Copyright
by
Karen Ann Roesch
2009

The Dissertation Committee for Karen Ann Roesch Certifies
that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Texas Alsatian: Henri Castro’s Legacy

Committee:

Hans. C. Boas, Supervisor
Marc Pierce
Robert King
Patience Epps
Lars Hinrichs

Texas Alsatian: Henri Castro’s Legacy

by
Karen Ann Roesch, B.A.; M.A.

Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin
December 2009

Dedication

To my paternal grandmother, Rosa Lee Hawkins Collins,
a Texas-German speaker,
and
My mother, Joanne Powell Collins,
who set an example for me in her achievement of high academic goals

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I express my deep appreciation and thanks to the communities
of Castroville, D’Hanis, and LaCoste for their participation in and support of my efforts
to document the Alsatian language in Texas, which they have so treasured and ardently
preserved. Many people in the Alsace also supported me and facilitated my work, even
welcoming me into their homes, for which I am deeply thankful. Without their help and
encouragement, I would not have been able to achieve my goal. I equally thank my
husband and best friend, who lovingly encouraged me and unfailingly gave me both
technical and emotional support in the undertaking of this monumental task to its
completion, even when it meant weekly separation over a period of several years.
Special appreciation goes to my daughter, Cara, who tolerated me in her apartment
during the week, lifted my spirits when I was overwhelmed, and made me eat breakfast
every day before I left for the courses which prepared me for this task. I also thank my
sons, Stefan and Christoph, who were always willing to make time to solve my computer
crises and performed the design and upkeep of my website highlighting my research.
My deep appreciation also goes to the members of my dissertation committee for
their guidance and comments: Dr. Hans Boas, Dr. Robert King, Dr. Marc Pierce, Dr.
Patience Epps, and Dr. Lars Hinrichs. I especially thank my dissertation advisor, Dr.
Hans Boas, for providing the right blend of guidance and advice during the dissertation
v

process, and Dr. Marc Pierce, for his untiring willingness to proof-read my many drafts
and for his insights into historical and phonological issues. I also thank my professors in
the Department of Germanic Studies and the Department of Linguistics for not only
arming me with the necessary knowledge and tools to undertake such a task, but also for
their thoughtful comments on my papers which prepared me for this topic. Last, but
never least, I thank my graduate colleagues and numerous friends who have expressed
interest in my work and encouraged me throughout my academic journey.

vi

Texas Alsatian: Henri Castro’s Legacy

Publication No._____________

Karen Ann Roesch, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2009

Supervisor: Hans C. Boas

This study constitutes the first in-depth description and analysis of Texas Alsatian
as spoken in Medina County, Texas, in the twenty-first century. The Alsatian dialect was
transported to Texas in 1842, when the entrepreneur Henri Castro recruited colonists
from the Alsace to fulfill the Texas Republic’s stipulations for populating his land grant
located to the west of San Antonio.
Texas Alsatian (TxAls) is a dialect distinct from other varieties of Texas German
(Gilbert 1972: 1, Salmons 1983: 191) and is mainly spoken in Eastern Medina County in
and around the city of Castroville. With a small and aging speaker population, it has not
been transmitted to the next generation and will likely survive for only another two to
three decades. Despite this endangered status, TxAls is a language undergoing death
with minimal change.
This study provides both a descriptive account of TxAls and discussions on extralinguistic factors linked to ethnic identity and language loyalty, which have enabled the
maintenance of this distinctive Texas German dialect for 150 years. To investigate the
extent of the maintenance of lexical, phonological, and morphological features, this study
vii

identifies the main donor dialect(s), Upper Rhine Alsatian, and compares its linguistic
features to those presently maintained in the community, based on current data collected
between 2007 and 2009 and Gilbert’s (1972) data collected in the 1960s.
This discussion of TxAls is three-fold: (1) an analysis of social, historical,
political, and economic factors affecting the maintenance and decline of TxAls, (2) a
detailed structural analysis of the grammatical features of TxAls, supported by a
description of its European donor dialect and substantiated by Gilbert’s (1972) data, and
(3) a discussion of the participants’ attitudes toward their ancestral language, which have
either contributed to the maintenance of TxAls, or are now accelerating its decline, based
on responses to a survey developed for the TxAls community, the Alsatian
Questionnaire.

viii

Table of Contents
List of Tables ....................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xvi
List of Illustrations............................................................................................. xviii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................1
1.1 Introduction: Rationale and research questions .....................................1
1.2

Methodology and data............................................................................6

1.3 What is Texas Alsatian?........................................................................10
1.3.1 The land of origin......................................................................14
1.3.2 The donor dialect, Upper Rhine Alsatian .................................18
1.4 Adopted home of TxAls: Medina County 2000 ..................................20
1.4.1 Linguistic beginnings..................................................................24
1.4.2 The Texas Germans of Castroville ...........................................26
1.5 TxG dialects: Contact, shift, and decline ..............................................28
1.6 Participant profile..................................................................................32
1.6.1 Speaker fluency.........................................................................35
1.6.2 Language acquisition and fluency ............................................38
1.7 Language use today...............................................................................40
1.8 Overview of dissertation structure ........................................................46
CHAPTER TWO: THE SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT................................49
2.1 The ecology of language.......................................................................49
2.2

Beginnings: the historical context........................................................53
2.2.1 German immigration to Texas ..................................................55
2.2.2 Immigration to Medina County ................................................56
2.2.3 Henri Castro, Empresario .........................................................58
2.2.4

The Alsatians of Castroville.....................................................60

2.3 Socio-cultural contexts: religion and education...................................65
2.4 Political and economic contexts............................................................72
ix

2.4.1 Insulation...................................................................................72
2.4.2 “Reawakening” .........................................................................74
2.4.3 Verticalization vs. horizontalization .........................................76
2.5 Language shift and diglossia: English /Alsatian..................................78
2.5.1 Diglossia: English /Alsatian.....................................................78
2.5.2 Diglossia and language shift in other TxG dialects ..................81
2.5.3 Real and apparent-time analysis of 2009 participants ..............86
2.6 Group vitality: Language maintenance, shift, death ............................92
2.7 Summary ...............................................................................................94
CHAPTER THREE: THE LEXICON OF TEXAS ALSATIAN .........................97
3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................97
3.2 Distinguishing TxAls lexically .............................................................98
3.3 Lexical borrowing...............................................................................109
3.4 Lexical innovation and convergence ..................................................116
3.5 Code-switching ...................................................................................120
3.6 Summary .............................................................................................127
CHAPTER FOUR: THE PHONOLOGY OF TEXAS ALSATIAN..................130
4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................130
4.2

Phonological features of European Alsatian (ALS)...........................133
4.2.1 Regional German dialects in contact with Alsatian................136
4.2.2 Alsatian (LAlem): distinguishing consonantal features..........136
4.2.3 Alsatian (LAlem): distinguishing vocalic features .................139

4.3

Regional Alsatian varieties: Upper and Lower Rhine Alsatian .........144

4.4 Texas Alsatian.....................................................................................147
4.4.1 Preservation of Alsatian vocalic features................................147
4.4.2 Preservation of consonantal features ......................................159
4.4.3 Phonological transference.......................................................171
4.5 Summary .............................................................................................173
CHAPTER FIVE: THE MORPHOSYNTAX OF TEXAS ALSATIAN ...........175
5.1 Introduction.........................................................................................175
x

5.2 The SG noun: Gender, case, and number ...........................................178
5.3 The Upper Rhine Alsatian noun: gender, case, and number...............182
5.4 The Texas Alsatian noun: gender, case, and number..........................186
5.4.1 Gender.....................................................................................186
5.4.2 Case marking ..........................................................................191
5.4.3 Number and plural formation..................................................199
5.4.4 The diminutive ........................................................................205
5.4.5 Pronouns .................................................................................207
5.5 The Upper Rhine Alsatian verb ..........................................................217
5.6

The verb in Texas Alsatian ................................................................224
5.6.1 The present perfect tense ........................................................224
5.6.2 Temporal auxiliaries ...............................................................229
5.6.3 Modal auxiliaries ....................................................................232

5.7 Syntax of double infinitives and present perfect constructions ..........235
5.8 Summary and Analysis .......................................................................237
CHAPTER SIX: LANGUAGE ATTITUDES....................................................240
6.1 Introduction.........................................................................................240
6.2 Attitudes, Feelings, Beliefs .................................................................242
6.3 The Castroville Alsatians....................................................................247
6.4 Language use and attitudes toward “the other” ..................................253
6.4.1 The “other”..............................................................................253
6.4.2 The Texas German community: not “the other”? ...................258
6.5 The decline of TxAls ..........................................................................261
6.7 Preservation.........................................................................................265
6.8 Summary .............................................................................................269
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ................................................................271
7.1 Introduction.........................................................................................271
7.2 Structural maintenance of the ALS donor dialect(s)...........................273
7.3 Structural loss and developments in TxAls ........................................275
7.4 TxAls versus other TxG varieties in the Western Settlements ...........277
xi

7.5 Group identity markers of the Castroville Alsatian community.........279
7.6 Attitudes, dispositions, and ideologies................................................280
7.7 The decline of TxAls ..........................................................................282
7.8 Implications for various research areas...............................................283
7.9 Concluding remarks ............................................................................290
APPENDICES

292

Appendix A: Participant Profiles ........................................................................292
Appendix B: Alsatian Questionnaire ..................................................................296
Appendix C: TGDP Questionnaire .....................................................................302
Appendix D: Gilbert (1972) Sentences, Sample.................................................310
Appendix E: Eikel (1954) Sentences, Sample ....................................................315
Appendix F: Interview Transcriptions ................................................................316
References............................................................................................................324
Vita ......................................................................................................................340

xii

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Sample demographics of Medina County communities......................21
Table 1.2: Ancestry Groups ..................................................................................23
Table 1.3: Age distribution of participants ...........................................................34
Table 1.4: Participant fluency ...............................................................................37
Table 2.1: Alsatian passengers on the Heinrich....................................................61
Table 2.2: Marriages in D’Hanis 1910-1940 ........................................................68
Table 2.3: Elected officials of July 12, 1848 (CCHA: 1985) ...............................80
Table 2.4: TxG language shift in Gillespie County ..............................................83
Table 3.1: Gilbert TxG data for SG –fällt (‘falls’)..............................................102
Table 3.2: Roesch (2009) data for SG sieh (‘look’) and –fällt (‘falls’) ..............103
Table 3.3: Lexical examples from the Elsasser Wordbuch ................................105
Table 3.4: Lexical distinctiveness for “horse”....................................................107
Table 3.5: Lexical distinctiveness for “girl” .......................................................108
Table 3.6: Borrowing scale (Thomason 2001) ...................................................111
Table 3.7: TxG for “lightning bug” ....................................................................118
Table 3.8: Convergence of lexical items in TxAls ..............................................119
Table 4.1: ALS phonological features in TxAls .................................................132
Table 4.2: Vowel lengthening in URA ...............................................................141
Table 4.3: Backing and lowering of MHG ë .....................................................148
Table 4.4: ALS /a/ [a, ɑ, ɔ, ə] for SG [ε]............................................................149
Table 4.5: MHG ë > a .........................................................................................152
Table 4.6: Retention of MHG long vowels î and û.............................................153
Table 4.7: ALS [i] for SG [ai]..............................................................................154
xiii

Table 4.8: ALS [y:] for SG [aʊ]...........................................................................155
Table 4.9: Rising and closing diphthongs in ALS ..............................................157
Table 4.10: ALS [yə] for SG [y] ..........................................................................158
Table 4.11: Spirantization of intervocalic [b] .....................................................162
Table 4.12: URAMul [x] for SG [ç] ....................................................................164
Table 4.13: /r/.......................................................................................................170
Table 5.1: Masculine definite article declinations, der Mann (‘the man’) .........177
Table 5.2: SG Masculine noun inflection for case and number..........................179
Table 5.3: URAMul case and gender..................................................................182
Table 5.4: Plural formation in SG and URAMul................................................185
Table 5.5: TxAls grammatical genders...............................................................187
Table 5.6: Resampling: Gender assignment in Medina County .........................188
Table 5.7: Resampling of TxAls Gender Assignment ........................................190
Table 5.8: URAMul demonstrative pronoun forms............................................191
Table 5.9: Resampling: Demonstrative adjective “this”.....................................192
Table 5.10: Resampling: Demonstrative adjective “that”...................................193
Table 5.11: Resampling: Dative markings after two-way preposition auf .........196
Table 5.12: Resampling: Accusative markings after two-way preposition auf ..198
Table 5.13: 2009 Texas Alsatian plural formation .............................................201
Table 5.14: 2009 Resampling of plural formation for Kopf (‘head’) .................202
Table 5.15: Resampling of plural formation for Topf (‘pot’) ..............................203
Table 5.16: Resampling of plural formation for Techteřa (‘daughters’) .............204
Table 5.17: URA personal pronouns ..................................................................207
Table 5.18: Resampling of nominative personal pronoun wir (‘we’).................209
Table 5.19: Resampling of dative personal pronoun ihr (‘her’) .........................210
xiv

Table 5.20: Resampling of accusative personal pronoun sie (‘her’) ..................211
Table 5.21: 2009 Resampling of first person pronoun in nom/acc/dat contexts 212
Table 5.22: Resampling of nominative personal pronoun ihr (‘you’) ................213
Table 5.23: SG personal relative pronouns.........................................................215
Table 5.24: Resampling of relative pronouns .....................................................216
Table 5.25: Upper Rhine Alsatian monosyllabic verbs ......................................218
Table 5.26: URA verb endings ...........................................................................219
Table 5.27: Infinitive and past participle verb forms..........................................220
Table 5.28: Temporal auxiliaries ........................................................................221
Table 5.29: Present perfect versus preterite for SG kommen (‘to come’)...........226
Table 5.30: Present perfect versus preterite for SG gehen (‘to go’) ...................227
Table 5.31: Present perfect versus preterite for SG sein (‘to be’) ......................228

xv

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: “Can you understand Texas German?” ..............................................12
Figure 1.2: “Can Texas Germans understand you?”.............................................13
Figure 1.3: Speakers’ Year of Birth ......................................................................33
Figure 1.4: Participant fluency/Age AL learned....................................................39
Figure 1.5: “With whom do you speak Alsatian now?” ........................................42
Figure 1.6: “How often do you speak Alsatian?” ..................................................44
Figure 1.7: “Where do you speak Alsatian?”........................................................45
Figure 2.1: Diglossia in Early New Braunfels ......................................................84
Figure 2.2: Diglossia in Early Castroville.............................................................85
Figure 2.3: Language shift ....................................................................................87
Figure 2.4: “When did you learn Alsatian?”.........................................................88
Figure 2.5: Use of Alsatian as a child ...................................................................90
Figure 2.6: Use of Alsatian as a young adult ........................................................91
Figure 6.1: “Alsatian is…” .................................................................................246
Figure 6.2: “Alsatian is . . . of my identity”........................................................250
Figure 6.3: “What defines your Alsatian heritage?”...........................................251
Figure 6.4: “New residents are welcomed in our community”...........................256
Figure 6.5: “Do you consider yourself part of the larger TxG community?”.....258
Figure 6.6: “How is the Texas German community different?”.........................260
Figure 6.7: “Why do you think Alsatian is spoken less these days?”.................261
Figure 6.8: “Texas Alsatian should be preserved”..............................................263
Figure 6.9: “Texas Alsatian will be preserved” ..................................................264
Figure 6.10: “I can play an important part in preserving Alsatian”....................266
xvi

Figure 6.11: “How to preserve the Alsatian heritage”........................................267
Figure 6.12: Institutional support........................................................................268

xvii

List of Illustrations
Illustration 1.1: Location of the Alsace, France....................................................15
Illustration 1.2: Administrative Divisions of the Alsace ......................................17
Illustration 1.3: Upper Rhine ancestral villages....................................................19
Illustration 2.1: The Western German Settlements (Boas 2009a: 37) ..................54
Illustration 2.1: Castro's Colonies (Weaver 1985: 118)........................................64
Illustration 4.1: The Alsatian speech area (Matzen 1973) ..................................135
Illustration 4.2: Major Alsatian Isoglosses .........................................................138
Illustration 4.3: ALS /a/ for SG [ε] .....................................................................151
Illustration 5.1: ALS present perfect forms of haben (Philipp & Weider 2002) 222

xviii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
. . . with the exception of Alsatian and East Friesland Low
German in Medina County . . . it is indeed a rare event to
find someone who can consciously speak a type of
language markedly different from that which prevails
among his neighbors . . .
-- Glenn Gilbert (1972: 1)

1.1 INTRODUCTION: RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study constitutes the first in-depth description and analysis of Texas Alsatian
as spoken in Medina County, Texas, in the twenty-first century. The Alsatian dialect was
transported to Texas in 1842, when the entrepreneur Henri Castro recruited colonists
from the Alsace to fulfill the Texas Republic’s stipulations for populating his land grant
located to the west of San Antonio. Texas Alsatian is a dialect1 distinct from other
varieties of Texas German (Gilbert 1972: 1, Salmons 1983: 191) and is mainly spoken in
Eastern Medina County in and around the city of Castroville. With a small and aging
speaker population, Texas Alsatian has not been transmitted to the next generation and
will likely survive for only another two to three decades. Despite this endangered status,
Texas Alsatian appears to be a language undergoing death with minimal change.2 This
study provides both a descriptive account of Texas Alsatian and discussions of

1 Boas

(2009a: 2) refers to Texas German as a language in functional and distributional contexts because it
functions as one when juxtaposed with English in Texas, but as a dialect when comparing its linguistic
properties with other German varieties. The distinction is maintained in this study.
2 That is, without considerable structural and semantic loss. Many accounts of languages in contact
situations and typologies focus upon the structural (simplification, regularization) and semantic loss in
dying languages (e.g. Dorian 1978, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, Dressler 1988, Campbell & Muntzel 1989,
Wolfram 2002, Brenzinger 1992a, Tsunoda 2005, etc.).

1

sociolinguistic processes linked to ethnic identity and loyalty which have enabled the
maintenance of this distinct German dialect for 150 years.
Texas Alsatian speakers have maintained several distinctive lexical, grammatical,
and phonological features of their ancestral language, Alsatian, into the sixth generation.
To investigate the extent of this maintenance,3 this study identifies the main donor dialect
of the Texas Alsatian community, Upper Rhine Alsatian, and compares its linguistic
features to those presently maintained in the community based on data collected in 20072009 and Gilbert’s (1972) data collected in the 1960s. Weinreich (1953: 44) emphasizes
that the components of an explanatory framework when examining languages in contact
situations must include (1) “purely structural considerations, (2) psychological reasons
and (3) socio-cultural factors” (cited in Winford 2003: 10). Previous studies4 of Texas
German have mainly focused upon a linguistic description or structural analysis,5 but my
study also inquires into attitudes and ideologies instrumental to the maintenance of Texas
Alsatian which revolve around language and cultural identity, as well as those attitudes
now contributing to its rapid decline.
This study informs research on several levels. In general, it contributes to the
body of research on linguistic developments (maintenance, change, loss) and
sociolinguistic processes which motivate these developments.

Languages in contact

often act as a “natural laboratory” of language change to study processes and
grammatical functions which are not evident in monolingual situations (Matras 1998:
282). In addition, it simultaneously informs research on other languages in contact
3

Language maintenance refers to the preservation of a speech community’s ancestral language (AL) from
generation to generation (Winford 2003: 11).
4 E.g., Eikel 1949, 1966a, 1966b, 1967, Gilbert 1972, Guion 1996, Fuller & Gilbert 2003, Boas 2003, 2005,
Boas & Weilbacher 2009.
5 Salmons (1983) and Boas (2005, 2009a) include an analysis of socio-cultural and historical factors
influencing the decline of TxG in their research. Guion (1996) also makes an argument for psychological
motivation as the cause for certain morphological innovations in the speech of younger Texas Germans in
Gillespie County.

2

situations and related phenomena such as structural attrition, lexical borrowing, and codeswitching. The study also represents the paradigm of an endangered German-American
dialect undergoing minimal change and offers data for comparative studies with other
German-American dialects (cf. Huffines 1989, Born 1994, Keel 1994, Nützel 1998,
Louden 2003, Nicolini 2003, Boas 2009a), as well as for studies of German Sprachinseln
in other countries (Damke 1997, Berend 2003, Clyne 2003).
More specifically, this dissertation offers a case study of a dialect which resisted
absorption into a developing Texas German koiné.6 Additionally, it provides a unique
diachronic measuring stick for the study of language change in TxG dialects, as it is
possible to trace the donor dialects of current Texas Alsatian speakers to specific villages
in the Alsace, which is often impossible to ascertain for other varieties of Texas German.
This provides data for evaluating developments in the TxAls dialect more accurately in
terms of linguistic processes involved in language change such as attrition and related
questions of cause, i.e., internally or externally-motivated (contact-driven) change.
Specific implications for these different research areas are addressed in the conclusion.
Only minimal research (see below) exists to date on the linguistic structure of
Texas Alsatian (hereafter TxAls) and no study exists addressing sociolinguistic aspects of
the speech community.

