formal oral communication
3.2.3 Oral communication with non-SG speakers
3.2.4 Summary
3.3 Dialect and Standard in written communication
3.3.1 Formal written communication
3.3.2 Informal written communication
3.3.3 Summary
3.4 Dialect and Standard in the media
3.4.1 The written media
3.4.2 The audiovisual media
3.4.3 Summary
3.5 Conclusion

4. Attitudes towards dialect and standard
4.1 Attitudes towards change in SG use
4.1.1 Analysis of the results
4.1.2 Summary
4.2 Competency in SG and HG
4.2.1 Code-alternation
4.2.2 Vocabulary
4.2.3 Expression in SG and HG
4.2.4 Summary
4.3 Attitudes towards SG and HG in education
4.3.1 Analysis of the results
4.3.2 Summary
4.4 Attitudes towards the use of SG and HG on television
4.4.1 Analysis of the results
4.4.2 Summary
4.5 Conclusion

5. Conclusion

Appendix 1: Questionnaire submitted for the pre-test

Appendix 2: Final questionnaire

Appendix 3: Questionnaire results sorted by the age of the respondent

Appendix 4: Questionnaire results sorted by the sex of the respondent

Bibliography

List of illustrations

Tables

1. Respondents grouped by area

Figures

1. Proportion of female and male respondents

2. Distribution of ages amongst the respondents

3. Proportion of respondents from each age group experiencing SG in Volksschule and HG in Hochschule

4. Proportion of respondents from each age group experiencing HG in core subjects and SG in others

5. The frequency with which HG is spoken

6. Proportion of respondents from each age group who use HG weekly

7. The choice of variety for a job interview

8. Proportion of respondents from each age group claiming to use SG in

a job interview

9. Proportion of respondents from each age group using HG with non-SG speaking Swiss

10. The distribution of varieties considered suitable for a written love declaration

11. The distribution of varieties considered suitable for a letter to an acquaintance

12. The distribution of varieties considered suitable for an e-mail message

13. The distribution of varieties considered suitable for a SMS message

14. Proportion of respondents from each age group who would consider using SG for written communication

15. Attitudes towards changes in SG use

16. Proportion of respondents from each age group who claim negative attitudes towards SG use is due to more contact with foreigners

17. Proportion of respondents from each age group who maintain that dialect use is more positive given its presence in the media and electronic communication

18. Attitudes towards SG use (simplified)

19. Code-alternation from SG to HG

20. Code-alternation from HG to SG

21. Vocabulary in HG and SG

22. Difference in level of competency between HG and SG

23. Preferred status for SG in the education system

24. Proportion of respondents from each age group who would prefer SG to be hardly used in education

25. Proportion of respondents from each age group who would prefer SG to be spoken and HG to be written in education

26. Proportion of respondents from each age group who would prefer SG and HG to be treated equally in education

27. Attitudes towards the use of SG and HG on television

28. Proportion of respondents from each age group who would prefer HG to be employed for informational programming and SG for entertainment

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. W. Brockhaus-Grand for her invaluable help and encouragement in the preparation of this dissertation. Further thanks go to Professor M. Durrell and Professor L. Löffler for the advice and inspiration given in the research stages.

I owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who took the time to answer the questionnaire, and helped circulate it during my time in Basel. I would not have been able to execute an empirical study without the constant help and contacts of Tanja Günthard, Lucia Schönenberger, Pascal Freudiger and Mirjam Jenny at the University of Basel.

1. Introduction

Ferguson’s initial definition of diglossia describes the use of ‘two language varieties [that] exist side by side throughout the community, each having a definite role to play’ (1959, repr. 1972: 232). The relationship between the Swiss dialects (which will be referred to from hereon as SG) and Swiss Standard German (HG) has been characterized as ‘medial diglossia’, based on the HG for writing and SG for speaking dichotomy (see EDI 1989b: 101). As Rash comments, ‘the term “functional diglossia” is perhaps preferable, as it fits the situation whereby SG and HG are each allocated certain functions (1998: 50). Traditionally, the functions (or domains) of HG have been that of a Schriftsprache, acquired through the education system but also produced orally on formal occasions, in communication with non-SG speakers and in the media. SG has no ‘soziolektale Wertung’ (Linke, Nussbaumer & Portmann 2004: 347) and is therefore employed as an informal spoken variety by all members of the speech community. However, as Ammon states, ‘freilich bleibt Fergusons Diglossie-Begriff […] zu abstrakt, um alle Besonderheiten des Verhältnisses von Dialekten und Standardvarietät in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz […] zu erfassen’ (Ammon 285) and the increased use of SG has led to claims that ‘die Mundarten dringen heute in immer mehr Bereiche vor, die früher in erster Linie der Hochsprache vorbehalten waren, und zwar sowohl in schriftlichen wie im mündlichen Ausdruck’ (EDI 1989a: VII). In light of this, Ris suggests that ‘das gesprochene Hochdeutsch in der Schweiz im internen Gebrauch [fungiert] nicht mehr als komplementäre Sprachform im Sinne des Diglossiemodells […], sondern als Zweitsprache im Sinne des Bilingualismus -Modells, die man in gewissen Kommunikationssituationen mehr noch verwenden darf als verwenden muss’ (1990: 43). The following study has, for the most part, been based on empirical research undertaken between April and August 2004. Its aim is to investigate the extent to which we can ascertain SG is replacing HG in German-speaking Switzerland through an examination of its usage in relation to HG in the education system, written and oral communication and the media. Having done this, I shall look at attitudes towards the changes in SG use, linguistic competency and use of SG in the education system and media, in order to then conclude whether diglossia is still applicable here.

2. The empirical study: issues of data collection

Having established that the use of Swiss German in relation to the Standard and the attitudes towards dialect would be a valid area for research, it was necessary to formulate a means of gathering data which would be possible given time and financial restrictions.

2.1 The indirect method

For this study, the indirect method of data collection, in the form of a postal questionnaire, was chosen as opposed to a direct method such as the face-to-face interview. Admittedly, a direct method would have enabled data collection to take place under controlled conditions and ensured that all answers were given without outside influence. Furthermore, my presence during data collection would have allowed the respondent to ask for clarification of any questions which s/he found difficult. However, the postal questionnaire represents ‘die kosten- und zeitgünstige Methode, eine große Menge von repräsentativen Daten zu erheben’ (Schlobinski 1996: 40). A further aim of using a questionnaire was that through its distribution in both paper and electronic format, I would be able to establish a network of respondents from differing areas.

2.2 The postal questionnaire

Firstly, a pre-test was carried out in order to investigate the clarity of the questions and the structure of the questionnaire before distributing to the full quota of respondents^[1]. A sample group of five people was chosen, four female and one male, whose ages ranged from 23 to 71 and who came from Solothurn, Thurgau, Uri and Zurich. Reactions to the pre-test suggested that the questionnaire was too time-consuming, in two instances taking around thirty minutes to complete, and that the lack of closed questions had lead to misinterpretation of some questions. Further analysis of the questionnaire submitted for pre-testing suggested that it focussed on two areas of study; the standardisation of Swiss German and the status and use of Swiss German in relation to the Standard (Dr Brockhaus-Grand, personal correspondence). The former of these areas was superfluous to the study, as were questions regarding the acquisition of dialect, and therefore questions 5 – 14 from the original questionnaire were deleted. In addition to this, questions 17, 18, 20, 21 and 24 were converted into closed questions with the option available to add a comment so that the answers could be catalogued more precisely.

Questions 1 to 4 of the final questionnaire^[2] serve to provide biographical information concerning the respondent’s sex, age, profession and dialect so that the results can be catalogued. The remaining questions are qualitative and focus on the respondent’s use of both Swiss German and the Standard in oral and written communication and the attitudes towards variety use in German-speaking Switzerland.