This study overcomes the lack of data on this dialect by

addressing the following questions:

6

Siegel (1985: 363) defines koiné as the “stabilized result of mixing of linguistic subsystems such as
regional or literary dialects. It usually serves as a lingua franca . . . and is characterized by a mixture of
features of these varieties and most often by reduction or simplification.” Boas (2009a: 2) argues that
Texas German only completed the beginning stages toward the formation of a New World dialect (Trudgill
2004).

3

1. What are some linguistic features of the European donor dialect(s) that have
been maintained in TxAls?
2. How does TxAls differ from its European donor dialect(s)?
3. How does TxAls differ from other varieties of TxG?
4. Which linguistic features and extra-linguistic factors serve as identity markers
for the community of TxAls speakers?
5. Which ideologies and speaker attitudes have contributed to the
linguistic preservation of TxAls?
6. Which extra-linguistic factors are triggering the rapid decline of TxAls
in progress?
The breath of the topic undertaken in this study and its largely descriptive nature
necessarily involves exploring various theoretical frameworks from a variety of
perspectives relevant to language contact situations.

These are introduced within a

literature review and discussed in each chapter according to their relevance to the chapter
topic.

For example, the linguistic preservation of TxAls is investigated within

sociolinguistic frameworks in Chapter Six. Here, TxAls is examined within the concept
of language as a “badge of identity” (Epps 2006). Breton, Isajiw, Kalbach, & Reitz
(2000) create a taxonomy of ethnic behavior in their study of ethnic identity in Canada
which is insightful and facilitates the discussion of linguistic maintenance. Breton et al.
(2000: 35-37) distinguish between internal and external aspects of ethnic behavior.
External aspects are observable behavior, such as speaking in an ethnic language,
practicing ethnic traditions, participation in personal ethnic networks, institutional and
voluntary organizations, and functions sponsored by ethnic organizations, while internal
aspects are subjective and include attitudes, ideas, images, and feelings. The Alsatian
Questionnaire I developed in 2007 investigates these internal and external aspects of
ethnic identity to facilitate the discussion of language maintenance and death.
4

Several seminal studies on Texas German serve as the common thread for my
analysis of Texas Alsatian throughout the study. Gilbert’s (1972) linguistic survey of
Texas German of thirty-one counties in the 1960s included Medina County and provides
the only diachronic data on Texas Alsatian. Gilbert (1972: 1, 18) makes reference to the
Alsatians and Low Alemannic dialect features of eastern Medina County, but presents no
specific analysis of the dialect.7 Several distinctive Alsatian phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical features are evident in Gilbert’s maps, however, which often show
Medina County participants utilizing forms that are only rarely found in the remaining
thirty counties. Gilbert (1972: 17-18) also notes Alsatian lineage for thirteen8 of the
twenty-seven Medina County participants in his field notes on the participants. Judging
by the birthdates provided, many of his informants represent the parent generation of
participants in this study and therefore constitute an important comparative base.
As early as the 1940s, Fred Eikel interviewed inhabitants of New Braunfels in
Comal County, Texas. He published his findings on the phonology, morphology, and
syntax of New Braunfels German in a series of publications (Eikel 1949, 1966a, 1966b,
1967). Boas (2009a) builds upon earlier data from Eikel (1954) and Gilbert (1972)
together with current data from the Texas German Dialect Archive9 to present a more
complete picture of the Texas German language and its decline. Whereas Boas (2009a)
focuses on the predominant Texas German variety found in New Braunfels whose donor
7

Gilbert (1972) only briefly remarks on this “markedly different” language in his introduction.
Participant #s 4, 7-9, 12, 18-21, 23-25, 27 (#21 was recorded on tape). Eight of these participants
consistently exhibit distinctive Alsatian characteristics: #s 9, 19-21, 23-25, 27 (see Example 3.1). Many of
these participants also indicated ancestors from Germany (#s 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, 22, 26) and Gilbert
often noted whether they spoke “High German” (#4, 8) or Low German at home. Participants 2, 16, 22
were designated as fluent Low German speakers by Gilbert, who recorded some of their conversation on
tape (1972: 17-18).
9 Recent research on TxG directed by Boas has resulted in the creation of the Texas German Dialect
Archive, a database published online at www.tgdp.org that was created for research and preservation
purposes (Boas 2003, 2006, Boas et al. forthcoming). This data is recorded and processed via aid of
research assistants to document native TxG speakers. Data is collected from sociolinguistic interviews,
elicitation tasks using Gilbert’s (1972) and Eikel’s (1954) lists, and biographical surveys.
8

5

dialects are those of north-central Germany and mutually intelligible with Standard
German (Boas 2009a: 2), this study investigates an enclave of immigrants from a
different Germanic dialect area located today in eastern France, which differentiates itself
from the Texas German koiné (Gilbert 1972) in many respects and is only mutually
intelligible with other Texas German dialects after prolonged contact. Boas (2009a) also
investigates attitudes pertinent to the decline of Texas German which serve as an
important base for comparison with Texas Alsatian. He concludes that the continued
stigmatization due to earlier sociolinguistic developments and the current low practical
value of Texas German will lead to its disappearance in the next three to four decades
(Boas 2009a: 291). Other factors of education, migration, and the resulting loss of group
vitality are examined as contributing factors (Boas 2009a: 244).
Also pertinent to the analysis are the methods employed in selecting participants
and collecting data, which are described in the following section.

1.2 METHODOLOGY AND DATA
I conducted interviews and surveys in Castroville and environs from January 2007
through May 2009 to record and analyze the extant TxAls dialect spoken in Medina
County, Texas. Thirty-six (36) TxAls speakers of varying linguistic competence were
interviewed.10 For comparative purposes, ten (10) TxG speakers from the adjacent
communities of Hondo and Quihi, and ten (10) European Alsatian speakers from the
Upper and Lower Rhine departments were also interviewed. Community historians,
priests, former mayors, and other residents involved in historical preservation efforts

10 Nine of these either declined to speak Alsatian during the interview or are “formerly fluent” speakers, to
use the term from Dorian (1982b), who prefer to speak English. As a result, only twenty-seven (27)
complete data samples (narratives in Alsatian and Gilbert 1972 resamplings) were procured.

6

were also included in the data collection process. The interviews of Alsatian speakers
were mainly conducted within a ten-mile radius of Castroville. Additional interviews
were conducted in two other smaller centers of Alsatian heritage, D’Hanis, another
Castro colony established twenty miles west of Castroville in 1847, and LaCoste, five
miles southeast of Castroville, founded when the railroad pushed through the county in
the 1880s. Further references to Castroville and TxAls in this study include the speakers
in these communities.
The initial search criterion for participants was self-identification of the
participant as a native speaker of Texas Alsatian, which encompassed all levels of
competence.

Community contact was established through the local Chamber of

Commerce, which recommended the current leader of an Alsatian language class featured
in their Visitors Guide. The snowball technique (Johnstone 2000: 92; Milroy & Gordon
2003: 32), which involves using the social networks of the informants to identify
potential participants, was employed to make subsequent contacts, as it was often
difficult to convince TxAls speakers of the importance of participating in the
documentation of their language. Recruitment of participants was made even more
difficult due to issues of health or the absence of a telephone in the household. At an
early point in the interview process, spouses who spoke TxG were included in order to
collect comparative data. This was also further expanded to include native speakers of
TxG in Castroville.
I utilized similar methods of data collection as those used for the Texas German
Dialect Project (TGDP) (Boas et al., forthcoming) and conducted interviews in the same
spirit of documenting for preservation purposes, but with the additional goal of
establishing effective preservation strategies of TxAls for the Castroville community.
Phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical data were obtained from participants using
7

open-ended interview techniques and elicitation tasks.

The interviews spanned

approximately 2 - 2 ½ hours and covered a variety of topics, such as language use, family
history, and childhood experiences.
All interviews were digitally recorded, coded, and stored for transcription and
analysis (see Appendix F for sample transcriptions). These TxAls interviews are archived
for academic and instructional use in the Texas German Dialect Archive (Boas 2006).
Transcriptions of narratives were recorded in a modified German orthography to facilitate
rapid comprehension. These occasionally include the symbols à [ɔ] and ř [r] (used by
Gilbert 1972 for the apical trill) for contrastive comparison with SG.11 IPA phonetic
transcriptions were used to transcribe those instances which necessitated a comparison
with SG or TxG, as in the 2009 resamplings that are compared with Gilbert (1972) data.12
In order to elicit a controlled data set (especially useful for phonology),
participants were asked to produce TxAls translations for a list of English lexical and
grammatical items compiled by Gilbert in the 1960s (Appendix D) to provide a
diachronic basis for comparison. In some cases, the Eikel (1954) list (Appendix E) was
incorporated when time and health of the informants permitted. Each participant also
completed a written biographical survey eliciting personal data such as religious
affiliation and educational level, as well as opinions, feelings, and beliefs towards aspects
of the TxAls and TxG languages.
Initially, a written survey developed by the TGDP (Appendix C) was used for this
purpose in the absence of a more Alsatian-specific one, and provides data on four

11

SG does not have a velarized phoneme as found in ALS.
However, Gilbert (1972) does not consistently use phonetic transcriptions, preferring instead to utilize
certain “lead forms” or phonemic transcriptions for vowels. On the other hand, he does transcribe certain
phonemes phonetically, such as those for /r/, when the analysis focuses upon the allophonic realization of a
particular phoneme.
12

8

participants in this study.13 However, to address TxAls as a community distinct from
other western TxG communities, I developed a survey (Appendix B) which treated TxAls
as a separate dialect and specifically addressed attitudes unique to the TxAls-speaking
community, such as views on the use, prestige, and grammaticality of their own dialect
versus other varieties of TxG. Thirty-six (36) Alsatian questionnaires (including four
from non-speakers) and four TGDP questionnaires which provided overlapping
information were returned, which provide the basis for my analysis on attitudes and
language choice in Chapter Six. The survey data was expanded by distributing the
questionnaires to the memberships of the Castro Colonies Heritage Association, Chamber
of Commerce, and the representative Catholic churches in the area, but with little
response.
Questions have been raised as to the reliability of self-reported data and to the
limitations of categorical responses typical of written questionnaires (Milroy & Gordon
2003: 52). To compensate somewhat for the limitations of this data collection method,
many of these same questions were posed in the interview sessions. Additional comment
sections were periodically spaced throughout the questionnaire.

The questionnaire

responses are displayed by number instead of percentage in data tables under each chart,
in consideration of the relatively small sample number, but percentages are calculated
and used when comparing data with other studies.
The Observer’s Paradox (Labov 1972) should also be considered when viewing
data collected during the open-ended interviews and translation tasks. Even though I was
acknowledged fairly quickly as a semi-insider (see §6.4), the participants were aware of
the specific goal to document their ancestral language, and exercised great care to
13 These four participants were later sent the Alsatian Questionnaire. Unfortunately, one participant died
before I could gather the additional information, and there was no response from the remaining three
informants.

9

produce Alsatian lexical items, especially in the translation tasks.

To offset this

“observer’s paradox,” I conducted open-ended interviews which included “getting to
know” the participant and his interests, in order to elicit as “natural” (Wolfson 1997) a
sample as possible. I also attended many informal group community events where TxAls
was spoken as a participant observer such as lunches, celebrations, and the local men’s
Kaffeeklatsch,14 as well as those between French Alsatians and TxAls in Castroville and
in the Alsace.
Before presenting a profile of these participants, a general introduction to TxAls
clarifies its particular linguistic heritage.

1.3 WHAT IS TEXAS ALSATIAN?
Historically, Alsatian was spoken by the Alamans, a major tribe of the
Herminones who occupied Southern Germany and parts of Austria in the third century,
then spread into Switzerland and into the Alsace region (Waterman 1991: 43, Vassberg
1989: 21).15 Upper Rhenish varieties of the Alsatian dialect were brought to Texas by
immigrants in the 1840s from border areas of the triangle created by France, Switzerland,
and Germany. The Alsatian (ALS) dialect is still extant in present-day France and differs
measurably from the north and central German dialects of TxG in its lexicon, phonology,
and morphosyntax, although all German dialects share a common structure and lexical
stock. It is important to note that ALS was predominently a spoken language with rare

14 Literally this translates as “coffee gossip.” In Castroville, these are groups of men within the Texas
Alsatian community who gather around a cup of coffee in the morning or afternoon to discuss various
public or personal events.
They often switch back and forth between TxAls and English in their
discussions depending upon the fluency of the members attending. Similar groups meet in TxG
communities such as Fredericksburg.
15 The Franks occupied most of Gaul in the 5th and 6th centuries and adopted the Romance languages in
areas where they constituted a minority. This, in turn, eventually created a Franco-Germanic linguistic
border which does not represent today’s political borders (Vassberg 1989: 20).

10

examples of written texts at the time of immigration to Texas (Keller 1961)16 and is not
supported by a standardized variety.
Due to extended contact with English and Texas German in Medina County, a
spoken form has emerged over the past century in the speech communities clustered in
and around Castroville, which will be referred to as Texas Alsatian. This variety is
characterized by occasional lexical and phonological borrowings from English and TxG.
There is no standard form spoken by all of the participants. Variations which
were either present in the speech of the original immigrants or which developed within
outlying communities are well-represented. Several of the participants pointed to this
variation, but could not pinpoint the exact features. They noted that “they just speak
different over in (town).” The following segment from one participant’s (#202) narrative
provides an introductory look at the TxAls of Castroville:17
I hàn às gschafft in Santo:n mit a [bunch] a wieber. . . sie sin iwerall
ovagànge un g’wohnt un mol a Tàg han eini g’sait zü mir, wie kumms as dü
nix saisch? Wu bisch dü g’sei? I hàn gesait, „Ninzihn [mile] vü Santo:n
fer achzin Johr un se:br [mile] süd vüm wu ich gwo:nt bin. Dann hàn i
ki:ro:ta un ich bin dert scho sitr ich àchzin Johr alt g’sei bin.“ Die hàn
nur d’Kopf g’schüttelt. Dàs isch àwer a dummi Froi, die hàn g’dacht.
(laughs) [No], si hàns nitt gloibt, as ich nia ahna gànge (bin). . .18
Some TxAls lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic differences from
Standard German (SG), such as the SG past participle for sein (‘to be’) gewesen versus
16

Keller (1961) notes that there was very little dialect literature before 1870. Today, Alsatian’s main
communicative medium is still the spoken word and it remains a non-standardized language with multiple
spoken varieties in the Alsace.
17 As noted in the previous section, transcriptions are generally in a modified German orthography, unless
specific phonetic comparisons are being drawn. The grapheme à represents a highly-velarized a, as in saw,
or IPA [ɔ] (Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003). Philipp-Bothorel-Witz (1989) however, represent this velarized
a as IPA [ɑ].
18 ‘I worked in San Antonio with a bunch of women…they went out everywhere and had lived everywhere
and one time, one day one of them said to me, “Why don’t you say anything? Where have you been? I
said, “(I’ve been) nineteen miles from San Antonio for eighteen years and seven miles south from where I
lived. Then I married and I’ve been there since I was eighteen years old.” They only shook their heads.
That is really a stupid woman, they thought. (laughs) No, they didn’t believe that I’d never been
anywhere.’

11

the TxAls g’sei, or SG aber versus TxAls àwer are immediately evident to the reader
who is familiar with German. These differences will be discussed in further detail in
Chapters Three, Four, and Five.
Although many native German speakers generally seem to be able to understand
the Alsatian dialect after some contact, Texas German speakers seem to experience
difficulty in comprehending their TxAls neighbors. To investigate this intelligibility
between TxG dialects, Question #17 on the Alsatian Questionnaire (AQ) asked whether
TxAls speakers could understand TxG. Figure 1.1 displays the responses of the thirtytwo TxAls speakers:

Figure 1.1: “Can you understand Texas German?”
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
always

often

sometimes

seldom

never

2

4

14

7

5

The speakers who responded with “always” or “often” all have had contact with
TxG in the home (spouse) or SG in foreign language education (#202, 241, 242, 248,
E.B.). As I had thought to observe several situations where the TxG speaker could not
12

understand TxAls,19 a further question “Can Texas Germans understand you when you
speak Alsatian?” was asked in the following survey item. The responses differ only
slightly and are shown in Figure 1.2 below:

Figure 1.2: “Can Texas Germans understand you?”
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
always

often

sometimes

seldom

never

n/a

1

3

16

4

5

3

The “not applicable” response signifies respondents who noted that they have
never spoken Alsatian with a Texas German. Both charts indicate that TxG and TxAls
are only somewhat mutually intelligible20 except in cases where there has been long and
intense contact, such as with a spouse or parent who speaks the other dialect. This
unintelligibility also plays a role in the separation which exists between the two dialect
communities.

19

I conducted a small spontaneous experiment when I introduced a TxAls informant to a TxG friend. The
TxG could not understand the TxAls, but the TxAls (who has had many incidences of exposure to native
German speakers and has several TxG friends) was able to understand her.
20 Initially, I spoke SG during my interviews, but soon discovered it was very difficult for them to
understand me, as well as I them. I began learning Alsatian, but even slight phonological and lexical
variations in my pronunciation seemed to affect comprehension adversely.

13

The next section introduces certain socio-historical facts on the land of origin, the
Alsace, which aid in understanding the socio-cultural context of TxAls.

1.3.1 The land of origin
Political boundaries are constantly in a state of flux, but within the last two
hundred years, the Alsace (see Illustration 1.1) and neighboring Lorraine on the west side
of the upper Rhine have been “disputed, coveted, [and] shuffled back and forth” by
Germany and France (Hessini 1981: 11) as it sits at one of Europe’s major crossroads,
i.e., at the juncture of the north-south route along the Rhine and the east-west route ParisMunich-Vienna.
After a relatively long period of governance under France after the Thirty Years
War (1618-1648), the Alsace and Lorraine were claimed in 1871 by Prussia, the declared
victor of the Franco-Prussian War and political seat of the German Confederation (Goff
et al. 2008).

In 1919, the Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France as part of the

reparations of the Versailles Treaty after Germany’s defeat in WWI (1914-1918).21 Two
decades later, Hitler marched into France in the beginning years of WWII (1939-1945),
after which the Alsace-Lorraine was occupied by Germany.

When Germany was

defeated in 1945, the Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, and has since remained
under its governance.22

21

The official armistice was not signed until 1919, although the actual surrender occurred in 1918.
One of the French Alsatians interviewed in this study tells of his grandfather who lived through all five
of these exchanges between France and Germany.
22

14

Illustration 1.1: Location of the Alsace, France

(http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/france_admin91.jpg)
It is important to note that political borders do not necessarily reflect linguistic
borders. Although the Alsace was directly under the rule of France at the time of
Castro’s recruitment in the 1840s, most of the rural population in the Alsace still spoke
Alsatian, a German dialect, although French was making inroads as the language of
business and culture (Vassberg 1989: 60-1). Full assimilation was seen as a matter of
15

national security by the central government (Craig 1984: 22). However, the majority of
Alsatian peasants and urban workers, which constituted four-fifths of the population,
viewed French as the language of the rich and saw no conflict between their German
dialect and French patriotism (Craig 1984: 24). This is an important ideology which the
first colonists most likely carried with them to their new home in Texas. Erny (2003:
125) reports that “by the end of Louis-Philippe’s reign (1830-1848) a majority of the
peasantry could neither read nor write and spoke only a dialect.”
Today’s Alsace region is divided into two main administrative “departments” or
regional districts, roughly dividing the Alsace in half, called the Bas-Rhin (‘Lower
Rhine’) with its administrative capital, Strasbourg, and the Haut-Rhin (‘Upper Rhine’)
with its administrative capital, Mulhouse (Vassberg 1989: 19), as is shown in Illustration
1.2. These are subdivided into thirteen “arrondissements” (Saverne, Strasbourg, Colmar,
etc.), 75 cantons, and 904 communes.

16

Illustration 1.2: Administrative Divisions of the Alsace

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace)
These two political divisions also mark the general linguistic area of two regional
dialects, Lower Rhine Alsatian and Upper Rhine Alsatian, the main donor dialect of
TxAls.

17

1.3.2 The donor dialect, Upper Rhine Alsatian
The Medina County Alsatians are knowledgeable of their local history, ancestral
origin, and their linguistic heritage.

The introduction to the Elsasser Wordbuch

(Tschirhart 1981), a locally compiled Texas-Alsatian dictionary, states:
The Alsatian language spoken in Castroville has scarcely
changed since 1844…this dialect comes from the Mulhouse
region of Alsace, and present-day people from Castroville
have no difficulty in communicating with their friends and
distant relatives in France.
According to the participants’ statements and historical sources (e.g., CCHA
1983, Laybourn 1985, Erny 1999, THC 2002, Smith 2004) determining specific ancestral
villages, it is possible not only to pinpoint the Upper Rhine Department as the geographic
origin—and thus, linguistic origin—of the Texas Alsatians, but even more specifically, to
locate the majority of villages within this area from which the immigrants originated.
Illustration 1.3 encompasses the area between Colmar (just to the north of Herrlisheimprès-Colmar) and Mulhouse which shows the concentration of 80% of the TxAls
ancestral villages. Colmar and Mulhouse lie only twenty-five miles apart, however,
which stresses the importance of including two descriptive accounts of the dialect in and
around each of these cities (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989 and Troxler-Lasseaux et al.
2003, respectively).