2.3 The respondents

The primary criterion for the quota of respondents was that they were to be members of the Swiss-German speech community. More precisely, that one of the Swiss German dialects was the first variety acquired. Furthermore, it was specified that the respondent had to be living within German-speaking Switzerland in order to ensure that he or she was part of the diglossic speech community. These two pre-conditions, suggested by Professor Löffler at the University of Basel, would ensure that the data collected would not transcend the limits of my area of study.

It was also decided that thirty respondents would be suitable for this level of academic study, and that the age range should be grouped as: 10-18; 18-30; 30-45; 45-60 and 60+, which would provide insight into ‘altersspezifische[…] Sprachwelten’ (Linke, Nussbaumer & Portmann 2004: 354), i.e. illustrate how attitudes towards Swiss German differ from generation to generation. A balance between male and female respondents and a range of professional backgrounds was also preferred.

The first respondents to the questionnaire were acquaintances studying at the University of Basel, and each person was asked to forward the questionnaire to both male and female acquaintances and family members, of varying ages. This method was successful in obtaining 106.7% of my response quota (32 responses). Of these responses, 12 were from males and 20 from females, the percentage distribution for which is shown in the following graph:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1

Although questionnaires were forwarded to people of varying ages, those aged 18-30 seemed more willing to complete the questionnaire and the majority of respondents belong to this group.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2

A range of respondents from different areas was also desired, so that the study would be more representative of German-speaking Swiss, rather than of one dialect group. This was important as some cantons have more contact with non-SG speakers (urban agglomerations or cantons on the national or linguistic borders), which influences the frequency of use of HG. The following table shows respondents grouped by area, based on the dialect specified in question 4 of the questionnaire:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1

The specification of dialect was left as an open question, and this has resulted in six respondents claiming that their dialect was a mix between two areas. Inhabitants of Canton Luzern constitute 28% of the respondents, followed by those from Basel-Stadt (22%).

2.4 Grouping the data collected

One clear shortcoming of the method employed to collect data is that it did not allow for a strict allocation of questionnaires to particular respondents based on sex, age or dialect area and this must be taken into account when reading the following study. However, no one category within these groups is exclusive and therefore, the data obtained can be seen as representative of the criteria specified (see section 2.3).

The tabulation of results has been based on the age and sex of the respondent^[3], as these are variables under which responses can be concretely categorised. The study focuses on differences between the generations, as this allows for analysis of changes in society. Due to the lack of responses from those aged 10-18 and 30-45, the age of respondents has been grouped under the following extended ranges: 10-30, 30-60 and 60+.

3. The use of Dialect in relation to the Standard

This chapter will examine the traditional domains of use and functions of SG and HG in German-speaking Switzerland in order to see whether these are changing and explain possible reasons for this.

3.1 Dialect and Standard in education

Since the introduction of compulsory education in the 1930s, HG has been the official language of teaching in schools in German-speaking Switzerland (Schläpfer 1994: 17). However, SG still remains present in the education system and the aim of this section is to determine to what extent this is the case.

3.1.1 Primary and Secondary education

The use of dialect in schools in German-speaking Switzerland is not forbidden, a fact to which 100% of respondents testified. As a basic definition of the domains in which both varieties are used within the education system, Sieber categorises SG as ‘Sprache der Freizeit’ and HG as ‘Sprache der Arbeitszeit’ (1994: 38). From the data collected, 18.8% of the respondents, all of whom were aged between 10 and 30, claimed that HG was the language of teaching and SG was used for all other purposes. This indicates the definitions described by Sieber are still valid today, as is Sommer’s hypothesis from 60 years ago that ‘die hochdeutsche Sprache steht im Mittelpunkt des gesamten Unterrichts; ihr gebührt in der Schule der erste Platz’ (Sommer 1945: 82).

However, in light of other answers, it would seem that the role of both varieties is one which is not fixed, and may vary between schools, or even teachers^[4]. 12.5% indicated that SG had been the language of instruction in the Volksschule, which then changed to HG in the Hochschule. This model is claimed by Ris to be characteristic of teaching in the 1950s (Ris 1979: 45) and was experienced by 25% of those aged over 60, 16.7% of 30-60 year olds and 9.1% of 10-30 year olds.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3

SG is placed in a position of Unterrichtssprache in early years’ education but ‘nachher wurde während des Unterrichts nahezu ausschliesslich hochdeutsch gesprochen, sogar in Fächern wie Zeichnen und Turnen’ (Ris 1979: 45).