18

Illustration 1.3: Upper Rhine ancestral villages23

(based on http://www.multimap.com/world/FR/Alsace/Haut-Rhin)
The thirty-eight stars indicate the ancestral villages as indicated by participants on
the Alsatian Questionnaire24 and Laybourn (1985 II: 243). The area to the northwest of
Mulhouse is indicative of Castro’s recruiting efforts and chain migration. In order to
fulfill stipulations imposed by the Texas Republic, Castro was required to bring six

23

Not shown are the villages to the north of Colmar located just off the top of the map (Epfig, Ribeauvillé,
Roschwihr, St. Hippolyte) and further south of Mulhouse (Bettlach, Franken, Friesen, Hochstatt,
Steinbrunn-le-Haut).
24 For a detailed list of the ancestral villages of each participant, see Appendix A.

19

hundred families within three years, and one-third of those within the first year (Weaver
1985: 21). After his recruiting efforts in Paris failed to provide a sufficient number of
interested clients, he turned his attention to the rural areas of the Alsace in the Rhine
River valley (see §2.2.3).
The following section describes current geographic, demographic, social, and
economic characteristics of Medina County and Castroville to situate today’s TxAls
“ecologically” (Haugen 1972, Edwards 1992, Wolfram 2002).

1.4 ADOPTED HOME OF TXALS: MEDINA COUNTY 2000
Medina County is bordered by Bexar County to the west, Bandera to the north,
Uvalde to the east, and Frio to the south. Topographically, the Balcones Escarpment is its
most noticeable feature, dropping from the higher elevation of the Edwards Plateau to the
Coastal Plains. The visual impression of the county is that of a rural farming and
ranching area, which occupational statistics do not necessarily reflect. The county seat is
Hondo, located in the center of the county. With an area encompassing 1,327 square
miles, Medina County has an average population of twenty-seven inhabitants per square
mile.

Males constitute 51.4% of this population and females 48.6%. A 2004 study

shows a 7.54% increase in population to 42,269 inhabitants, indicating growth. Medina
County also ranks 47th out of 254 counties in the list of fastest-growing counties in
Texas.
Demographic factors of race25 and ethnicity, social factors of birth and education,
and economic factors of household income provide an overview of general socio-

25 The term “ethnicity” is gradually replacing the term “race.” Questions of the 2000 US Census do target
data on both of these categories, but now differentiate between them. Thus, the ethnicity of Hispanic or
Latino is a separate question and further defined by “of any race.” The categories used in the table below
reflect the U.S. Census questions for accuracy in reporting statistics.

20

economic contexts. The 2000 US Census Report26 and other online sites27 citing the US
Census Bureau have been consulted to create the following table. Overarching areas
(U.S. and Texas) as well as the smaller “Alsatian” community of LaCoste (see Table 1.2
on ancestry groups) have been included to provide as broad a comparison as possible
between city, county, state, and national levels.
Table 1.1: Sample demographics28 of Medina County communities
U.S.
Area
(sq.miles)
Population
/sq.mile
Race
White
Ethnicity
Hispanic or
Latino (of any
race)
Birth native,
same state

Education:
HS diploma
Bachelor’s
Income
($)30

Texas

Hondo Devine

261,797.1329

Medina
County
1327

79.56

22,270,165
79.65

39, 304
29.60

7,897 4.140
2, 664
1,255
823.84 1,331.45 1045.37 1,954.02

75.1%

71%

79.4%

73.3%

76.6%

81%

79.6%

12.5%

32%

45.5%

59.9%

52.2%

36%

51.6%

60%

62.2%

80.8%

88.3%

85.9%

78%

86.4%

28.6%
15.5%

24.8%
15.6%

33.4%
9.3%

33.7%
5.3%

29.8%
8.1%

28.7%
14.4%

40.6%
8.4%

41,994 39,927

36,063

27,917 28,712

42,308

36,786

9.59

3.11

Castroville
2.55

LaCoste
.64

The responses for race show a predominately white demographic distribution for
Medina County and its communities, with a significant ethnic presence of Hispanic and
Latino groups. The high percentage of Medina County inhabitants born in the state

26

See http://factfinder.census.gov for Castroville and Medina County.
http://www.epodunk.com
28 These are summarized from the links given above.
29 According to the 2005 American Community Survey data, with an error margin of +/- 5%.
30 Only the median household income (no average) was available from the US Census data.
27

21

(80.8%) also reveals a population whose migratory scope seems to be limited to intrastate
patterns. With regard to education among 24,629 inhabitants twenty-five years or older,
33.4% are high school graduates, 25.4% have some college or associate’s degree, 9.3%
attained a bachelor’s degree, and only 4% possess a master’s, professional, or doctorate
degree.

The county’s percentage for completing an undergraduate degree lies well

below the national average, but comfortably above that for completion of a high school
diploma. The annual median household income is $36,063, compared with a national
average of $41,994. Only 1.9% of the total work force above age sixteen is engaged in
farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.
Castroville is located at the intersection of U.S. 90 and the Medina River, just five
miles east now of the city limit of San Antonio in Bexar County at an elevation of 758
feet (THC 2002: 13). It is the third largest city in Medina County after Hondo and
Devine, encompassing 2.55 square miles of land with approximately 2,664 inhabitants.
Statistics show a higher percentage of whites and the lowest percentage of Hispanic or
Latino ethnicity compared with county statistics.31 The figures on education and income
lie far above the percentage for the county. The following statistics on ancestry groups in
Medina County and communities (arranged according to population size) were reported
by residents and generally portray ethnicity and approximate percentages:32

31

Viewed in conjunction with the statistics on ancestry groups in Table 1.2, this might be indicative of the
influx of commuters from San Antonio together with original settlement patterns, although this can only be
speculated upon.
32 Reported by http://www.epodunk.com and based on US Census data.

22

Table 1.2: Ancestry Groups
Figures represent
rounded %
Mexican
Other Hispanic
and Latino
German
Alsatian
Irish
English
French
African-American
Italian
Other33

Medina
County:
30%
15%

WEST:
Hondo Devine Natalia
41
33
49
19
19
30

EAST:
Castroville LaCoste
24
40
11
12

19%
2% (~786)
7%
6%
2%
2%*
1%
15%

13
0
4
3
1
8
2
9

22
6 (160)
9
8
4
1
2
13

12
2 (83)
6
6
1
1
2
20

5
0
3
1
0
1
0
11

20
7 (88)
3
5
1
1
1
10

The figures above are indicative of the continued northward migration and
immigration from Texas’ southern neighbor, Mexico, showing Medina County’s main
ancestral group (30%) to be of Mexican descent and an additional 15% as “other
Hispanic and Latino.” Comparatively, the communities of Castroville (6%), LaCoste
(7%), and Devine (2%) show only a small percentage of Alsatian ancestry.

All

communities report German ancestry, but Castroville (22%) and LaCoste (20%) show
significant percentages thereof.34

Castroville reports the smallest percentage of

Mexican/other Hispanic and Latino ancestry.

Despite the almost negligible 6% of

Alsatian ancestry reported in Castroville at the beginning of this century, the language
and culture linked with Castroville’s history is Alsatian, which is marketed toward the
outside, making use of the city’s adopted slogan “The Little Alsace of Texas.”

33

Other groups constitute 1% or less of the remaining %.
This also points to difficulties in self-reporting. Respondents might simply report their Alsatian ancestry
as “German” or “French” which somewhat skews results.
34

23

1.4.1

Linguistic beginnings

German immigrants to Texas in the 19th century were met by different
geographic, political, and demographic circumstances than earlier German immigrants to
other areas of America, which influenced settlement patterns and ultimately promoted
linguistic autonomy and maintenance of the TxG dialect (Boas 2009a: 37-9).

The

western settlements in particular presented an almost continuous belt of Germandominated communities along the frontier from Mason and Llano counties in the
northwest to Gillespie, Kendall, and Comal counties in the southwest, which
encompasses Bexar and Medina counties to the south (see Illustration 2.1). Largely as a
result of this isolation and necessary self-sufficiency, many of the western German
settlements were predominately monolingual communities, into which non-German
speakers were frequently assimilated (Salmons 1983: 188).

Boas (2009a: 38-9)

underscores the strength and status of the German immigrant presence in Texas during
this first immigration period, pointing to the young Republic’s early legislation officially
recognizing the German element, such as publishing Texas laws in German (1843), or
granting a charter for a German university (1844). This prestige of the German dialects
undoubtedly supported the status of Alsatian to some extent.
Linguistic homogeneity as found in many of the western German settlements
(e.g., New Braunfels, Fredericksburg, Comfort), however, did not typify Castro’s
colonies. There was already a strong Spanish and Mexican presence35 in Medina and
Bexar counties. Weaver (1985: 53) remarks that the first group of settlers that arrived at
the proposed site for Castroville in 1844 was linguistically diverse:

35

The territory had belonged to Spain and Mexico before it acquired independence. San Antonio was
mainly a Spanish-speaking community at this time.

24

To complicate matters further, the considerable confusion
of languages led the French, German, Texan, and Mexican
workers to establish separate camps and refuse to cooperate
with one another.36
This separation appears to have been maintained by the different ethnic groups
who upheld their ancestral language and culture, still present in Castroville today. Five
linguistic groups are evident from accounts and documents of the founding of Castroville,
although grouped differently from Weaver’s designations.37 The first groups of colonists
were mainly Alsatian-speaking, with others from linguistically-related areas of Baden
and Switzerland, but subsequent Castro efforts also recruited colonists from northern
German provinces to his colonies of Castroville, Quihi, and Vandenburg (Weaver 1985:
89-92). Castro and many of his company officials were French-speaking. The Catholic
community which Castro initiated by enlisting the help of Bishop Odin was also
comprised of native French-speaking priests, as well as French and Alsatian-speaking
sisters from the Order of the Sisters of Divine Providence.
Spanish-speaking inhabitants and workers constituted a fourth major linguistic
group. The Hispanic population seems to have remained fairly separate from the three
other ethnic groups and contact was limited to work relationships, even though they
shared the same Roman Catholic faith. The wall separating the Hispanic gravestones in
the older portion of St. Louis Cemetery from other gravestones attests to this social
separation.38 English constituted the fifth and smallest linguistic group,39 as represented
36

This linguistic component may have influenced the settlement of later sites, such as Quihi in 1845,
which was predominantly German Lutheran and remains so today, or D’Hanis in 1847, then predominantly
Alsatian. Today D’Hanis is a largely Hispanic and Catholic community.
37 It seems that the term “German” might have encompassed all German-speaking groups which included
Alsatian, although this is not clear.
38The wall has been removed for the most part, leaving only the original base, but is clearly discernible for
what it was: a division. D’Hanis also had two Catholic churches, one for the Hispanic population, and one
for the English-speaking population (CCHA 1983: 87), until fires destroyed both.
39 See §2.3 and Father Dubuis’ description of his school class.

25

by company employees (e.g., Dr. Cupples) and other Anglo settlers in the area. Certain
socio-historical factors (see Chapter Two) contributed to the establishment of a vital
Alsatian ethnic group which has continued to weld the Alsatian identity to that of
Castroville’s until today.

1.4.2 The Texas Germans of Castroville
There are today, roughly speaking, three elements in the
life of the place: Alsatian, American, and Mexican. The
first two do not, and have never mingled with the third.
--Waugh (1934: 44)
Ninety years after Castroville’s founding, Waugh remarked on a three-fold
division in her socio-historical study of Castroville. She fails to mention a German
“element,”40 which is most likely indicative of the general inability of non-German
speakers to differentiate between these two German-speaking groups.41 However, it does
emphasize the need to discuss certain similarities and differences between the two speech
communities important to the discussion of the TxAls and the “separateness” between
these two German-speaking communities.
The ten Germans present at the founding of Castroville attest to this “other”
German element in Castroville, as does the establishment of Zion Lutheran church in
1858. Alsatian speakers today refer to this group of speakers of “High German”42 as

40 Her categorization alludes to a linguistic grouping. Her “exclusion” of the Germans is perhaps a broader
inclusiveness of both Alsatians and Germans into one linguistic grouping, versus “English-speaking” and
“Spanish-speaking.”
41 In the case of the community of D’Hanis, Hudson (1997: 44-6) remarks that “defining the identity of
D’Hanis is by no means straightforward” and points to the sometimes arbitrary decisions of the community
census takers as to whether the Alsatians were recorded as Germans, Alsatians, or French. For example,
the 1850 described all residents of D’Hanis as German, although all twenty-nine families were Alsatian
(and the Alsace was still under the rule of France until 1871).
42 TxG speakers generally use this designation of “High” to convey what they perceive as a superior form
of German separate from their dialect.

26

“Germans” versus their self-designation of “Alsatian,” already indicating a differentiation
between the two communities.
Religious practices also set the Alsatians apart from the Germans in the four
Castro colonies. Most Texas Alsatians are Roman Catholic, whereas the majority of
Texas Germans in the community identify themselves as Lutheran or Methodist. Weaver
(1985: 100) estimated a ratio of Catholics to Protestants in Castroville at five to one.
This division is not quite so clear among Texas Germans. For example, approximately
one-third43 of all Texas Germans in the 1890s were professed Catholics, which was also
represented in Castro’s colonies, but to a lesser degree.

The Alsatian and German

Catholics would have had little problem attending the same mass in the first years, when
the French priests most likely conducted the mass in Latin. There is also later evidence
of mass booklets in “High” German,44 which were perhaps used during the service of
Father Jacob Lenzen,45 a native of Ulman, Germany, from 1928-1953 (CCHA 1983: 68).
Socio-economically, the two speech communities were quite similar in that the
first groups of settlers from 1840-1848 were farmers and craftsmen in their homeland
who were looking to better themselves economically. Weaver (1985: 124) states that in
the census of 1850 taken by the Castro colonists “the greatest number of persons listed
such trades as mason, wheelwright, carpenter, shoemaker, or watchmaker, while a
minority (39.9%) claimed to be farmers.” However, a radical change in occupational
status occurred by 1860, where 70% claimed to be farmers, most likely due to the
geographic conditions that mainly supported stock-raising and the fact that the frontier
area could not support the kinds of occupations listed above (Weaver 1985: 125).
43 T. Jordon (1980: 111) compiled a religious census of Texas Hill Country Germans from 1890 showing a
general fragmentation among the Protestants, but the Roman Catholic figure is informative: 34% Roman
Catholic; 11% Methodist; 8% “Freidenker” and 47% Lutheran.
44 Participants #202 and #238 mention mass booklets in “High” German.
45 The only Alsatian priest to serve in Castroville (1909-1928), Father Alphonse Heckmann from
Duttlenheim, preceded Father Lenzen. For a list of priests and their origins, see CCHA (1983: 68-9).

27

In contrast to the Alsatian immigrants, the German immigrants brought with them
their strong tradition of education, which was supported by an additional flood of
academics into Texas after the Revolution of 1848 in Germany (Biesele 1930: 17). This
provided the German-speaking communities with a steady flow of highly-educated
teachers for their schools. This was not the case for the early Alsatian settlers, as many
hailed from isolated regions, many of which could not sustain a school.46 Instead, the
Alsatians had to initially rely upon the goodwill of the Catholic priests and sisters to
provide an education for their children.
The following section offers a general description of linguistic developments
shared by TxG dialects necessary for an understanding and comparison of specific
developments in TxAls.

1.5 TXG DIALECTS: CONTACT, SHIFT, AND DECLINE
Linguistic diversity, then, is a benchmark of cultural diversity. Language
death is symptomatic of cultural death … language shift and death occur
as a response to pressures of various types—social, cultural, economic,
and even military—on a community. Every time a language stops
performing a particular function, it will lose some ground to another that
takes its place. Death occurs when one language replaces another over its
entire functional range, and parents no longer transmit the language to
their children (Nettle & Romaine 2000: 7).
As Nettle & Romaine (2000) point out, languages become extinct when speakers
abandon their first language in favor of another language that is socio-economically,
politically, culturally etc. more beneficial and is thus not transmitted to the next

46

These schools in remote villages only existed due to the dedication of certain orders of nuns dedicated to
teaching and healing, such as the Sisters of Divine Providence. For example, the head of the Sisters of
Divine Providence motherhouse in Castroville, Mother St. Andrew (Louise Feltin), taught in Alsatian
village schools in Krautergersheim, Epfig, Heiligenberg, and Batzendorf, before being recruited by Father
Dubuis (Langford 2007) for missionary work in Texas.

28

generation. Campbell & Muntzel (1989: 182-5) define four types of language death:
sudden (due to the decimation of the entire speaker population), radical (speakers stop
speaking the language as a survival strategy, usually under political repression), gradual
(loss of a language due to shift to a dominant language in a contact situation), and
bottom-to-top (language loss in familial domains, but retention in “elevated ritual
contexts”). TxG belongs to the group of languages which gradually disappear in contact
situations due to a more socio-economically beneficial language (in this case, English).
However, TxG dialects exhibit a sharper rate of decline than is usual for languages in
contact, which generally decline gradually over generations (Boas 2009a: 3). TxG
dialects experienced an abrupt shift to English within a period of approximately thirty
years (1920-1950) and are now considered endangered (see Crystal 2000, McConvell
2002 for specific criteria).
Recent discussions on language shift point to a more complex interaction of
factors contributing to language shift than previously believed (Campbell & Muntzel
1989, Dorian 1993, Campbell 1994, Wolfram 2002, Wilkerson & Salmons 2008, etc.).
Several previous studies of TxG (e.g., Eikel 1954; Gilbert 1972; Salmons 1983; Fuller
and Gilbert 2003, Guion 2006, Boas 2009a), refer to World War I and the association of
TxG (Alsatian was also perceived as German) with the language of the enemy as a
turning point in the life of TxG dialects. They cite a loss of prestige to account for the
initial impetus which pushed TxG into private domains. German had enjoyed a certain
socio-economic status in pre-World War years: the language was associated with values
of industriousness, perseverance, success, and intelligence (Jordan 2004: 5-6).47
Mattheier (2003: 24), however, points to parallel developments in other speech islands as
an indication that factors already present in the late 19th century also played an important
47

Jordan (2004) cites several sources describing German farmers with adjectives such as thrifty,
prosperous, successful, industrious, and intelligent.

29

role in language shift, such as the prevalent Anglo-American ideology present in the
administrative, social, and economic structures that demanded full assimilation of the
immigrant.48 The following passage from a letter Theodore Roosevelt wrote to the
president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919,49 illustrate the
pervasiveness of the English-only ideology:
We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith
become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on
an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate
against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin. But this is
predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing
but an American . . . There can be no divided allegiance here . . . We have
room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we
intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of
American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house…
The expansion of the public school system and legislative language policy went hand-inhand with this demand for complete language assimilation.
Mattheier (2003: 25) suggests that the World Wars only accelerated the
disintegration already in progress of autochthonous speech varieties.50 Educational and
administrative policies deeply affected immigrant speech islands in general. In the case
of TxG dialects, the timing of certain Texas educational legislation passed before and
during World War I in 1909 and 1918 restricting schools to English-only instruction
(Moore 1980: 20) struck a severe blow to the use of German in an important public
domain. U.S. legislation in October 1917 requiring German newspapers to apply for a
48

Mattheier (2003: 24): „Am ehesten ist dabei zu denken an das sich allgemein im 19. Jahrhundert . . .
ausbildende angelsächsisch geprägte Nationalbewusstsein, das auch von allen nicht Englisch sprechenden
eine Integration in die amerikanische Leitkultur verlangte.“ ‘Whereby one first thinks of the national
educative Anglo-Saxon ideology prevalent in the 19th century that demanded integration of all non-English
speakers into the prevailing American culture.’
49 http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/roosevelt-immigration.htm; also partially quoted by Nettle &
Romaine (2000: 194).
50 Clyne (2003: 11) also notes that the “aggressive monolingualism generated by the First World War …
set the tone in Australia for half a century.”

30

permit before publishing and then provide translations for any articles pertaining to the
war was time-consuming and expensive, causing many to fold or switch to English (Boas
2009a: 84).

Despite a revision in 1938 that allowed German (and other “foreign”

languages) to be taught in public schools after the second grade (Moore 1980: 22), the
exclusion of German in schools and the loss of status as a language of the enemy
sufficiently restricted its use in public domains. This marked German sufficiently as a
less-prestigious language and its ban from the public schools limited accessibility to
young learners.
For Texas Alsatian speaker #202, it was the events of WWII with Germany again
“the enemy” and the accompanying ostracism that played a crucial role in transmission,
which accelerated the shift to English in Castroville:
Ja, àwr sie reda kà Elsàssisch. I hàn zwei Brüedr un a Schwester jiengr às
ich und as isch waga em zweiten Waltkrieg,...will wemmir uewer in San
Antonio gànge sin, sin mir nitt serviert worda,...will dia was gschàfft kàà
hàn, die Amerikànr, die hàn g’meint, die reda—Dietsch; g’meint, das sin
Schwo:va, mit dena sie nitt serviera. Drnou sin sie wiedr heimkumma, dia
was gànge sin fer iekäufa und hàn g’sait zuanàndr, mir reda nimmr Elsess
mit d’ Kindr, das profitiert sie nitt. Es wart bessr wemma nur Anglisch
reda mit inna, . . . ich bin siebeunsachzig und die jiengera--ach ich sàg
zweiunsàchzig, sie reda kei elsàssisch mehr. Sie verstahn’s, àwr sie reda
es nitt.51
The ensuing economic upswing and modernization of the U.S. economy
reinforced the status of English.