The use of the two varieties as outlined above, however, can not be seen as exclusive practice in German-speaking Switzerland in the experiences of any of the three age groups questioned in the study. 50% of respondents declared that during their time at school, HG was the variety of teaching for core subjects, whilst SG was used for subjects such as Art and Physical Education. As Sieber states, ‘in der einen Fächergruppe muß man Hochdeutsch sprechen, in der anderen darf man Dialekt sprechen’ (1994: 38). Although this is the experience of the majority in general, and is preferred by the Zentralschweizerischer Beratungsdienst für Schulfragen (Christen 2001: 135), it declines from 75% of all of those over 60, to 66.7% of those aged 30 to 60 and 40.9% of 10 to 30 year olds:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 4

This would therefore indicate that while there are dominant models of variety usage within the education system, they are in decline leading to other approaches.

This is illustrated by the response of 6.3% of respondents, who claimed that SG was always allowed at school. This was valid for 4.5% of 10-30 year olds and 16.7% of 30 to 60 year olds. It must be noted that there is a question of ambiguity surrounding this response. The idea that SG was always allowed does not necessarily indicate that it was used in formal teaching rather that it was not specifically forbidden, and therefore one of the models previously discussed may have been experienced by the 6.3%. However, it has been noted that ‘natürlich spielen auch Temperament und Gewohnheiten des Unterrichtenden hier eine wichtige Rolle, nicht nur in den genannten Fächern, sondern auch in Lektionen, in denen das Schriftdeutsche eine Selbstverständlichkeit ist’ (Schwarzenbach 1969: 392), which is supported by 9.4% of respondents who claimed that the use of HG depended on how strict the teacher was. As all of these respondents are aged between 10 and 30, we can assume that Schwarzenbach’s comment is still valid over thirty years later. In addition to this, Sieber states that ‘infolge der Zunahme individualisierter Phasen im Unterricht, wie sie sich die Didatik schon lange propagiert, hat auch der Dialektgebrauch in der Schule zugenommen’ (1994: 39), which highlights how changing teaching methods have influenced the situation. As the responsibility for education is mainly that of the individual cantons (Rash 1998: 54), guidelines towards the use of dialect may differ and dialect use may be completely forbidden by teachers from other countries^[5]. This leads to the conclusion that dialect in the educational system can not be categorized on the ‘Sprache der Arbeitszeit’ and ‘Sprache der Freizeit’ dichotomy, but rather that the domains of use for both varieties has become less rigid and more dependent on individual situations.

3.1.2 University education

What is the situation, however, in universities in German-speaking Switzerland, which must to larger extent take into account the presence of non-SG speakers^[6] ? 100% of respondents in the 10-30 age group who are currently studying at university level declared that they would present a seminar project in HG. Furthermore, all formal lectures are conducted in HG, although ‘Professor/in und Student/in in der Sprechstunde oder Wissenschaftler im Labor [sprechen] durchaus Dialekt miteinander’ (Ammon 1995: 293). However, despite formal lectures being conducted in HG, there is a growing trend for the use of SG at university level. Ris notes, ‘an Universitäten dringt […] die Mundart schon in Arbeitsgruppen und in von einem Dozenten geleitete Kolloquien ein, wenn nicht gerade auf fremdsprachige Teilnehmer Rücksicht genommen werden muss’ (Ris 1979: 45). Loetscher claims that this is because ‘die Schriftsprache im Zweier oder Gruppengespräch ohne formellen öffentlichen Rahmen [ist] jedem Deutschschweizer fremd’ (1983: 131)^[7].