The stigmatization of German dialects and the

increasing economic, political, and social importance of English combined effectively to

51

‘Yes, but they don’t speak Alsatian. I have two brothers and a sister younger than me . . . and it’s
because of the Second World War. . . because when we went over to San Antonio, we weren’t waited on. . .
because those who worked, the Americans, they thought we were speaking German, thought we were
Swabians, whom they didn’t wait on. After that they came home, those that had gone shopping, and said to
each other, we’re not going to speak Alsatian with the children anymore, it’s of no value to them. It would
be better if we only spoke English with them. I’m sixty-eight and the younger ones—oh, I guess sixty-two,
they don’t speak Alsatian anymore. They understand it, but they don’t speak it.’
Note: The negative reference to the Swabians was transferred from a comment a European Alsatian
professor made relating the history of hostilities between the Swabians and Alamans.

31

halt any further transmission within the space of a single generation. Parents and youth
of the following decades recognized English as the more salient language both socially
and economically. Several participants in this study born in the 1930s also remarked that
they “just weren’t interested in speaking Alsatian” as children. This choice on the part of
the parents or children, whether economic or social, is reinforced by data on the speakers’
year of birth who participated in this study.

This data will be introduced in the

participants’ linguistic profile in the following section and analyzed further in terms of
language shift in Chapter Two.

1.6 PARTICIPANT PROFILE
In order to facilitate a general understanding of the demographic and linguistic
background of the participants, Appendix A presents an overview of the self-reported data
from the Alsatian Questionnaire on age, education, religious affiliation, generation of
Alsatian ancestry in Texas, the Alsatian ancestral villages, age at acquisition, and a selfassessment of TxAls language proficiency.
The TxAls-speaking community in Castroville is a relatively homogenous one in
many respects. Of the thirty-six informants, 100% affiliate themselves with the Catholic
faith. Educationally, 64% attained a high school diploma and 19% continued to obtain a
college degree (including two-year degrees, Associate of Arts or Science). 94% of the
informants who speak Alsatian are sixty years and older.

Figure 1.3 shows the

participants’ age range in birth years. These time periods are maintained for the most
part in subsequent analyses.

32

Figure 1.3: Speakers’ Year of Birth
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Birthyear

1911-1920
(89-98)

1921-1930
(79-88)

1931-1940
(69-78)

1941-1950
(59-68)

1951present

3

11

18

2

2

89% of the participants were born between the years 1913 and 1940. 62% of the
informants acquired Alsatian at home between the ages of 0-5. 83% (11% unknown)
report four to six generations of Alsatian ancestry. As shown above, I was still able to
locate speakers from the time-span encompassed by Gilbert’s interviews in the 1960’s,
which provides an important anchor point for comparing several generations. This eldest
group is an extremely varied one, comprised of a fluent speaker of Alsatian ancestry, a
fluent native-Irish speaker who learned the language from a spouse, and a “rememberer”
(Grinevald 2001) with an Alsatian father and German mother. Most of the sociolinguistic
analyses focus on the two larger groups which also represent the span between the two
World Wars.

33

For future reference, the informants’ TGDP numbers or initials (in random order)
are indicated below for each age group.

Age-grading has proven ineffective in

establishing sociolinguistic correlation, as fluent speakers (underlined below) are spread
across the age continuum. The two most fluent speakers (born 1939, 1940) are also the
youngest fluent speakers of the 60+ age group.
Table 1.3: Age distribution of participants

1911-1920:

(3)

235, 254, B.E.

1921-1930:

(11)

239, 241, 242, 247, 248, 249c,
249d, 250, 256, B.C., D.E.

1931-1940:

(18)

202, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 243,
249a, 249b, 251, 252a, 252b, 253,
255, 257, H.B., K.R., T.A.

1941-pres.:

(4)

233, E.B., T.C., W.M.

Participants 249a-d52 are sisters and 252a-b are a married couple I interviewed in order to
observe certain factors of transmission and usage. 254 and 255 represent a non-related
pair (a father and son-in-law), where the AL was transmitted to the next generation.
Due to the small and irregular sample size of each group, the actual number of
responses is usually referred to in subsequent analyses, rather than percentages, although
these are occassionally provided when comparing other studies which employ them
(some with extremely small sample sizes). The following section addresses the range of
linguistic ability in the speaker sample used in this study.

52

249d is the only fluent speaker of these five speakers, and is also the eldest (born in 1923).

34

1.6.1 Speaker fluency
There were discrepancies between the self-assessment of fluency and a
linguistically-based rating, usually with the speaker understating his ability (see Table
1.4).53 Some classification of speaker fluency is required to differentiate between fluent,
semi-fluent, and participants who only have passive knowledge of Alsatian, although
fluency scales are problematic on several levels, such as the difficulty in effectively
separating speakers who border on these levels or the evaluator’s limited exposure to the
speaker in an interview setting. Dorian’s (1981: 116) first classifications combine age
and fluency in her differentiation between fluent and semi-fluent speakers (or semispeakers). In this stage of endangerment, the age variable is not significant for TxAls as
fluent speakers are spaced throughout the age continuum. Dorian (1999) makes further
distinctions later between high, mid and low proficiency levels of the semi-speaker.
Grinevald (2001, cited by Tsunoda 2005: 120-21) defines three main levels of fluency:
the fluent speaker, the semi-speaker, and the terminal speaker or “rememberers.” This
last category includes speakers with only limited production skills, but passive
knowledge of the respective language. Grinevald’s (2001) semi-speakers are divided
between two levels, strong and weak.
My classification follows a combination of the above, as there are no fluent
speakers as Dorian (1981) defines them, i.e. speakers who feel more comfortable using
their ancestral language (AL) than using English (only a few fluent TxAls speakers are
equally proficient in English and Alsatian):

53

Speaker self-assessments are noted in the Participant Profile (Appendix A).

35

1. Fluent speakers: speakers who switch between Alsatian and English
seamlessly. These converse on most topics without hesitation and
consistently produce grammatical Alsatian structures.
2. Semi-fluent speakers are differentiated between two levels: strong and weak.
a. Strong semi-speakers show little/no hesitation answering in Alsatian,
are occasionally limited grammatically (as in the use of passive or
subjunctive constructions). Can conduct large segments of conversation in
Alsatian, but must occasionally switch to English.
b. Weak semi-speakers have difficulty in speaking continuously due to
lexical gaps and frequently switch to English. They exhibit some
difficulty with morphological markings (considered mistakes by fluent
speakers). Most of these speakers rarely use Alsatian and find it easier to
converse in English.
3. Rememberers and non-speakers:54 Both rememberers and non-speakers often
do not consider themselves Alsatian speakers, but identify themselves as
Alsatian and are often active supporters in preserving their heritage (as in
members of the Castro Colonies Heritage Association (CCHA), sister-city
exchange, etc.).
a. Rememberers have mainly passive understanding of the language.
Their productive skills are extremely limited in scope, usually reduced to
phrases or numbers. These participants usually decline when prompted to
speak Alsatian during interviews.
b. Non-speakers
The thirty-six TxAls speakers in this study were grouped according to these
guidelines into the following categories.

For comparison, the participants’ self-

assessment is shown next to the rating determined according to the levels described
above:

54 In the older speakers, mental acuity is a main factor in their speaking ability, and should thus be regarded
in terms of ability to transmit the language, rather than an accurate assessment of their linguistic
competence. For example, some suffer from dementia due to age or Alzheimer’s, making it difficult to
determine their actual competence versus their performance (cf. Chomsky 1965:4).

36

Table 1.4: Participant fluency
Roesch
Fluent
Strong semi
Weak semi

11
7
7
(5)

Rememberers

2
(4)
SUBTOTAL 36 (9)
Non-speakers 4
TOTAL
40

Self-assessment
202, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239,
247, 249d, 251, 252b, 254

“fluent”

8

240, 241, 248, 252b, 255, 256, 257 “pretty well”
236, 242, 249a, 249b, 249c,
“fair”
250, 253
(D.E., H.P., T.C., T.A., W.M.)

10
4

233, 243
(B.C., B.E., E.B., K.R.)

“a little bit”

14

“don’t speak”

36
4
40

B.D., F.C., T.R., Z.V.

The participants indicated in parentheses completed the Alsatian Questionnaire
(AQ), but declined an interview session in Alsatian, even after speaking to me in Alsatian
(some declined for health reasons). The twenty-seven TGDP numbers indicate that these
participants were able to complete some portion of the Gilbert (1972) tasks in addition to
the sociolinguistic interview and constitute the twenty-seven speakers I use to compare
with Gilbert’s twenty-seven participants in linguistic analyses undertaken in Chapters
Three, Four, and Five. I grouped fluent and strong semi-speakers together above to
illustrate the relationship of relatively fluent speakers (18) to weak speakers (9) and those
with limited passive knowledge (9), as this grouping seemed more meaningful in terms of
fluency. Successive linguistic analyses of speakers will not include the four non-speakers
unless otherwise indicated, but will include these four participants with respect to
attitudinal factors discussed in Chapter Six.

37

Another issue that requires consideration is the participants’ age55 at acquisition of
the AL, which is addressed in the next section.

1.6.2 Language acquisition and fluency
Many participants born ca. 1930 and thereafter report that (1) English and
Alsatian were both spoken in the home and acquired simultaneously or (2) although both
were spoken, they were not interested in speaking Alsatian. In general, participants
report a range of learning environments from acquiring the AL at home to consciously
learning it as a second language, which represent a type of continuum in viewing the
gradual shift to English:
•

•
•
•
•
•

Parents spoke only Alsatian at home (~ pre-1925); these participants had to learn
English when they started school (learning English was difficult, resulting in
some of the eldest speakers deciding not to continue school past the 3rd or 4th
grade),
Parents insisted that they speak only English,
Some speakers made a conscious decision to learn Alsatian in addition to English,
Some were not interested in learning or speaking Alsatian,
Some learned it later in life from a family member or spouse,
Some learned it later in order to communicate with an older family member.

Figure 1.4 represents thirty-six speaker reports of when they first learned Alsatian
coupled with their fluency rating:

55 Much research and discussion has been conducted on what researchers term the “Critical Period
Hypothesis” or “Sensitive Period Hypothesis.” This hypothesis states that there is a critical period during
which a second language can be best learned, and that this critical period ends somewhere in the early
development of the child, at its latest point by adolescence. Oversimplified, one can simply state that
children are “better learners” than adults. In the Chomskyan tradition, Pinker (1994) argues that children
are born with an innate ability to assimilate language and possess a universal grammar, but he goes further
in asserting that this ability is lost almost immediately after acquiring elements of the first language
encountered.

38

Figure 1.4: Participant fluency/Age AL learned
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0-5

6-12 years

13-20

Fluent

6

1

1

Strong Semi

7

3

Weak Semi

7

4

2

Rememberer

1

2

0

21+

2

The responses here suggest that although acquiring the language at an early age
(0–5) is important for any level of fluency, other factors must play a role in learning the
AL, such as opportunities to use the language or the motivation of individual speakers as
seen for the categories 6–12 years and 13–20 years (see Chapter Six for further
discussion of motivational factors in learning the AL).
This section has concentrated on establishing guidelines for determining the
different levels of fluency among the pool of participants in this study and investigating
fluency in relation to time and age the AL was learned. The next section examines the
contexts within which Alsatian is spoken today and describes the effect on AL use of the
city partnership with the Alsace.

39

1.7 LANGUAGE USE TODAY
The use of Alsatian in the Castroville community was positively affected by the
initiation of an exchange with the Upper Rhine Alsatian city of Eguisheim, south of
Colmar. In 1975, a church leader and TxAls community member initiated a trip to the
“Old Country” in the spirit of visiting the villages of their ancestors. The group of
twenty-five travelers was welcomed with such interest and enthusiasm that they extended
an invitation to the French Alsatians to visit Castroville. These language partners quickly
established friendships, which many participants today place within a family construct,
calling their Alsatian friends “extended family.” Only a few months later, a group of
over three hundred French Alsatians arrived in Castroville, which set a chain of events
into motion that still defines the Castroville community and has undoubtedly been
instrumental in the maintenance of TxAls.
The Castroville community leader B.T. captured the rapport between the longseparated communities in his 1976 farewell speech after the community’s second trip to
the Alsace:56
Farewell. As komet immer a ziet wo mir sheite mien, und sheite isch
immer a bittere word, awer alles guetes müest aui zum a and komme. Das
war yo so a wunderbare gelegenheit fer dei reise mit zu mache zu dam
grosse Elsase. Das muest unbadinked ienst fo da greastch erin erung say
fo unserum lawanslaufe. Mit drenne in da ouige und a schware hartz mien
mir die liawe lit do im Elsase wider ferlo awer fergasse, nie, nie mol. . . So
wan mir noch amol saga, VIVA LA FRANCE VIVA LA ALSASE, VIVA LA
AMERICKA, VIVA LA TEXAS, VIVA LA KLEINE ALSASE.

56

This is transcribed from a handwritten original and provides a rare example of a document written in
TxAls.

40

‘The time always comes when we must part, and parting is always a bitter
word, but everything good must also come to an end. This was such a
wonderful opportunity to take part in the trip to the ‘big’ (French) Alsace.
This must be without a doubt one of the greatest memories of our entire
life. With tears in our eyes and a heavy heart, we must leave you dear
people here in the Alsace again, but forget you, never, ever. . . So we want
to say once again, long live France, long live the Alsace, long live
America, long live Texas, long live the Little Alsace.’57
In August of this same year, the Castro Colonies Heritage Association was
formed “to preserve the objects, places, customs and history of the Castro Colonies and
the Alsatian dialect” (CCHA 1983: 42). In 1979, the relationship was sealed officially
with a formal city partnership with Eguisheim in the Alsace. Other organizations sprang
up and thrived in the renewal of Castroville’s contact with the French Alsace. For
example, the Alsatian Dancers of Texas was formed in 1980 by a visiting instructor from
Strasbourg, France. A student exchange was initiated between Rouffach, Alsace, and
Castroville, which resulted in the creation of the Jardin des Racines (‘Garden of Roots’)
by students from both countries in Castroville’s Regional Park. The Alsatian Club was
formed in 1995 to give Alsatian speakers a chance to meet monthly and use their
language. This evolved into an Alsatian language class taught by a recent Alsatian
immigrant from a Lower Rhine area and a local TxAls speaker, which disbanded in
2006.58 The exchange between the homeland and Castroville continues to grow and
strengthen. In March 2009, a second cultural partnership between the Alsatian town of
Ensisheim (north of Mulhouse) and Castroville was established.
Understanding this deep affiliation with the European Alsace is necessary to
understand the responses to several questions posed in the Alsatian Questionnaire (AQ).
57

Castroville is designated the “Little Alsace.”
This was due to an ongoing dispute between the two instructors over methods and differences between
their dialects, as the recent immigrant spoke a form of Lower Rhine Alsatian.

58

41

For example, Question #7a-b inquires into the domain and frequency with which Alsatian
is used now and with whom and includes the response “Alsatian visitors.” All response
categories also provided the option “not applicable” (not shown here).59 Figure 1.5
represents the thirty-two speakers who completed the AQ60 indicating with whom
speakers currently use the AL.
Figure 1.5: “With whom do you speak Alsatian now?”

others

5

colleagues

13

Alsatian visitors

26

friends

28

grandchildren

2

children

6

siblings

14

spouse

15

parents

5

grandparents

2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

For the Alsatian speakers in this study, the main use of Alsatian today has moved
out of the home and family domain and into the domain of friends and colleagues. This
is a further indication that language shift to English has been completed in the younger

59

The responses for “not applicable” applied to those cases where the applicant needed to indicate a
situation that was not listed, as in the absence of siblings, a spouse, or children. This was also used by
those who do not participate in the city partnership activities. Inclusion of this option in the chart would
have unnecessarily cluttered the reported responses, which do not affect the outcome.
60 As previously noted, four additional speakers only completed the TGDP questionnaire, despite repeated
requests for the AQ questionnaire mailed to them.

42

generation, although no statistics are needed to ascertain this fact. The most frequent
conversation partners are friends and Alsatian visitors by a significant margin. This again
underscores the important role the exchange between Castroville and the Alsatian
communities of Ensisheim and Eguisheim plays in the maintenance of TxAls. Siblings,
spouses, and colleagues constitute the second largest context where Alsatian is spoken,
indicating use of the language among contemporaries who speak the AL. Alsatian is
rarely spoken with the younger generation, i.e., children and grandchildren indicative of
the break in transmission. The smallest group, parents and grandparents, is affected by
the advanced age of the participants. This, of course, has significant repercussions for the
preservation of TxAls and will be discussed in Chapter Six. In addition to with whom the
language is used, Figure 1.6 indicates the frequency with which Alsatian is used with
these language partners:

43

Figure 1.6: “How often do you speak Alsatian?”
30

25

20

15

10

5

0
grandparents

always

often

some-times

seldom

never

0

0

1

1

3

parents

0

2

1

2

3

siblings

0

2

2

6

14

spouse

1

0

6

8

11

children

0

0

4

2

25

grandchildren

0

0

0

2

26

friends

1

0

15

12

3

colleagues

0

0

6

7

14

Alsatian visitors

9

6

9

2

5

others

0

2

1

2

5

Again, these responses show that twenty-four Texas Alsatians use the AL
“always” (9) and “often” (6) and “sometimes” (9) with their European Alsatian
counterparts. Only one respondent uses the AL “always” with friends, fifteen speak it
“sometimes” and twelve seldom use Alsatian with friends. On the other end of the
spectrum, twenty-six TxAls speakers “never” use the AL with their grandchildren and
44

twenty-five “never” use the language with their children. Fourteen “never” use the AL
with their siblings or colleagues. The decreasing use of the AL with their spouse also
indicates an increase in the number of participants who have married a non-speaker.
These responses again emphasize the relatively selective use of the AL with their
(European) Alsatian friends and acquaintances, although most of these speak fairly fluent
English.
AQ #7b investigated the use of Alsatian in particular public and private domains
of home, social gatherings, church, restaurants and shops, work, and “other.”
Figure 1.7: “Where do you speak Alsatian?”
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
always

often

some-times

seldom

never

home

1

2

9

10

5

social gatherings

2

2

11

11

4

church

0

1

2

3

17

restaurants, shops

0

2

5

4

14

work

0

0

2

2

13

other

1

0

1

1

7

These domains should also be placed in the context of how the speaker perceives
the domain. For example, “restaurants and shops” can imply use with shop-owners or
45

with other TxAls speakers present at the time. One popular local restaurant and bakery is
operated by the great-great-grandson of an early Castroville Alsatian who still speaks
TxAls fairly fluently and has been engaged in Castroville’s political sphere as
councilman and mayor. His restaurant is a favorite destination for lunch and the men’s
afternoon Kaffeeklatsch.

As Figure 1.7 illustrates, Alsatian is not used frequently

(“always, often”) in any of the domains. It is mainly used “sometimes” to “seldom” in
private domains of home and social gatherings and essentially “never” in public domains
of church, restaurants/shops, and work.
Figures 1.5-1.7 illustrating the use of TxAls today indicate a language in crisis:
(1) lack of transmission to the next generation, (2) infrequent use, which is (3) restricted
to private domains of home, family (older members or siblings), and friends. Sociohistorical and sociolinguistic factors underlying the decline of TxAls are explored in the
following chapter.

This concludes the overview of introductory sociolinguistic

information on the communities and participants involved in this study. A brief chapter
overview in the next section orients the reader to the organization of the dissertation and
content of descriptions and discussions of linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of TxAls.

1.8 OVERVIEW OF DISSERTATION STRUCTURE
This study addresses various linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects of TxAls based
on data obtained from the Alsatian Questionnaire, resamplings of Gilbert (1972)
translation tasks, and open-ended interviews. The discussion of TxAls is three-fold: (1)
socio-historical, economic, political, and cultural factors influencing the preservation and
decline of TxAls are first examined, followed by (2) a detailed analysis of the lexical,
phonological, and morphosyntactic features of TxAls, supported by Gilbert’s (1972) data
against the background of its European donor dialect, and (3) a discussion of the
46

participants’ attitudes and dispositions toward their ancestral language based on
responses to the Alsatian Questionnaire.
Chapter Two explores the broader socio-historical context of the Alsatian speech
community in Castroville in order to frame discussions on language maintenance and
loss. Socio-cultural, economic, and political scenarios in Medina County are investigated
within a historical framework and connected to linguistic developments (diglossia,
language shift) indicative of a language in crisis.

The constellations particular to

Castroville are discussed within general chronological phases, as well as within
typological and taxonomic frameworks for language endangerment (e.g., Giles et al.
1977, Campbell 1994, Grenoble & Whaley 1998, etc.) and shift (e.g., Mattheier 2003,
Salmons 2005, Boas 2009a, etc.).
Chapter Three introduces the basic lexical inventory of TxAls by examining items
from the Ellsasser Wordbuch (1981), participant narratives, and resamplings of Gilbert’s
(1972) data in Medina County.

Lexical items which distinguish TxAls from near-

standard TxG varieties are also investigated. Language contact phenomena such as
borrowing, code-switching, and convergence are examined typologically to provide
initial insights into what constitutes the linguistic entity known as Texas Alsatian.
Chapter Four examines the phonology of Texas Alsatian by investigating selected
vocalic and consonantal features characteristic of European Alsatian (ALS), as defined by
Keller (1961), Phillip and Botherel-Witz (1989), and Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003).
Features such as the retention of Middle High German (MHG) diphthongs and the
spirantization of SG /b/ constitute the basis for examining TxAls phonologically within
the context of linguistic maintenance and change. Gilbert’s (1972) data for Medina
County is displayed next to 2009 resamplings in tables to determine maintenance of or
developments in these selected features.

Phonological developments such as open
47

syllable lengthening and the introduction of new phonemes are discussed and hypotheses
on factors involved in these changes are put forward.
Chapter Five focuses on selected morphosyntactic features of the TxAls noun,
such as those involving gender, case, and number, and the TxAls verb (declination, tense,
voice). The degree of maintenance and/or loss of these features is again investigated by
comparing features of the Alsatian donor dialect(s) and Gilbert’s (1972) data with data
from resamplings and participants’ narratives collected during the course of this study.
Case loss observed by Eikel (1954), Gilbert (1965b), and Boas (2009a) in TxG is
evaluated by examining resamplings of Gilbert’s (1972) data on determiners and
pronouns. TxAls morphosyntactic features are also investigated for other developments
observed in TxG, such as simplification and reduction.
Chapter Six investigates TxAls speaker attitudes, dispositions, and ideologies
which are instrumental in the maintainance of the ancestral language, but also those
which might be contributing to its decline, such as accommodation or negative attitudes
toward its status and practical value. Survey questions from the Alsatian Questionnaire
investigating issues related to ethnic identity, language status and value, and language
choice are charted and evaluated in order to provide insights on community ideologies.
The dissertation concludes with a synopsis of the study’s findings on each
research question after which implications of findings for linguistic and sociolinguistic
research areas relating to language maintenance, shift, and death are discussed, e.g.,
language contact phenomena such as structural attrition, borrowing, and diglossia.

48

CHAPTER TWO: THE SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT

The fundamental cause for the disappearance of a human
language is well known. Speakers abandon their native
tongue in adaptation to an environment where use of that
language is not longer advantageous to them . . . The more
complex, and thus obscure, issue is “What brings about the
decreased efficacy of a language in the first place? A
sufficient answer involves outlining an intricate matrix of
variables dealing with the community’s self–identity, its
relationship with other groups, the degree of political
autonomy of the group, its access to avenues of material
prosperity, etc.
--Grenoble & Whaley (1998: 2)61

2.1 THE ECOLOGY OF LANGUAGE
This chapter explores the broader setting of the “intricate matrix of variables” of
the Alsatian speech community in Castroville for the purpose of framing discussions on
language maintenance and shift. Weinreich (1953) was one of the earliest American
scholars to emphasize the study of languages in contact from both a linguistic and a
socio-cultural perspective to facilitate understanding of language processes. Einar
Haugen (1972) also pointed to the interrelatedness of linguistics, sociology, and
psychology in his studies of American Norwegian (Dil 1972: 3). He underscored the
strong linguistic component of “language ecology” or the “study of interactions between
any given language and its environment” (Dil 1972: 325). Grenoble & Whaley (1998:
24) note several shortcomings of the eco-linguistic approach which neglect variables
relevant to endangered languages, such as “historical processes that bring about the eco-

61

They note the exception of languages which die when the entire community is eliminated, as in cases of
war, disease, and genocide.

49

linguistic status of the language in the first place,” the exclusion of subjective variables of
attitude, and its design for broader classification which neglects more subtle influences
on language maintenance and loss. The term extra-linguistic will refer to all of these
external variables, whether micro (within the community) or macro (outside)62 (Grenoble
& Whaley 1998).
There is a long list of scholarly discussion of extra-linguistic factors (e.g., Kloss
1966, Campbell and Muntzel 1989, Grenoble & Whaley 1998, Wolfram 2002, etc.)
which operate differently according to the particular contact situation, i.e., the same
factors which seem to trigger shift in some languages can effect maintenance in others.
This necessitates a careful examination of individual speech communities. This chapter
examines as many of these extra-linguistic factors as possible for the purpose of
describing the matrix particular to the community of Castroville which has affected
certain outcomes related to the preservation and decline of Texas Alsatian.
Kloss (1966: 206, 209-213) noted extra-linguistic interactions contributing to or
hindering language maintenance in his studies on German-American speech islands and
compiled a list of fifteen factors63 centered on socio-cultural characteristics of the group,
its numerical strength, linguistic status and distinctiveness, religious affiliation64 (religio62

This is a further division of what are generally identified as external factors affecting language change in
contact situations.
63 Nine factors work either for or against language maintenance: (1) high educational level of immigrants:
(2) low educational level of immigrants, (3) great numerical strength, (4) smallness of the group, (5)
cultural and/or linguistic similarity to Anglo-Americans, (6) great cultural and/or linguistic dissimilarity
between minority and majority, (7) suppression of minority tongue(s), (8) permissive attitude of majority
group, (9) socio-cultural characteristics of the minority group in question.
Six additional factors aid language maintenance: (1) religio-societal insulation; (2) time of immigration:
earlier than or simultaneously with the first Anglo-Americans; (3) existence of language islands, (4)
affiliation with denominations fostering parochial schools; (5) pre-immigration experience with language
maintenance efforts; and (6) former use as the only official tongue during pre-Anglo-American period.
64 Huffines (1990), however, in her studies of Pennsylvania German, finds that non-sectarian speakers
(versus Amish and Mennonite sectarians) were more conservative in their retention of the dative case and
marking infinitives with zu. This might indicate that religio-societal insulation, although perhaps a key
factor in language maintenance, is not necessarily the determining factor, but instead, individual attitudes
which form community ideologies, or vice versa.

50

societal insulation), and educational level. Campbell (1994: 193) compiles an extensive
list of extra-linguistic factors adversely affecting language maintenance in contact
situations:
Discrimination, repression, rapid population collapse, lack of economic
opportunities, on-going industrialization, rapid economic transformation,
work patterns, migrant labor, communication with outside regions,
resettlement, dispersion, migration, literacy, compulsory education, official
language policies, military service, marriage patterns, acculturation,
cultural destruction, war, slavery, famine, epidemics, religious
proselytizing, resource depletion and forced changes in subsistence
patterns, lack of social cohesion, lack of physical proximity among
speakers, symbolism of the dominant language, . . . stigmatization, low
prestige of the dying variety, absence of institutions that establish norms
(schools, academics, texts), particular historical events, etc.
Many of these factors can be identified in the changing matrix of the Alsatianspeaking community, such as migration, marriage patterns, war, stigmatization, low
prestige of the dying variety, and particular historical events, a combination of which
enabled the shift to English as in other TxG dialects.

However, other factors first

described by Kloss (1966), in particular cultural and linguistic distinctiveness, appear to
be instrumental in maintaining the ancestral language in private domains, creating a
diglossic situation (see 2.6) which has slowly deteriorated over the last seventy years.
Five phases65 similar to Mattheier’s (2003: 28) five phases in the life of a speech
island become apparent in the description of socio-historical, political and economic
developments of the Texas Alsatian community: (1) establishment (~1840-1860); (2)
stabilization (~1860-1890); (3) isolation (~1890-1940); (4) modernization (~1940-1970)
and disintegration or decline (~1970-present).66 Within this framework, Castroville’s
65

These roughly correspond to the linguistic development of TxAls. These phases intersect with each
other and are only intended to serve as general categories to facilitate understanding of the extra-linguistic
variables which established, protected, and supported the Alsatian ethnic group of Castroville and its
language, as well as those which triggered its decline.
66 Mattheier (2003: 28) divides the life of a speech island into roughly five phases which can also be
applied to TxG speech communities: (1) migration and group formation, (2) consolidation and integration,
during which linguistic mixing, leveling, and group identity is formed (if this does not occur, assimilation

51

ethnic beginnings as an Alsatian settlement (§2.2) are investigated to identify the region
of the immigrants’ origin (§2.2.4), crucial to the discussion of linguistic maintenance in
TxAls.

The settlement’s historical development is then described to establish its

demographic, economic, and political matrix important to understanding the
community’s social scaffolding as related to its ethnic composition, status, and
ideologies. Particular emphasis is given to Henri Castro’s recruitment and settlement
efforts, the establishment of churches and schools (§2.3), and Castroville’s political role
in regional government (§2.4).
Subsequently, linguistic developments connected to these extra-linguistic
variables are traced to determine how certain combinations affected the maintenance and
decline of TxAls. As a basis for this discussion, the domain use of Alsatian and English
in §2.5 is established and compared with data on TxG speech communities in Gillespie
(Salmons 1983) and Comal (Boas 2009a) counties. General stages of diglossia and
language shift in the TxAls speech community as framed by Batibo (1992) are compared
with research on other TxG communities (Salmons 1983, Boas 2009a) to establish
similarities or differences in language use. The discussion concludes with a general
assessment in §2.6 of the socio-historical events affecting the current linguistic status of
Texas Alsatian within the typological framework which assesses an ethnic group’s
“vitality” as a measuring stick for endangerment (Giles et al. 1977).
The description of this “intricate matrix of variables” begins by describing the
general historical context accompanied by a more specific account of the initial
settlement and establishment of Castroville as a predominantly Alsatian settlement.

to the new environment occurs quickly), (3) stabilization, with no or only minor linguistic loss, (4)
assimilation, and (5) death (the last phase is often epitomized as a “tourist attraction” or “cultural island”).

52

2.2 BEGINNINGS:67 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The period of Texas immigration and settlement in the 19th century (~1820-1890)
spanned five different governments. When Mexico gained independence from Spain in
1821, it also took possession of the Texas territory until 1836, at which time Texas
declared its independence. The Republic of Texas existed until 1845, when it accepted
statehood in the United States of America. Texas succeeded from the Union in 1861 and
joined the Confederacy until the end of the Civil War in 1865, at which time it was again
made part of the Union.
Therefore, indigenous Indian tribes, Spanish and Mexican settlers, and more
recent Anglo settlers from the southern states already occupied parts of the territory
called Texas when the first German-speaking68 settlers arrived. This first wave of
German-speaking immigrants to Texas (1830-1860) created frontier settlements that
represent the remaining centers of German language and culture today, e.g., New
Braunfels in Comal County and Fredericksburg in Gillespie County. Eastern Texas was
already fairly well-inhabited by Anglo settlers when the German immigrants arrived, but
western settlements such as Fredericksburg, Comfort, and Castroville were situated on
isolated grants occupied by nomadic native tribes at the edge of the frontier. This
geographic isolation allowed for the development of relatively homogenous Germanspeaking Sprachinseln (‘speech islands’), whose nearest neighbors were also Germanspeaking communities.

67 The main sources for information on German immigration in these following sections were taken from
Weaver (1985), Biesele (1987), Jordan (2004), and Boas (2009a) with additional notes from Goldthorp
(1928) and Herff (1949).
68 The term “German-speaking” includes areas such as Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the
Alsace, and Luxemburg.

53

Illustration 2.1: The Western German Settlements (Boas 2009a: 37)

54

2.2.1 German immigration to Texas69
Political and social environments in the early-mid 19th century in both Texas and
Germany were conducive to transplanting German immigrants to Texas soil.
Economically, as were other parts of Central Europe, Germany was suffering from poor
harvests, famines, overpopulation, and the effects of industrialization, causing untenable
conditions of widespread hunger, unemployment, and poverty.

In the Upper Rhine,

Alsace, the situation was just as critical. Its population more than doubled from 270,000
to 470,000 between 1784-1876, and statistics on the size of land plots showed that 73%
of landowners in the Upper Rhine had fields smaller than twelve acres (Erny 2003: 125),
due to inheritance laws on the division of land. The lure of the new Republic with its
freedoms and economic opportunities, coupled with letters of encouragement from early
adventurers such as Friedrich Ernst, set an immigration movement in motion that lasted
for thirty years.
Politically, the strict economic policies of the German authoritarian monarchies
set against political counter-movements of freedom, equality, and a desire for a unified
Germany instigated ever-increasing rebellions against the ruling class, culminating in the
Rebellion of 1848.

When the Rebellion failed and participants saw incarceration,

punishment, and death as their probable end, many joined the already steady flow of
emigrants departing from German, Belgian, and Dutch ports to New York, New Orleans,
and Galveston.
Due to the broad socio-economic scope of citizens affected by these economic,
social, and political factors, the emigrant pool consisted of a varied group of farmers,
69

“German” is employed here as the broader term for Germanic dialects spoken in “Germany,” a loose
confederation of states and principalities extant at the time of the first strong wave of immigration to Texas
in the 1830s and 40s. It also includes the dialects spoken within the progressively unified and varying
political borders of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as the Alsace. For a detailed discussion of Texas
immigration periods and settlement patterns, see Boas (2009a: 37-9). See Struve (1996) for a more detailed
discussion of what drew German settlers to Mexico, Texas, and the United States.

55

craftsmen, merchants, and academics searching for opportunities to improve their
condition for themselves and their families. The Republic of Texas provided a prime
solution. It had achieved independence in 1836 and was looking for ways to boost its
financial viability as a new nation and to claim and protect its vast and relatively
unsettled lands from Mexico and native American tribes. One strategy entailed soliciting
financial loans from the United States and Europe.70 Populating its lands provided an
answer to both of these problems. The new Republic created incentives to attract settlers
from the United States which at first favored veterans and their families, but then was
extended to all heads of families.

The main strategy was to offer free parcels of

uncultivated land in return for cultivation and homesteading with certain time, acreage,
and survey restrictions. When these attempts were largely unsuccessful, the government
sought to enlist the aid of private companies, and finally, private individuals, to aid in
settling its public lands.
This section has described specific economic, political, and social conditions in
both Europe and Texas which created ideal conditions for immigration. The following
sections focus on the colonization of unsettled lands in what was to become known as
Medina County.

2.2.2 Immigration to Medina County
Although there were a few Württembergers in Gillespie
County and a number of southwestern Germans, including
Swiss and especially Alsatians, in Medina County, there
were in general very few settlers from southern Germany.
--Glenn Gilbert (1972: 1)
70 The United States was undergoing its own fiscal problems and could not support the new Republic.
France was interested in providing a loan, but under conditions that the Texas government could not accept,
such as the establishments of forts manned by French troops along the frontier (see §2.2.3 for further
details).

56

Medina County has been somewhat overlooked in most discussions of German
immigration to Texas.

Jordan (2004: 157), however, gives Medina County equal

prominence in his agricultural analysis of the western settlements.71

In fact, the

immigration efforts of Henri Castro resulted in the earliest settlement (1844) on land
grants issued in 1842 to foreign investors from Belgium, France, England, and Germany,
almost a year ahead of the efforts of the German Society for the Protection of German
Immigrants to Texas, commonly known as the Adelsverein.72 The Adelsverein is credited
with bringing the main wave of German immigrants to Texas from 1844-1846 with a
total of 7,380 immigrants as opposed to Castro’s 2,134 (Jordan 2004: 45-7), which also
accounts for the focus on the eastern and western settlements of the Adelsverein.
The cursory acknowledgment of Castro’s efforts in Medina County is also
understandable, as Castro’s enterprise was based politically on French soil, and not on
German. The casual observer might conclude that the emigrants Castro brought to Texas
were not German-speaking at all, but French. To complicate perceptions of German
settlers even further, Alsatian is relatively unknown to many who are unaware of its
German provenance, or if anything, who often mistakenly assume it to be a French
dialect.73 An account of Castro’s efforts to recruit colonists for one of his land grants and
the result of his efforts is described in the next two sections to establish certain
demographics of the German-speaking French colonists which differentiated them from
the majority of the immigrants recruited by the Adelsverein.

71

“The three most important German settlements in the western counties, New Braunfels, Castroville, and
Fredericksburg, all represented attempts by their founder to establish, with some modifications, the
nucleated farm villages of the Old World on Texas soil.”
72 Or ‘nobles’ society’; it became identified by this shortened name, as it was founded by a group of
noblemen from Mainz and surrounding areas.
73 For example, the U.S. Census categorizes Alsatian under the French language. Also, I fortunately
discovered one important source for discussions of Alsatian immigration to Texas in the monograph, The
French in Texas: History, migration, culture (2003). Part of a description posted online for the city of
Castroville states: “Settled by Alsatian immigrants in the 1840s, the city still has a strong French culture.”

57

2.2.3 Henri Castro, Empresario74
My friend presented me to Mr. Castro. He was a middleaged man dressed in the latest fashion. He had a grand air
and something of the manner of a diplomat, which
impressed me at once.
--Auguste Frétellière (Waugh 1934: 6)
Henri Castro was born to a Jewish family of Portuguese ancestry in Bayonnes,
France, in July 1786. He immigrated to the United States after the fall of Napoleon and
was naturalized in 1827 (THC 2002: 13), but returned to Paris in 1838, where he became
associated with the Lafitte banking interests (Weaver 1985: 13). He was one of the first
private entrepreneurs to take advantage of a bill passed by the Texas legislature in
February 1841, which gave the president authority to enter into settlement contracts of
public lands with individual entrepreneurs. The basic terms of the land concessions
required the empresario to settle 600 families within three years, one-third of whom had
to be in Texas within one year. This could be extended by six months with approval of
the president. As incentive, the contractor would be compensated with ten sections of
land for every 100 families or with five sections for every 100 single men (Weaver 1985:
21). Castro and his partner Jassaud were awarded a contract to settle two land grants on
February 15, 1842.

One of these, situated south of Brownsville, was occupied by

Mexican troops and considered too difficult and dangerous for settlement. The other
tract, just twenty-five miles west of San Antonio, was occupied by the Lipan and
Comanche Indian tribes. Without viewing the grant lands, Henri Castro decided to
concentrate his recruitment and settlement efforts on the latter in what is now Medina
County.
74

Meaning “entrepreneur”; this term was used for the business contract modeled after the incentives the
Spanish government had instigated during its rule over the Texas territory in order to effect settlements and
thus protect its land.

58

In December of 1841, Henri Castro was sent to Texas from Louisiana by Lafitte
& Company to negotiate terms for a five-million-dollar loan to the Republic of Texas
Weaver 1985: 12-13). Unfortunately, he lost the support of an influential countryman,
the French charge-d’affaires Compte de Saligny, who was supporting a competing
proposition, the Franco-Texienne Bill.75 Castro had convinced de Saligny of his intention
to support this bill, but when Castro represented Lafitte and Company’s bill instead and
succeeded (after taking advantage of de Saligny’s hospitality and introductions), de
Saligny felt betrayed. This eventually prompted de Saligny to write letters to powerful
politicians back in France which contained libelous accusations (Waugh 1934: 2-4).76
This effectively halted Castro’s appointment as French Consul-General to Texas and
subsequently hurt his recruiting efforts in Paris, forcing him to look elsewhere for
prospective settlers. This was the defining moment for the future colony of Castroville.
Castro moved his recruiting efforts away from Paris to the highly-populated Rhine valley
area: the Alsace, Baden, and Switzerland (Weaver 1985:33).
Castro’s initial recruiting efforts were based on his view that farmers would be
best-suited to settle the frontier lands he had contracted, but he soon discovered that they
were not so easily found and expanded his search to other occupations.77 Castroville was
the result of his first successful recruiting efforts in the agricultural areas in the Rhine
river valley.

75

The Franco-Texienne Bill was devised by de Saligny. It called for establishing a French company which
would build twenty forts manned with French colonists along the western frontier. In return, the company
would receive three million acres on which it would locate 8,000 French settlers. Also, anticipating
opposition to the bill, he urged the French government to support a five million dollar loan that the Texas
government was trying to secure (Weaver 1985: 8-10).
76 One such unverified story was that Castro had robbed a bank in New York. Waugh (1934:4), however,
suggests that neither man was above reproach.
77 In the colony in 1850, only 40% of the 177 heads of households listed themselves as farmers (Weaver
1985: 90) (see §3.6 for a list of trades).