3.1.3 Summary

To summarise, SG has always been present in the school system, whether as a variety to be spoken outside of the formal lesson or as a language of instruction within primary education and the so called ‘Herz- und Handfächer’. Although the use of SG for certain subjects seems to be normal practice, the results of the study hint that the current generation of school-leavers has more varied experiences of dialect in the classroom. As Kropf states, ‘bisherige Untersuchungen haben mit genügender Deutlichkeit gezeigt, dass Kommunikationsform, thematische Ausrichtung, Öffentlichkeitsgrad, Formalitätsgrad, Partnerbezug, zeitliche und räumliche Komponenten die Wahl der einen oder der anderen Varietät nahe legen können’ (1986: 72). As approaches to teaching become less formal, the use of dialect in schools rises and this is supported by the trend for SG to be used in less formal and smaller classes at university level. Rash concludes that ‘dialect is used at certain times in all school classes, and increasingly so’ (1998: 55).

3.2 Dialect and Standard in oral communication

In Ferguson’s initial definition of diglossia, ‘one of the most important features […] is the specialization of function for H and L (1959, repr. 1972: 235). Traditionally, everyday oral communication between German-speaking Swiss will be conducted in SG, whereas HG is seen as more appropriate for formal and public speech acts.

3.2.1 Informal oral communication

Informal oral communication between German-speaking Swiss remains the sole domain of SG. 96.9% of respondents would use SG for oral communications. The remaining 3.1% claimed that they would use both, but went on to specify that this was because of a German partner or mixed friendship group. Therefore, it can be maintained that ‘das Schweizerdeutsche ist die im alltäglichen Verkehr von jedermann spontan gesprochene Sprache’ (Loetscher 1983: 66). Furthermore, ‘ausser in den Zeiten vor der Übernahme der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache im 16. bis 18. Jh […] ist [sie] nur die allein mögliche Sprachform in der alltäglichen Unterhaltung zwischen Schweizern aller sozialen Schichten’ (Ris 1979: 44).

Although everyday oral communication between speakers of SG takes place in this variety, 47% speak HG every day and a further 47% use HG up to three times per week.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 5

Amongst those who spoke HG every day, 66.7% were women, compared to just 33% of men. Those who used HG rarely (6%) were aged over 60 and this can perhaps be attributed to fewer members from this group being employed, meaning less contact with non-SG speakers (EDI 1989a: 293). As is shown in figure 6 below, 100% of those aged 10-60 use HG orally at least once weekly, and this declines to 50% of the over 60s which would support this hypothesis. We can therefore conclude that for all members of the Swiss German speech community, HG is a variety used for oral communication, although the frequency of this varies due to personal circumstances.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 6

3.2.2 Formal oral communication

The use of HG in oral communication is dependent on the conditions of the speech act, and in the first instance HG is used in formal circumstances. As Sitta explains, ‘Die Bereiche, wo in der Schweiz Hochsprache begegnet (Politik, Publizistik, Predigt), sind Bereiche der Schriftlichkeit und einer gewissen stilistischen Überhöhtheit’ (1979: 165-166). The Church, for example, uses the distinction between formal and informal to dictate which variety is to be employed in a specific area of its work. For example, Rash states that ‘the traditional views is that HG has the required solemnity for Church functions [but] all confessions accept the use of dialect in Sunday School’ (Rash 1998: 65-66). However, the choice of variety in is not regulated and there is a growing trend for dialect to be used in more intimate ceremonies such as weddings, funerals and baptisms (Rash 1998: 65). As Christen notes ‘in der Kirche ist wie in anderen Bereichen eine zunehmende Informalisierung festzustellen’ (2001: 140) and as a result, the use of SG is increasing.

[...]

---

^[1] See Appendix 1

^[2] See Appendix 2

^[3] See Appendix 3.

^[4] Although there are no fixed rules, directions have been published (Christen 2001: 135).

^[5] 640 teachers from Germany transferred to Swiss schools in 2003 (Leupin 2004)

^[6] 30% of students and staff at the University of Basel have German nationality (Leupin 2004)

^[7] This appears to be the case from personal experiences at a University in German-speaking Switzerland. In one seminar, which was based around group contributions, both discussion and presentations would have been conducted in SG had it not been for my presence.