59

2.2.4

The Alsatians of Castroville
These four expeditions, added to those already mentioned,
constitute altogether seven vessels transporting more than
700 emigrants of whom the great majority are tillers of the
soil. In selecting colonists I have uniformly required
certain conditions, such as good character, the necessary
clothing and farming implements, subsistence for one year
as nearly as possible . . .
--Henri Castro to Sam Houston (Waugh 1934: 15)

The first of Castro’s ships to sail from Le Havre to Galveston was the Ebro in
November 1842, which transported 144 farmers and artisans from the Alsace-Lorraine,
forty-two of which were eligible to receive land (Weaver 1985: 28). They arrived in
January 1843, a good year ahead of the first ships of the Adelsverein. The Lyons sailed
January 1843 from Le Havre and the Louis Philippe in February from Dunkirk. Castro
succeeded in bringing a total of 2,134 (Weaver 1985: 109) emigrants to Texas.
According to Erny (1999: 14), however, the first two Castroville Alsatians arrived
on the Louis Philippe. The Jean Key sailed on October 25, 1843, bringing fifty-two
Alsatians, and the Heinrich, bound for Galveston, sailed on December 7, 1843, with fiftyfive Alsatians on board. Laybourn (1985 II: 244) provides a sample list of twelve
Alsatian heads of household who sailed on the Heinrich, their occupation, age, and
village of origin (* indicates those present at the founding of Castroville):

60

Table 2.1: Alsatian passengers on the Heinrich
Name

Occupation

Age with

Origin

Dept

*Zurcher, Johann farmer, baker
(Jean) Ulrich
Dreyer, Martin
farmer

47

4 persons

Mulhouse

HR

48

8 persons

Ranspach

HR

Sacherer, Gabriel farmer, butcher

38

6 persons

Mulhouse

HR

Kempf, Joseph

farmer

34

4 persons

Meyenheim HR

Schuh, Georg

engineer, farmer

34

single

Bischheim

BR

Syren, Nikolaus

farmer

45

farmer

29

Lautenbachzell
Mollau

HR

Simon, Michael

single, family
to follow
4 persons

*Stephan, Johann farmer
(Jean)
*Haller, Joseph
farmer

30
31

HR

single, financée & Fellering
other young lady
single
Ranspach

HR
HR

Zeyer, Joseph

farmer, land surveyor 26

single

Franken

HR

Winkler, Denis

farmer

29

single

Ranspach

HR

*Discher, Joseph

farmer

27

single

Fellering

HR

Passenger lists of the Alsatian immigrants like the above provide substantiate the
exact origin of Castro’s colonists important in the discussion of linguistic maintenance.
The list also indicates that the Upper Rhine (HR=Haut-Rhin) was the main area of origin.
Erny (1999: 13) statistically shows that 93.9% of the Alsatians who immigrated to Texas
between 1843-1869 were from the Upper Rhine Department. Furthermore, 17% of these
Alsatians emigrated from St. Almarin canton in the Upper Rhine Department and 23.8%
from Ensisheim canton. The list also provides evidence of Castro’s focus on recruiting
farmers for his venture, as well as a potential explanation of the high percentage of those
61

who listed their occupation as farmer in 1850, but not in 1860: they switched to their
“other” trade, i.e., butcher, baker, engineer, or surveyor, to fulfill the needs of the
growing community.
Two additional ships in April and May 1844, the Ocean and Jeanette Marie,
carried 104 Alsatian families to Texas. Twenty more ships would eventually bring the
total to approximately 2,500 people (CCHA 1983: 62).

Laybourn (1985 II: 245)

identifies three Castroville families from Altorf in the Lower Rhine (Bas-Rhin), who
sailed on the Jeanette Marie bound for Galveston: (Laurent) Rihn, (Joseph) Burell,
Weber, and Schaeffer. The men of the first three families were also present at the
founding of Castroville.
Laybourn (1985 II: 243) compiles a list of the following Upper Rhine villages of
origin from passenger lists (see Illustration 1.3):
Bettlach, Cernay, Colmar, Fellering, Franken, Friesen, Heiteren,
Hirtzfelden, Hochstatt, Husseren, Kruth, Lautenbachzell, Malmerspach,
Meyenheim, Mittelwihr, Mitzach, Mollau, Mulhouse, Niederentzen,
Oberentzen, Oderen, Ranspach, Ribeauville, Riedisheim, Rixheim,
Rorschwihr, Rouffach, Rustenhart, Saint-Hippolyte, Steinbrunn-le-Haut,
Sentheim, Thann, Urbes, Winzenheim, Wittelsheim.78
After many hardships encountered on the sea and a long land trek from Port
Lavaca to San Antonio, Castro and company officials arrived at the grant with only
twenty-seven of the contracted settlers and twenty hired Mexican cart drivers (Weaver
1985: 50). Many prospective settlers had succumbed to disease and lack of food and
shelter at Galveston, or decided to remain there or at other places on the road to San
Antonio;79 some were recruited by the Adelsverein80 along the way, and some remained

78 The Upper Rhine villages Berrwiller, Bourbach, Soppe-le-Haut, and Bretten are mentioned in
Laybourn’s “fort incomplète” (‘very incomplete’) list of Alsatian immigrants who were buried in
Castroville’s cemetery.
79 For instance, the Jacob Bluntzer family from Oderen, Alsace, decided to settle in Meyersville (Laybourn
1985: 251-52).

62

in San Antonio, discouraged by the extreme heat and continuous rain of the summer of
1844.
After seeing his grant for the first time, Castro purchased another parcel of
seventeen leagues of land from John McMullen to the east within a horseshoe bend of the
Medina River which he felt was better suited for his first colony (Weaver 1985: 46). So
it was that Castroville was founded on September 3, 1844, on the banks of the Medina
River (CCHA 1983: 62). Quihi was established in March 1845, Vandenberg on the
banks of the Verde River in 1846,81 and D’Hanis by twenty-nine Alsatian families in
1847 (Hudson 1997: 19), bringing the total of Castro colonies to four within three years.
The forty-eight individuals of the first Castro colony, which they named
Castroville (CCHA 1983: 62),82 signed the founding document on September 12, 1844.83
According to Erny (1999: 13), this group included thirty-three French, twenty-two of
which were Alsatian, and ten Germans.

80 There was quite a bit of bitterness between the two enterprises. Bourgeois of the Adelsverein constantly
approached Castro’s settlers at sea, in Galveston, and even in San Antonio, with offers to enlist them in the
Adelsverein settlement groups.
81 Vandenberg was abandoned in the 1880’s due to drought conditions.
82 The city council made two attempts to change the name to “Medina City” in 1853 and 1855, but the
Alsatians defeated both attempts (CCHA 1983: 63).
83 This date and the original colonists are inscribed on the monument of Castroville’s September Square,
dedicated and presented by the Order of the Alhambra on October 12, 1931.

63

Illustration 2.1: Castro's Colonies (Weaver 1985: 118)

64

Castro and the colonists laid out the town within the horseshoe to the west of the
Medina River in a typical European grid formation, with a central square. The individual
40-acre plots were surveyed to the north and northeast outside of the town. Primary
streets (named for capitals of Europe) ran east-west, and secondary streets (named for
Castro’s relatives and friends) ran north and south (THC 2002: 15). The grid and the
street names remain today.
As noted in §1.4.1, there were several ethnic groups represented when Castroville
was founded. Anglo, Indian, and Hispanic inhabitants already occupied the area when
the first group of settlers from the Alsace arrived. Subsequent Castro efforts brought
Germans from the northern and north-central areas of Germany to his colonies of
Castroville, Quihi, Vandenberg, and D’Hanis. Although many Texas Alsatians consider
themselves a separate ethnic group from the Texas Germans (see Fig. 6.5), intermarriage
has blurred these lines considerably.

2.3 SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXTS: RELIGION AND EDUCATION84
The importance of similar belief systems should not be underestimated as
motivation for societal grouping and is also salient in German immigrant settlement
patterns (Moore 1975: 16) and maintenance of the ancestral language (Kloss 1966).
Unlike the Adelsverein based in Nassau whose colonists were predominantly Lutheran
Germans from Hessen, Castro’s first colonists were mainly Catholic,85 indicative of
France’s long history of Catholicism, and included only a small number of Lutheran
colonists. Although the overall number of German Catholics to German Lutherans in
84 Since social, cultural, and political factors are interdependent, some repetition is unavoidable in the
following sections.
85 See §1.4.2 and Weaver’s (1985) estimates. All Alsatian-speaking participants interviewed in 2007-9
identified their religious affiliation as Roman Catholic.

65

Texas was approximately one to three, German Catholics established strong religious
communities still evidenced today in Fredericksburg, New Braunfels, and Castroville.
Looking at the two smaller original settlements of Quihi and D’Hanis
(Vandenberg ceased to exist in the 1880s), this division is perhaps more apparent. Quihi
(pop. 104),86 settled by families from the Alsace and East Frisia, is predominantly a
German Lutheran community with one church (Bethlehem Lutheran).87 Finger (CCHA
1983: 132) notes that “while Castroville presents a French front, the German influence
predominates in Quihi . . .” D’Hanis (pop. 548), twenty-five miles to the west of
Castroville, was settled by twenty-nine Alsatian families, most of whom “were of [the]
Catholic faith” (CCHA 1983: 92). Today, D’Hanis remains a predominantly Catholic
community (Holy Cross Parish).
The Catholic tradition of separate education with its roots in European
monasteries and convents was also transplanted to the New World as an effective means
of securing future generations of believers. Nicolini (2004: 94-5) also refers the switch to
English that many congregations made in order to attract non-German-speaking Catholics
in Texas. In Medina County, too, whose parochial schools were headed by the Sisters of
the Divine Providence, lessons were given in English in order to further their missionary
work. These Sisters were schooled in German and French, and prioritized learning
English upon arrival in Texas.88
Kloss (1966) also suggests that the establishment of parochial schools in German
communities in earlier immigration periods seems to have been instrumental in the
maintenance of the ancestral language (see also Durin 1974, Moore 1975).89 While the
86

Population statistics are from the 2000 US Census.
German Methodists established a separate community called New Fountain only a few miles to the west.
88 For a complete history of the order, see Sr. Mary G. Callahan’s (1955) History of the Sisters of Divine
Providence at San Antonio.
89 In her study of bilingualism in a Fredericksburg public and parochial high school, Moore (1975)
investigates trends of language maintenance associated with religious affiliation and finds it a major
87

66

parochial schools in Medina County were highly ethnic in composition (Alsatians and
Hispanics), they did not directly further the ancestral language, although they were an
important vehicle for instilling religious doctrine and moral values, which dictated social
behavior, such as marriage, in other domains of community life.
Part of the Catholic doctrine which ensured a stable congregation of believers was
the ban on marrying outside of the faith. The statistics of religious affiliation of this
study’s participants suggests that this was highly effective. The Catholic community
evidently “allowed” intermarriage between Alsatians and Texas Germans when religious
boundaries were not breached. Hudson (1997: 68) provides a detailed list of Catholic
marriages in D’Hanis from 1910-1940 which show no intermarriage between the
Hispanic and Alsatian or Anglo communities, but intermarriage between the latter two.
The following figure shows an excerpt from his findings (1920 and 1930 not included):

contributor in language maintenance, but is unable to determine in exactly what way this factor operates to
effect linguistic maintenance.

67

Table 2.2: Marriages in D’Hanis 1910-1940
Year Church
1910 Holy Cross
Holy Cross
Holy Cross
1915 Holy Cross
Holy Cross
Holy Cross
1925 Our Lady 90
Holy Cross
Holy Cross
1935 Our Lady
Holy Cross
Holy Cross
1940 Our Lady
Holy Cross
Holy Cross

Marriages
Number
Mexican/Mexican
15
Alsatian/Anglo
3
Alsatian/Alsatian
3
Mexican/Mexican
2
Alsatian/Anglo
5
Alsatian/Alsatian
10
Mexican/Mexican
2
Alsatian/Anglo
1
Alsatian/Alsatian
4
Mexican/Mexican
2
Alsatian/Anglo
0
Alsatian/Alsatian
2
Mexican/Mexican
0
Alsatian/Anglo
2
Alsatian/Alsatian
5

The figures show a high occurrence of endogamous marriages (marriage within
the group), which also reveals a strict separation between the Hispanic and Anglo or
Alsatian communities. However, it also shows a fair amount of intermarriage between
the Alsatian and Anglo groups, which affects transmission of the ancestral language.
Considering the strong religious affiliation of the present TxAls community with
Catholicism, I focus on the role of Catholicism in religious and educational spheres.
From the beginning, the Roman Catholic Church played a supportive role in structuring a
spiritual community for the Alsatian immigrants. Its priests held mass, organized the
building of churches, and tended to the needy. However, these gestures were not always
acknowledged by the colonists. According to Castroville’s first priest, Father Dubuis, not
only did the colonists not speak his language, the French of Lyons, but they spoke an
90 Today there is only one church, Holy Cross. A second church, Our Lady Queen of Peace, was
established for Hispanic families in 1924, but burned down in 1953 and was not rebuilt (CCHA 1983: 87,
Hudson 1997: 69).

68

“unqualifiable jargon” and “an indifference most complete reigned in the neighborhood
of religion” (Waugh 1934: 47-8). The female counterparts to the priest, the Sisters of
Divine Providence, were instrumental in establishing the first community schools while
still carrying out their missionary work.
Given the Catholic religious tradition in the Alsace, it is not surprising that when
Castro organized the first ships of emigrants, he also contracted Jean Marie Odin, the
Catholic bishop of Texas in Houston, to consecrate the site for the colony’s Catholic
church. In doing so, he set the pattern for what was to become the first European
Catholic mission in Texas.91 Only one week after Castroville had been founded, Bishop
Odin arrived to conduct a mass and dedicated the church cornerstone, placing the town
under the patronage of St. Louis of France (CCHA 1983: 63).
Castroville became an important center for Catholicism in Texas which grew until
the late 1860s. Three years after its founding, in November 1846, the town’s first St.
Louis Catholic Church was completed and blessed by Bishop Odin, which served as
Castroville’s first parochial school twenty-two years later and still stands within the
Moye Center grounds. Bishop Odin was also successful in recruiting a French priest,
Father Claude Dubuis, from the seminary in Lyons, France. Under the auspices of Father
Dubuis, a second church was constructed four years later in 1850, and yet a third was
completed in 1870. These three churches still define the silhouette of Castroville and its
Alsatian community.
Perhaps Father Dubuis’ most significant contribution—not only to the community
of Castroville, but also within the larger context of Texas—was achieved because of his
commitment to proselytizing through learning and healing. Father Dubuis started a free
91 Catholic missions had already been established under the governance of Mexico and existed before the
creation of the Republic of Texas, but these had been abandoned or were otherwise occupied when Texas
became an independent republic.

69

school in the first years of the community which was the parent school of Castroville’s
parochial school (Waugh 1934: 48). Here he taught the Catechism and gave lessons in
French, English, and German, writing of “sixty-six pupils, not twelve of whom spoke
English” (Waugh 1934: 48).

When Father Dubuis convinced the Sisters of Divine

Providence at St. Jean-de-Bassel92 in the Alsace-Lorraine to send Sisters to Texas to open
schools, he initiated the first system of parochial schools in the diocese of Texas.
Two sisters from the non-cloistered teaching order93 accompanied him to Texas in
1866 as missionaries: Sister Superior St. Andrew Feltin94 from Geipolsheim, Bas-Rhin,
and Sister Marie Alphonse Boegler (later called Sister St. Claude) from Offendorf, BasRhin.

Mother St. Andrew established and staffed parochial schools which heavily

influenced the course of parochial education still in existence today. The first school was
established December 1866 by Sister St. Andrew in Austin, followed shortly by two other
schools in Corpus Christi and Castroville in 1868.
In 1870, Texas enacted a law providing for a centralized system of education for
all children between six and eighteen (CCHA 1983: 34). The Sisters were certified and
also willing to teach in the public schools of Catholic communities. By 1872, the Sisters
were teaching in D’Hanis (1870), another Castro colony, and Frelsburg (1870),
Fredericksburg (1870), and New Braunfels (1871).95

Later, Sisters were sent to

neighboring Castroville communities such as the Haby Settlement (1874), Hondo (1893),
Devine (1900), and La Coste (1913) (CCHA 1983: 35).

Mother St. Andrew also

established the well-known St. Joseph’s school in San Antonio in 1875.
92

Formed from German-speaking novitiates, this congregation was bilingual and educated their postulants
in both German and French in order to prepare them for teaching certification in Alsace-Lorraine.
93 Information on Sisters of Divine Providence is taken from Callahan (1955), CCHA (1985), and Langford
(2007).
94 Further insights on the role of this Alsatian Sister in the parochial education of Texas can be found in
Langford (2007) and Callahan (1955).
95 Also Panna Maria, St. Hedwig and Danville. The Sisters of Divine Providence additionally opened ten
schools in Louisiana (1887) and in Oklahoma (1907) (Callahan 1955).

70

Castroville’s parochial school, St. Louis School, was finally closed in 1968 after
100 years of service to the community, but re-opened in 1986 after renewed interest in
parochial education was demonstrated. Each year a new grade was added until the
primary level was completed by the final addition of the fifth grade. Currently, St. Louis
School remains a thriving parochial Pre-K – 5th elementary headed by Sister Louise from
Holland of the Sisters of Divine Providence.

No German language or history of

Castroville is included in the course curriculum.
The religious community still plays a supportive role in the maintenance of its
socio-historical importance and ethnic traditions (see Chapter Six). Many priests
associated with St. Louis Parish took an active interest in preserving the Alsatian heritage
and its traditions into the 20th and 21st century. Monsieur Lawrence Steubben was
instrumental in effecting the first exchange between Castroville and the Alsace in 1975.
The St. Louis Men’s Society is one of the few organizations in which the Alsatian
speakers I interviewed participate. The Feast of St. Louis in late August is perhaps the
most important event celebrated by the Alsatian community and has become a means to
celebrate and preserve the traditions of their Alsatian ancestors.96

It has expanded

beyond the original church celebration and is a well-attended community event, acting as
a homecoming for those native Castroville inhabitants who now live elsewhere. In 2008,
the 126th festival was attended by over 10,000 visitors.

96 For instance, the men’s St. Louis Society prepares “a heaping plate of Alsatian-style sausage and BBQ
beef” (Castroville News Bulletin, 8/2008: 7). See Davis (1990) for other Alsatian celebrations in Medina
County.

71

2.4 POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXTS97
In addition to settlement patterns which geographically isolated many German
immigrant communities on the frontier’s edge far from urban centers, local political
configurations98 and varying degrees of autonomy (Grenoble & Whaley 1998:2) insulated
Castroville and allowed for a relatively undisturbed continuation of cultural practices.
This was also the case for certain TxG communities in the western German Belt such as
Fredericksburg in Gillespie County or Comfort in Kendall County. What distinguishes
Castroville is the length of time the community sustained its protectionist efforts, given
its proximity to San Antonio. The following sections document the community’s
resistance to political verticalization and economic opportunities into the 1980s, which
supported the preservation of Alsatian language and culture.

2.4.1 Insulation
Medina County was created from Bexar County by an act of the Second
Legislature of the State of Texas on February 12, 1848, at which time Castroville was
also designated the county seat. Two years later, in 1850, Castroville was incorporated,
recognizing it as a local governing body. The Castro settlements of Vandenberg, Quihi,
and D’Hanis were also officially recognized.

The first census of 1850 shows a

population in Medina County totaling 909 persons consisting of 335 inhabitants in
Castroville, 84 in D’Hanis, 67 in Quihi, and 62 in Vandenberg (CCHA 1983: 7).
Castroville’s high political and economic status in the county was short-lived.
Two inter-related events created an economic crisis and relegated it to relative obscurity:
97 The information in this section is based on information taken from the Medina County History published
by the CCHA (1983).
98 For a description of the political controversy spanning almost thirty years between Castroville and
Hondo over the location of the county seat, see CCHA (1983: 11).

72

the routing of the railroad and the loss of its county seat status. Castroville was bypassed
by the Southern Pacific Railroad building westward from San Antonio in 1880 when the
city council rejected the company’s demand of a $100,000 bonus for topological
complications. Negotiations broke down and the company responded by routing its
tracks five miles to the south (CCHA 1985: 65). Because of this decision, Castroville
was cut off from any rail enterprise.99

This alternate routing ultimately doomed

Castroville’s local wagon freight enterprises, which had prospered during the Civil War
and reconstruction. Its accessibility was also adversely affected. In order to reach
Castroville by rail, passengers had to travel to LaCoste and take a buggy up to
Castroville. Due to this inaccessibility, the Sisters of the Divine Providence also made a
decision to move the Motherhouse to Our Lady of the Lake to San Antonio in 1896.
There were also efforts as early as 1856 to move the county seat to a more central
location in the county. However, these were initially unsuccessful, presumably for lack
of an alternate site. Not until 1886 were the efforts to move resumed, this time with
Hondo as the proposed site, a town which had been platted in 1881 by the Galveston,
Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railroad as it moved eastward. Finally, on August 27,
1892, after a rather controversial public election, the county seat was moved to Hondo,
further isolating Castroville by removing it as a potential influential political and
economic hub.
Due largely to these developments, its economy and population expansion100
came almost to a standstill by 1896 (CCHA 1983: 65). In 1897, Castroville citizens
petitioned the state to revoke the 1850 incorporation, which was accepted, and the county
99

Hudson (1997: 30) remarks that this event was “to Castroville’s disadvantage in terms of growth, but, it
may have helped to preserve the Alsatian heritage of Castroville.”
100 Old records of Valentine Haass show that Castroville had only 827 inhabitants (159 families) in 1896.
Comparatively, the 2000 U.S. Census places the current population at only 2,664. Estimations for 2003
indicate a population of 2,839 (www.epodunk.com ).

73

resumed its governance of the town. As the city historian Rihn (CCHA 1983: 65-69)
notes:
Castroville passed from a city to the status of a sleepy little village, not
unlike the European ones that the settlers had emigrated from some fifty
years before . . . those who did remain in the area were the farmers and
ranchers and the few merchants who supplied the town’s needs. Since
most of these were Alsatians, the isolated town retained the culture and
dialect of their ancestors.
Ahr (2003: 139) also notes that this “disincorporation and a tendency among the
descendants of the pioneers to be independent, self-sufficient, and, arguably, resistant to
change, explain in part why the Alsatian culture lasted.” The fact that the community of
Castroville was able to survive this economic downturn was due in no small part to the
self-sufficiency and cohesion (tight social networks) of the Alsatian population and its
values101 and traditions, supported by the practice of subsistence farming and agricultural
knowledge which were instrumental in its initial success as a colony.
The next thirty years saw little political, economic, or structural change in the
community, and the town’s survival of the Great Depression was largely due to its selfsustenance (farming was the main industry). Rihn (CCHA 1985: 65) also notes of this
period that “The culture of the early Alsatian settlers was retained both in daily and
religious life. The dialect was still spoken.”

2.4.2 “Reawakening”
Two World Wars with Germany as the enemy did not pass unnoticed by the
inhabitants of this “sleepy little village,” which effected the “Americanization” of the
European immigrants (Rihn, CCHA 1985: 65) and had profound effects on language use
101 Current participants identify a definite set of work ethics and moral values in the Alsatian Questionniare
(AQ) (see Chapter Six). Jordan (2004: 192-203) also provides an interesting discussion of the importance
of cultural heritage in his conclusion.

74

in public domains. In contrast to the Civil War, during which Medina County was able to
sustain its anti-secessionist position and non-participation,102 many stepped forward to
serve in the United States armed forces in WWI and WWII (CCHA 1983: 74).
A small series of improvements103 around the beginning of the 1940s modernized
Castroville’s infrastructure. In 1938, the Texas Highway Department improved the eastwest State Highway 3 and renamed it U.S. Highway 90 to accommodate increasing truck
and automobile traffic. But most importantly, Castroville voted to re-incorporate into the
County in 1947 after almost fifty years of unincorporated existence. During this first
year of incorporation, a contest was held to determine a slogan for the city which
epitomizes its Alsatian identity and has remained to the present. The entry “Little Alsace
of Texas” was selected, which the French Alsatians still use to designate Castroville and
its environs (Le Petit Alsace or S’kla Elsass).
Castroville remained insulated and virtually unnoticed except to truckers and
infrequent travelers en route to Del Rio well into the 1970s. Instead of strengthening
economic and political ties with its more progressive and urban neighbor, San Antonio,
the Alsatian community chose to establish a cultural relationship with the land of its
founders, the French Alsace. However, Castroville finally began to feel the pressure of
progress and development from San Antonio in the 1980s from land developers and
business ventures such as Sea World. The following words of a church leader during an
interview with the San Antonio Express and News (July 2, 1989) illustrate the
protectionist attitudes of native Castroville inhabitants:

102

Medina County was one of only a handful of counties (mainly the Hill Country counties and Uvalde)
which voted against succession from the Union (CCHA 1983: 9).
103 For a discussion of these additional improvements, see CCHA (1983: 66).

75

Castroville, beware of allowing yourself to die of progress!
Years ago you refused to let the Southern Pacific Railroad
bisect you. In the process you lost your status as county
seat and everybody wrote you off as having cut your own
throat. You refused to allow yourself to become just
another growing West Texas town. Did you realize that
you thereby also made yourself one of these United States’
last remaining towns of truly unique character? Your
stubborn refusal of “progress” was your salvation! Your
folly was your wisdom. Are you going to survive this
second onslaught of ‘progress?’104
The past ten years have seen the increasing urbanization of Castroville with its
direct (four-lane divided Highway 90) and affordable (real estate) access for San Antonio
commuters. The following section briefly examines Castroville’s political and economic
constellations and their connection to language shift.

2.4.3 Verticalization vs. horizontalization
Salmons (2005) investigates the role of regional and community structure in
driving minority language shift in German-American Wisconsin communities within
Warren’s (1978) concepts of verticalization and horizontalization. He proposes that
language shift is driven by changes in regional structure, or verticalization, a “shift of
political, social, and economic control from the local or regional to the state or national
level” (Salmons 2005: 129). Language is powerfully connected to these structures and
the loss of minority languages connected to local cultures can be attributed to this shift to
English, the language of state and national levels. Conversely, one can argue that selfgovernance and retention of local and regional control enables linguistic maintenance.
Castroville’s pattern of economic and political decisions, in particular from 1850-

104

This also provides an interesting example of the conservative attitudes present in city and church
leadership at the time.

76

1950, illustrates the continuance of regional and local control which insulated cultural
constructs. The loss of Castroville’s political status as the county seat, the economic
impact of bypass of the railroad, and the city’s decision to un-incorporate exemplify
horizontalization (local and regional control), which supported the maintenance of
Alsatian. In addition, economically self-sufficient farmers maintained the AL in domains
of home, family, and friends, even though official domains necessitated English.
However, control of educational institutions, both parochial and public (Medina
Independent School District), although remaining local, were necessarily dictated by state
and national English-only laws, which banned Alsatian from official domains. These
English-only laws were strictly enforced, but did not by themselves affect the use of
Alsatian in private domains. The shift to English was facilitated by individual decisions
within the community driven by dispositions of shame and linguistic stigmatization of the
ancestral language. Another example of this horizontalization is the city partnership with
Eguisheim and Ensisheim in the French Alsace. The Alsatian community of Castroville
initiated a connection with a local community in the region of their cultural ancestors and
in so doing, opened an avenue which revitalized and strengthened perceptions of their
ethnic heritage.
Political, economic, and social organizational structures are vessels for
implementing national ideologies. Ultimately, this is linked to the dominant group’s
economic and political power and number. I would argue that it is the dominant group’s
attitudes underpinning national and state structures which eventually force minority
group compliance that drive language shift.
Thus far, this chapter has described certain socio-historical, political, and
economic variables particular to the Alsatian-speaking community in Castroville.

77

Linguistic developments of diglossia and shift influenced by these constellations will be
identified and discussed in the following section.

2.5 LANGUAGE SHIFT AND DIGLOSSIA: ENGLISH /ALSATIAN
In the following sections, I first establish the almost exclusive use of English in
public domains and Alsatian in private domains before comparing it with the general
diglossia which prevailed in other German-speaking communities. Observing language
interaction in certain settings called domains was first introduced by Fishman (1964,
1965). Domains are abstract constructs which represent different contexts of interaction
such as “family,” “work,” “religion,” “education,” and “friendship,” and are useful in
analyzing factors which influence language alternation (Winford 2003: 110-11).
Fishman (1967) redefined Ferguson’s (1959) concept of diglossia by adapting it to
situations of language contact, where instead of two different forms of one language, i.e.
a High and Low variety,105 being used in separate domains, two separate languages
performed the function of “High” and “Low.” Characteristic of this broader diglossia in
language contact situations is a delegation of the ancestral language to restricted domains
of use, usually to informal and private contexts of family, friends, and neighbors. In TxG
varieties, for example, the “High” form is English which is used in public domains,
whereas the “Low” form is the native German dialect used mainly in private domains.

2.5.1 Diglossia: English /Alsatian
Unlike the use of German in neighboring homogenous TxG communities, there
was no documentation of the use of Alsatian in formal public domains of government,

105

See Barbour & Stevenson (1998) for a discussion of diglossia in German-speaking areas.

78

education, religion, and media from settlement time forward, although Alsatian was
certainly used to some extent in these domains. Given the presence of Germans from
more northern provinces, one would expect to find some Castroville records in German,
such as those in Quihi, for example. The absence of such records in Castroville in either
language points to the dominant use of English in formal domains of church, education,
and government early in its settlement. This was most likely also a practical decision,
given the plurality of languages among the first groups of colonists. The small, insulated
community of Alsatian speakers had little power of assimilation compared with the nearStandard German communities who maintained monolingualism in such settlements as
Fredericksburg or New Braunfels (Salmons 1983, Boas 2009a).
The acceptance of Texas into statehood only a year after Castroville’s settlement
in 1845 essentially mandated the use of English in official domains. Medina County was
created on February 12, 1848, only four years after the initial settlement of Castroville,
and the first county election took place on July 12 (CCHA 1983: 5). The minutes of the
first meeting were recorded in English. A sample of the highest elected officials show
varied linguistic origins of a group dominated by German dialect speakers. The cultural
separation between the Hispanic and Anglo communities previously noted106 seems to be
further substantiated by the absence of Hispanic officials.107

106 Waugh (1934) suggested that each of the three main ethnic groups remained socially separate: the
German-speaking group, the Spanish-speaking group, and the English-speaking group.
107 In the Santos family history (CCHA 1983: 485), it is noted that Henry Santos from D’Hanis was the
first Hispanic ever elected as a County Commissioner (in 1981).

79

Table 2.3: Elected officials of July 12, 1848 (CCHA: 1985)
Position

Name

Origin

Chief Justice
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Clerk
Tax Assessor & collector
Justice of the Peace
Sheriff

John Hoffmann
Joseph Bader
John Lamon
Simon Bourgeois,
Charles de Montel
Louis Huth
John Lamon
George Louis Haass

Hilbringen, Prussia
Wittelsheim, Alsace
Baden
Romans, France108
Koenigsburg, Germany109
Neufreystadt, Baden
Baden
Bad Duerkheim,
Rheinland- Palatinate

There is also no evidence that the Castroville schools, both parochial and public,
were conducted in any language but English after 1870.

During the first years of

settlement, Father Dubuis created a school which approximately seventy students
attended and gave Catechism lessons as well as language instruction in French, German,
and English.110 As already noted, he could not understand the Alsatian colonists, calling
their language an “unqualifiable jargon” (Waugh 1934: 48). The US Census of 1860
reports one elementary school with 44 pupils and one teacher. There were also five
common schools with one teacher and 24, 17, 7, 25, and 24 pupils respectively. German
was taught as a subject in some of the outlying “settlement” schools, depending upon the
demographics of the community. Father Dubuis was insistent that the Sisters of Divine

108

Bourgeois resigned after only a few meetings.
By profession an engineer, de Montel first immigrated to Pennsylvania before coming to Texas; he also
attended the Sorbonne in Paris.
110 There were also a few months in 1846 where lessons were given in German, English, and French, when
the Catholic priests asked Castro for help in establishing a school for the community. Castro proposed a
school separate from the church and hired a Lutheran teacher fluent in German, English, and French. This
caused a “tremendous furor within the colony” and the priests resumed control of the educational activities
in Castroville (Weaver 1985: 102).
109

80

Providence learn the language111 of their adopted country, so that they might effectively
perform their missionary work and proselytize. The public free schools were also staffed
by the Sisters of the Divine Providence.
Church records and private journals from the first priests and Castro were written
in French (e.g., Castro 1839-1846, Abbé Domenech 1858, etc.).

Traditionally, the

liturgical portion of the mass in the Roman Catholic Church was conducted in Latin and
the sermons in the “dominant” language. There is the probability that sermons were also
delivered in German or Alsatian, as there were priests from Germany, Alsace, and
France, but further research is necessary to determine if this was so. Some participants
mention a booklet with hymns in German around the turn of the century. It is unknown
whether Spanish-speaking Catholics in Castroville worshipped separately and to what
degree the separation was maintained.
The 1860 Census report states that there were no newspapers in Medina County in
1860, nor do Arndt and Olson (1961: 60) list any German-American newspapers or
periodicals in Castroville for the period 1732-1955—with the exception of one “Lost
German Paper” published by Ed. Meyer in May 1915.

2.5.2 Diglossia and language shift in other TxG dialects
In situations of language (and dialect) contact, the shift from a less prestigious
language to a more dominant one exhibits stages which can generally be applied to most
contact situations.

Batibo (1992: 90-2) defines five stages in East African speech

communities undergoing language shift and death of the ancestral language (AL) in

111

Langford (2007) describes English lessons already being given to the Sisters by Father Dubuis on the
voyage over. The Sisters always returned to the Mother House for professional development during the
summer months, taking courses in English, vocal and instrumental music, bookkeeping, etc.

81

purely linguistic terms:112 (1) monolingualism in the AL, (2) growing bilingualism with
the AL dominant, (3) bilingualism with adoption of L2 as the primary language, (4)
limited knowledge and production of the AL, and (5) replacement of AL by L2. Stages
(2) and (3) are characterized by varying degrees of diglossia (in the broader sense of
Fishman 1967). None of these stages is discrete, as speakers shift to the L2 to various
degrees at different rates (Winford 2003: 258). The second and third stages described by
Batibo (1992) are the crucial stages where the path toward partial or full assimilation is
determined. Trying to establish the extent of bilingualism with diglossia, i.e., language
alternation of a high and low variety and its use in certain domains, over one hundred and
fifty years ago is virtually impossible without written documents such as newspapers and
official records. For Alsatian, it is extremely difficult to assess, given that Alsatian is
essentially a spoken language. Furthermore, the Alsatian immigrants would have had no
instruction in written forms of German at the time of emigration, as the Alsace was under
the governance of France and in the process of “Frenchification” (see §1.3.1). In fact,
very few of the rural areas from which the immigrants originated had formal schooling
opportunities.
There is a tendency to assume certain similarities between developments within
other German-speaking communities in the western settlements. Salmons (1983: 188)113
describes a progression of language shift to English for the TxG community in Gillespie
County to the north of Medina County, based on previous TxG research and original
fieldwork, with some anecdotal evidence. Table 2.4 shows an excerpt from Salmon’s
(1983: 188) Table 1 illustrating his domain analysis of Gillespie County based on
Fishman’s (1964) taxonomy:
112

Mattheier (2003) defines these in terms of phases/processes (see §2.1).
Salmons (1983: 191) also refers to a prolonged “resistance” to dialect-leveling and shift of the Alsatian
community as compared with TxG dialects.
113

82

Table 2.4: TxG language shift in Gillespie County114
Time
Stage
Domain:
home, family

Pre-1900
general
bilingualism
w/o diglossia
German, some
monolinguals

Pre-1917
bilingualism
with diglossia
(Eng. = High)
fewer
monolinguals

Pre-1941
situation
becomes
unstable
some switch to
English

Present (1980)
little
diglossia115
German in
some homes;
some learn
from
grandparents

Boas (2009a: 46) describes TxG diglossia in New Braunfels, Comal County, as an
overlapping and progressive layering of languages and dialects. In the early stages of
diglossia, he suggests that most speakers only possessed a passive (P) knowledge of
written Standard German (SG),116 and spoke different varieties still influenced by their
regional dialects.117 Only the more educated immigrants such as doctors, teachers, and
clergy had an active (A) command of written SG. Boas’ (2009a: 43) model in Figure 2.1
is helpful in that it shows the interaction of both active and passive command of the
languages as well as the existence of different dialects, whether related or not.

114

Other domains not shown: friends/neighbors, business, work, school, official, written, and religion.
Salmons (1983:190) describes this as those who have “command of TxG but do not use it
systematically.”
116 The spoken standard, although in existence in a written form by the end of the 17th century, is thought
not to have been accepted as such throughout Germany until the end of the 19th-beginning of the 20th
century (Elspass 2002).
117 These regional dialects from the northern and central German provinces were close to written SG.
115

83

Figure 2.1: Diglossia in Early New Braunfels
(Boas 2009a: 43, Figure 2.3)

Written Standard German (High)
P

A

Low 1

P

P

A

Low 2

A

Low 3

P

A

Low 4

Boas (2009a: 54) further describes the development between 1850 and 1890 as a
double-overlapping diglossia of English (high) and written SG (low) on one level and
written SG (high) and different immigrant dialects (low). By 1920, English had replaced
SG as the High variety, but the dialectal varieties remained the Low variety spoken in
informal private domains of home, friends, and neighbors.
In contrast, written SG seems to have not played any significant supportive role in
the Castroville community.

Because of the linguistic diversity present from the

beginning of Medina County’s settlement and the use of English in official contexts,
education, and commerce, I suggest that a stable diglossic situation was established
earlier (perhaps as early as 1860)118 with English used in official, formal domains and the
various dialects/languages used in more informal, private domains. According to Boas’
(2009a) model, the diglossic situation in Castroville would appear as follows:

118

This includes the assimilation of additional immigrants in the 1850s.

84

Figure 2.2: Diglossia in Early Castroville

English as the lingua franca
P

A

P

P

A

A
P

Alsatian
varieties

Other
German
varieties

French
Spanish

English was not necessarily considered more prestigious and therefore “high,” but
served an instrumental purpose. For example, the “proximity”119 of San Antonio as a
supply source for merchandising businesses120 and the important freight wagon business
which ran from there to Del Rio through Castroville (CCHA 1983: 65) necessitated a
working knowledge of English as the “lingua franca.”121 The geographic isolation of
farm tracts122 and linguistic separateness of each ethnic group reinforced the use of the
ancestral language in informal domains (family, friends, neighbors).

The Spanish-

speaking ethnic group, as previously mentioned, remained separate from the European

119

In this time period, this involved a good day’s travel by wagon.
One speaker tells of his first experience helping his father pick up barrels of beer from the San Antonio
brewery for the local restaurants.
121 Boas (2009a: 38) mentions that after Texas gained independence from Mexico, English became the
trade and administrative language.
122 This is further evidenced by the establishment of family “settlements” on the outlying large-acre tracts
which are recorded under the names of “Haby Settlement,” “Bader Settlement,” “French Settlement,” etc.
(CCHA 1985: 60, 96-97).
120

85

ethnic groups. On the anecdotal level, participants reported knowing Spanish (and their
parents as well) in order to communicate with Spanish-speaking farmhands.123
Approximately around the turn of the century and supported by national and state
legislative and educational policy, English increasingly took on more than just a
communicative function in the Alsatian community. With the advent of WWI, the
balance in status between English and German dialects tipped in favor of English as in
other German-speaking communities, with English the more prestigious high variety and
German dialects the less prestigious low variety (Boas 2009a: 60-1).

2.5.3 Real and apparent-time analysis of 2009 participants
It is important to situate the linguistic profiles of the participants within a time
frame to view the progression of language shift within the 20th century as a result of
socio-historical events. My current data allows for a both real and apparent-time analysis
(Trask 2000, Wardhaugh 2006) of participants’ diglossia and shift to English. Real-time
analysis is accomplished by comparing Gilbert’s 1960s data with present data. Apparenttime analysis is supported by questionnaire questions which asked each participant to
evaluate language use in different stages of his life, i.e., childhood, young adulthood, and
the present. Furthermore, age-grading the participants, although not useful in predicting
fluency, reveals interesting patterns related to AL acquisition and transmission.
Reviewing Figure 1.3 in Chapter One, it was established that the birthdates of the
majority of TxAls speakers range from 1913 – 1940. In the following charts, time
periods are again divided into decades which span pre-WWI to post-WWII. Due to the
scarcity of Alsatian-speaking participants after 1940 (in itself proof in the break in

123

The European groups most likely did not consider these farmhands their equals economically or
socially.

86

transmission), a larger time category was created. To introduce a general picture begin of
language shift to English, speaker fluency is placed in direct relation to birth year in the
following figure:
Figure 2.3: Language shift
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fluent

1911-1920

1921-1930

1931-1940

2

3

6

7

10

3

1

1

2

1

Semi
Rememberers

1941-1980

Examining the two largest groups of speakers (non-speakers were not included),
which coincide with the two eras spanning the World Wars, semi-speakers constitute
more than half of the participants (1921-1930, 64%; 1931-1940, 56%),124 while fluent
speakers constitute 27% and 33%, respectively.

Also to be considered here is the

previously-mentioned factor of age and mental acuity of the participants in the first three
groups. Despite this factor and the small speaker sample, the numbers are indicative of a
language shift in progress (Grinewald 2001) during the inter-war period. The number of
124 Unfortunately, it was not possible to procure a similar size speaker sample from earlier periods due to
the limiting factor of longevity (ages 88-97; 78-89). One speaker (weak semi-speaker) born in 1979 also
represents a participant who speaks with his grandparents and is highly motivated to transmit the language
to his children. The participant born in 1940 called himself “the youngest fluent speaker of Alsatian.”

87

fluent speakers in the 1930s is also an indication that despite anti-German sentiments
generated by WWI, Alsatian was still being spoken in informal domains until the U.S.
entrance into WWII and consequently, transmitted to some degree. The sharp drop-off in
fluent or semi-speakers born after 1940 indicates an abrupt break in transmission.
To corroborate this, examining the participants’ age of acquisition of the AL
should reveal that transmission in the home was still taking place during the inter-World
War period (~1920-1940). Question #3 on the Alsatian Questionnaire inquired about the
age participants learned Alsatian and provided six response categories: 0-5, 6-12, 13-20,
21-35, 36-50, and 50+. Figure 2.4 tabulates the responses of the thirty-six speakers for
each category according to birth year:

Figure 2.4: “When did you learn Alsatian?”
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0-5

1911-1920

1921-1930

1931-1940

2

9

10

2

6

2

1

1

6 - 12 yrs
13 - 20
21 - 35
36 - 50

1

1940-1980

1
1

As mentioned in the introductory participant profiles, the three speakers born
from 1911-1920 represent three very different linguistic situations at home. One fluent
88

speaker reports that only Alsatian was spoken in the home and he learned English when
he entered the first grade. The other fluent speaker is Irish and spoke only English as a
child, learning Alsatian at age sixteen when she met and married her Alsatian spouse.
The third speaker, a rememberer, grew up in a home where the father spoke Alsatian and
the mother German. Most of her responses were in TxG, although she claimed she was
speaking Alsatian. She also learned English in school and from her older sister.
The remaining columns show that the AL was still being transmitted at home
(acquisition 0–5 years) during the inter-World-War period (1921-1940) until the
beginning of WWII, when transmission completely halted. Many strong semi-speakers
noted that they first “learned” the language between 6–12 years even though their parents
spoke it at home.125

This infers that the school environment might have been

instrumental in bringing Alsatian peers together, which motivated these individuals to
learn the AL for communicating with the in-group. Four of these participants reported
that they used Alsatian during sports, so that opponents could not understand them.126
Those who learned Alsatian after age thirteen mainly represent participants who were
motivated by a spouse or grandparents who spoke Alsatian.
I have established that the AL was transmitted to some degree to the next
generation of speakers until approximately 1940.

Questions 7-9 on the Alsatian

Questionnaire (hereafter AQ) inquired into the use of the AL in different domains and
with what frequency during different stages in their lives: as a child (~ 6-12), as a young
adult (~ 16-28), and “now.” The responses to the current use of TxAls were presented in

125

This is perhaps their first conscious memory of speaking the language, although it is evident that they
must have heard the language spoken at home.
126 For example, Bourhis et al. (1979) investigated code-switching among tri-lingual Flemish (FlemishFrench-English) students and their reactions to neutral and “ethnically-threatening” encounters with French
out-group speakers (Walloons). About one half responded to “ethnically-threatening” questions by
switching to their in-group language, Flemish. This study demonstrates how speech maintenance is often a
deliberate act of maintaining group identity (Winford 2001: 122).

89

Figures 1.5-1.7. The following analysis represents the four speaker groups (birth year)
and their responses regarding their use of Alsatian as a child.
Figure 2.5: Use of Alsatian as a child
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1911-1920

1921-1930

1931-1940

1

1

2

often

5

7

sometimes

4

1

1

1

2

1

6

2

always

seldom

1

never

1

1941-1980

Comparing the two middle columns provides a fairly clear picture of language
shift from Alsatian to English. For 1921-1930, the responses are fairly evenly split
between “always/often” (55%) and “sometimes/seldom” (45%).

For 1931-1940, the

group is split into almost equal parts of “always/often” (50%) and “seldom/never” (44%).
The “never” column which was not represented in the following decade indicates a break
in transmission during the 1930s in the home domain. Six speakers (33%) born after
1940 never spoke Alsatian as a child and two (11%) seldom spoke it.
To complete a comparison of apparent-time data, participants were also asked
how often they used Alsatian as a young adult (~16-28):
90

Figure 2.6: Use of Alsatian as a young adult
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1911-1920
always

1921-1930

1931-1940

1941-1980

1
2

3

sometimes

1

2

3

1

seldom

1

2

8

1

2

3

2

often

never

The first group (1911-1920) remains constant with the results given for “as a
child,” but progressive decades show a definite decline in the overall use of Alsatian.
Looking at the results for “seldom/never,” 50% born 1921-1930 rarely spoke it as a
young adult, 65% born 1931-1940, and 75% born 1941-1980. Again, the simple fact that
there are no TxAls speakers born after 1980 adequately substantiates the current
endangered status of TxAls.
I have depicted the onset of language shift in the 1920s which reached a critical
point at the end of the 1940s and coincided with the beginning of WWI and the end of
WWII. These two decades illustrate a downward trend in the use of Alsatian, indicating
a loss of prestige and value. There are no fluent speakers today born after 1940, which
91

indicates a final break in transmission of the ancestral language. An evaluation of the
decline in the use of TxAls is connected to some of the socio-historical, political, and
economic developments previously described within the concept of Giles, Bourhis, &
Taylor’s (1977) “group vitality.”

2.6 GROUP VITALITY: LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE, SHIFT, DEATH
A relatively vital Alsatian cultural presence in Castroville despite drastically
reduced numbers has been described in the preceding sections. This section examines the
degree of “group vitality” (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor 1977) and discusses its role in
language maintenance and shift. Giles et al. (1977: 308) define the vitality of an ethnolinguistic group as “that which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and
collective entity within the inter-group setting” and propose a model to systemize the
many operating variables in inter-group settings crucial to understanding the course a
particular ethno-linguistic group may take. Giles et al. (1977) identify three structural
variables which allow such a group to survive: (1) status (economic, social, sociohistorical, language), (2) demography (distribution, numbers), and (3) institutional
support (media, education, government, industry, religion, culture). Viewing the TxAls
community from this typological perspective, several observations linking language use
with socio-historical, political, and economic factors can be made. Giles et al. (1977:
309) note, too, that the vitality of a linguistic minority seems to be directly linked to the
degree its language is used.

The following summary therefore necessarily includes

linguistic assessment:
1. Status: The socio-historical status of the Alsatian group as Castroville’s
founders played an important role in establishing an influential political
92

presence127 in city government, although not always effective, which was directly
related to the status of TxAls. This was adversely affected by a loss of socioeconomic and political power when the county seat was moved to Hondo and the
railroad bypassed Castroville.

The linguistic status of TxAls, however, was

reinforced by the resulting insularity, but severely damaged by socio-historical
events (WWI, WWII), which disrupted its transmission. Consequently, it is only
spoken with any fluency by individuals above the age of sixty. Today, any status
the Alsatian ethnicity retains is mainly associated with its historical precedence.

2. Demography: The distribution of Alsatian immigrants in Castroville, D’Hanis,
(and later LaCoste), was dense in the main settlement and stabilization periods
(spanning ~1840-1920). However, the number and density of the Alsatian ethnic
group was significantly diminished thereafter due to the exodus of those whose
left for economic (work opportunities) and/or personal reasons (marriage),
exacerbated by the influx of Hispanic groups (migration). The Alsatian ethnicity
constitutes only 2% of the total ancestry groups in Medina County (refer to Table
1.7). Only approximately 20% of this 2% speak Alsatian. This negatively affects
the scope of opportunities to use the ancestral language. Together with an aging
population of speakers, this places TxAls on the list of endangered languages.

3.

Institutional support:

Strong private institutional support was initially

provided via an active Catholic infrastructure of parishes and parochial schools
which offered activities that brought the Alsatian community together.

The

current parochial elementary school includes no history unit on the founding of
127

There has been a strong representation of Alsatian mayors (two of which I interviewed) and council
members in the city council until only recently.

93

Castroville and its Alsatian heritage. Additionally, in view of the large Hispanic
membership of St. Louis Church, the emphasis is on inclusive activities which
further proselytism. Many (55%) current TxAls speakers do not identify the
church as having any role in maintaining the Alsatian identity (AQ #22).
Nor is there public support for the county’s Alsatian heritage or language in
schools. English-only laws enacted ca. 1918 and onward sufficiently banned use
of Alsatian or German in the classroom.

Any public institutional support

(financial or otherwise) exists solely in congratulatory (only limited funding)
acknowledgements of the preservation of historical architectural structures (Texas
Historical Commission). Only private support exists in the form of the local
Chamber of Commerce, the Castro Colonies Heritage Association, and initiatives
by private individuals. None of these institutions or organization actively engage
in preserving the Alsatian language.
It is evident that the favorable conditions existing in the 19th century which
elevated the status and supported the practical value of the Alsatian language quickly
eroded during the course of the 20th century due largely to historical events which
resulted in attitudinal shifts (Boas 2009a). Any remaining support of the heritage and
language appears to be solely in the hands of individual and small group initiative(s)
(families, cultural groups) from within the Alsatian ethnic group.

2.7 SUMMARY
I first established Castroville’s strong ethnic beginnings as an Alsatian settlement
and its development into a viable frontier community (1840-1880) with a description of
Henry Castro’s settlement efforts, the establishment of churches, parochial and public
94

schools, and its designation as the county seat. I further identified and substantiated the
region of origin as the Upper Rhine Department in the Alsace, important to the discussion
of language maintenance in pinpointing phonological and morphosyntactic features of the
donor dialect.
Castroville’s retreat into socio-economic and political isolation was exemplified
by the bypass of the railroad and move of the county seat to Hondo, un-incorporation
from Medina County, and the move of the “motherhouse” of the Catholic teaching order,
the Sisters of Divine Providence, to San Antonio. However, this political isolation, aided
by geographic isolation, economic self-sufficiency, a small population, and tight social
networks, strengthened ethnic ties important to the maintenance of the AL.
The awakening and modernization of Castroville and subsequent reestablishment
of ties to the “outside world” was signaled by reincorporation, creation of a slogan to
market its uniqueness, improvement of its major transportation route to San Antonio and
Del Rio, and its discovery by San Antonio land developers and entrepreneurs, which
ultimately worked against the maintenance of TxAls and contributed to its decline. Even
though the period after 1970 has been marked by the initiation of two city partnerships
with the French Alsace, formation of cultural interest clubs, and historical preservation
initiatives, such as those initiated by the Castro Colonies Heritage Organization, this has
effected relatively little in relation to the AL. The emphasis of these organizations has
been on historical and cultural aspects other than language, and has excluded any efforts
to revitalize TxAls.
Within the back-drop of these extra-linguistic variables in Castroville, I
established certain trends in language shift indicating the decline and endangerment of
the TxAls dialect and identified similarities and dissimilarities with studies on

95

surrounding TxG communities. Having described the broader socio-historical setting of
TxAls, the next three chapters will focus on the linguistic features of the dialect.

96

CHAPTER THREE: THE LEXICON OF TEXAS ALSATIAN
Dalla Werdr sin ànderscht, will da Werder sin nitt g’sei,
wu d’Lit dorüwer kumma sin, nitt g’sei, will mir heisse a
cara a cara, un dett heissa sie a Wàga, [you know]? Un
Lufschiff…un, ja, alle so Dinges, [what] sie sin nitt g’sei.
In àchtzehvierunvierzik sin kà Lufschiff g’sei, kà Autos un
so ebbis.128
-- #240, February 2008

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses lexical items of Texas Alsatian which differentiate it from
Standard German and other Texas German dialects. Identifying these items is important
to establishing whether these lexical features which differ from other Texas German
dialects are developments related to language contact or constitute an example of
maintenance of the Alsatian donor dialect. Furthermore, the investigation of language
contact phenomena such as borrowing, code-switching, and convergence which can
affect the lexical inventory also aid in identifying developments in the New World dialect
and provide a better understanding of what constitutes the Texas Alsatian dialect as a
linguistic entity as spoken in the 21st century.
As a prelude to structural discussions in following chapters, I first present a
sampling of distinctive lexical items found in TxAls from the Ellsasser Wordbuch
(Tschirhart 1981) and the Upper Rhine Alsatian (URA) dictionary,129 D’Lehrschtuwa
128

‘Their words are different, because those words didn’t exist when the people (Alsatians) came over,
didn’t exist, because we call a car a carra and there they call it a Wagen, you know? And airplane . . .yes,
and all those things that didn’t exist. In 1844 there weren’t any airplanes, no cars and other things like
that.’
129 In the previous chapter, it was noted that over 90% of the colonists came from the Upper Rhine
Department. Therefore, the lexical items given in the following examples are not only ALS, but more
specifically, what will be referred to as “Upper Rhine Alsatian” (URA).

97

(Nisslé 2008), which simultaneously provides an introduction to the URA/TxAls
phonological features examined in Chapter Four. SG lexical items are used as an index
for comparison. In addition, data from Gilbert (1972) on Medina and Gillespie counties
is compared with my 2009 data for a diachronic look at the retention of these items in
TxAls. This is followed by a discussion of borrowing and code-switching on several
levels between the main contact language, English, and TxAls. I investigate language
alternation which occurred during interview sessions, i.e. established loanwords versus
nonce borrowings130 (Poplack, Sankoff & Miller 1988, Myers-Scotton 2006), the
structural extent of borrowing using scales proposed by Muysken (1981) and Thomason
(2001), and possible linguistic and social factors motivating borrowing (Gumperz 1982,
Appel & Muysken 1987, Myers-Scotton 1993a, Winford 2003). Lexical innovations and
convergence at different levels are also examined typologically based upon Haugen’s
(1953) classification of language contact phenomena and Clyne’s (2003) concept of
transference.

I conclude with a discussion of code-switching in TxAls (Appel &

Muysken 1987, Muysken 2000, Clyne 2003, Myers-Scotton 1993a).

3.2 DISTINGUISHING TXALS LEXICALLY
There are readily-apparent lexical differences between Alsatian and SG, which
are reflected in TxAls and TxG, respectively. For example, TxAls speakers use lüega
(‘to look’) versus SG/TxG sehen or gucken, and käija (‘to fall’) (Nisslé 2008) versus
SG/TxG fallen. Although the main features contributing to the difference and thus
degree of comprehensibility between TxAls and TxG are phonological, certain lexical
items also affect comprehensibility. A unique opportunity to study differences between

130

These are usually “single occurrences of an item and may be integrated only momentarily” (Romaine
1995: 62).

98

TxAls and TxG lexical (and phonological) features is provided not only by Gilbert’s
(1972) data, but also by a locally-compiled Alsatian dictionary, the Ellsasser Wordbuch,
finished in 1981, just five years after the initiation of the first Alsace-Castroville
exchange.131
Gilbert’s (1972) data furnishes a real-time perspective of the previous generation
of Texas Alsatian (TxAls) speakers born 1879-1920132 to compare with current data and
thus provides a diachronic perspective.

Gilbert polled twenty-seven participants in

Medina County, for thirteen of which he noted Alsatian ancestry or some competency in
the language.133 Eight of these participants consistently produce distinctive Alsatian
characteristics (#s 9, 19-21, 23-25, 27), illustrated in Example (3.1), indicating fluency in
the ancestral language (AL). Further substantiation will be provided in the course of
discussions on phonological and morphological maintenance in the following chapters.
Gilbert (1972: 17-18) additionally notes “intermarriage” between German-speaking and
Alsatian-speaking parents or grandparents for five of these participants (#s 4, 7, 8, 12,
18), who mention more than one dialect spoken at home, i.e., “Elsass” (TxAls), High
German (HG), or Low German (LG). Gilbert (1972) also identifies three strong LG
speakers (#s 2, 16, and 22).134 The thirteen Alsatian participants’ numbers are shown in
boldface type in the following tables to facilitate recognition of Alsatian (ALS) features
or to highlight speaker variation and dialect-mixing.

131

A certain influence from the renewed contact with the Alsace should also be taken into account when
viewing the dictionary, as there was some consultation between the authors and their new French Alsatian
acquaintances.
132 Three participants in this study born in 1913, 1914, and 1917 coincide with the tail-end of this birthyear span of the Gilbert participants.
133 For example, Gilbert (1972: 17) notes the following for participant #4: “inf.’s parents spoke both HG
and Alsatian dialect at home; ‘my sisters spoke HG, my brothers and me spoke Elsass’.”
134 Their responses occasionally coincide with Alsatian speakers and point to interesting similarities
between the two dialects.

99

An example of the extent to which Gilbert’s phonological and morphosyntactic
data also reveals information on lexical items is shown by his IPA transcription of the
phrase which targeted weak verb forms, “Look how that tree is falling down.” Gilbert’s
(1972) Map 81 shows the complete phrases produced by Medina County informant #s 9,
19-21, 23-25, and 27 in IPA.135 These reveal several distinctive ALS lexical items, such
as the verbs mentioned above, lüega (‘to look’) and käija (‘to fall’), and the ALS
demonstrative article sall, SG der (‘that’) (cf. Figure 5.8, 5.9):

(3.1) ALS lexical items lüega and käija in Gilbert (1972) Map 81
Gilbert:
SG:
ALS:

“Look how that tree is falling down!”
Sieh, wie der Baum umfällt!
Lüeg, wie salle(r) Boim àwakäiht.

a. MED 9:136 [lyəkə mol vi: salə boim ke:t.]
b. MED 19:

[siʃə mǫl vi:ř sela boimə o:vařke:t.]

c. MED 20:

[se:ʃt dy: vi: də boim ke:t.]

d. MED 21:

[lukə mǫl vi: salə boim ke:t.]137

e. MED 23:

[lyəkə mɑl--sɑl boim, kæ:'tu:m.]

f. MED 24:

[lyk via selə boim o:vəke:t iʃ.]

g. MED 25:

[lyik aimǫl vi: selə boim umke:t.]

h. MED 27:

[lyək wi: selə boim sɑməke:t.]

135 Fortunately, examples shown in (3.1) were transcribed by fieldworkers in their entirety due to lexical or
syntactic variation.
136 These eight speakers in eastern Medina County consistently produce Alsatian lexical, phonological, and
grammatical features.
137 MED 21 also produces the SG/TxG forms in 2a.

100

(3.2) TxG lexical items kucken (‘to look’) and fallen (‘to fall’)
TxG:

Kuk mal, wie der Baum umfällt/umfallt.138

a. MED 21:

[kuk mɑl vi: dər baum falt.]

b. BAN 1:

[kuk vi: der baum is gərɑdə ɑn fɑlən.]

c. BAS 5:

[kuk mǫl vi: der baum jets fɑlə du:t.]

Looking at the responses in (3.1), there is evidence of some dialect-mixing of SG
sehen and ALS lüega with #s 19 and 20. Informant #21 also produces the German
colloquial form of ‘to look,’ gucken. Interesting variations of the ALS prefix àwa [ɔ:və],
SG um (‘over’) point to some convergence in the speech of #s 19 and 24, as well as some
dialect-mixing in the speech of #s 23 and 25. All but #20 use the ALS demonstrative
salla (‘that’). It is unclear whether #20 is expressing the ALS da (‘this’) or a variation of
the SG masc.nom demonstrative der in this context, as both are reasonable assumptions.
To substantiate the claim of lexical differences between TxAls and TxG speakers,
Gilbert’s (1972) responses for this item are shown for Gillespie and Medina Counties in
Figure 3.1 below. In the following tables, the numbers next to the phonetic transcription
represent each participant as coded by Gilbert (1972). If participants produced several
variations of the feature targeted, they are recorded under each, with subsequent
pronunciations in parentheses.

The thirteen participants in bold type indicate those

Gilbert (1972) noted as having Alsatian ancestors (parents, grandparents, or greatgrandparents). The five participants (#s 4, 7, 8, 12, 18) who noted other German varieties
spoken at home (“HG,” LG) are further italicized to facilitate recognition of dialectmixing. It is important to point out that vowels were transcribed phonemically for
Gilbert’s (1972) maps.

138

In Gillespie County, –felt or –falt was the most common response for SG fällt. As for other items, only
the realization of the targeted item (here, SG fallen) was noted by fieldworkers.

101

Table 3.1: Gilbert TxG data for SG –fällt (‘falls’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 81: (strong verbs, 3rd sing.pres.indic.)
Look how that tree is falling down, SG Sieh, wie der Baum umfällt,
ALS Lüeg amol wie salle(r) Boim àwakäijt.
____________________________________________________________
Gillespie County:
25 participants
Medina:
27
____________________________________________________________
ke:t (ALS)

-

-felt (SG)

9

-fɑlt

9

-felt & -falt
-fɑlən du:t

5
1

2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13,
18, 20, 49
3, 14, 15, 17, 19,
21, 22, 47, 48
7, 12, 25, 27, 28
2a

9, 19, 20, 21, 23,
24, 25, 27
7, 11, 26

8
3

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, (21)
14 (1)
-

fɑlən dait
22
1
-an runtərfɑlən ist
1
46
-gəfɑlən is (isch)
4, 10
2
____________________________________________________________
All twenty-five Gilbert (1972) Gillespie County participants responded with some
form of the SG lexical item -fallen. There were no occurrences of the ALS verb käija in
Gillespie County, nor in any of the other counties polled.

Conversely, the eight

participants in eastern Medina County noted in Example (3.1) responded with the ALS
verb käija. Table 3.2 shows 2009 participant responses for this same phrase:

102

Table 3.2: Roesch (2009) data for SG sieh (‘look’) and –fällt (‘falls’)
“Look how that tree is falling down,” SG Sieh, wie der Baum umfällt
ALS Lüeg amol wie salle(r) Boim àwakäijt.
____________________________________________________________
Roesch (2009):
27
____________________________________________________________
-ke:t

(ALS)

-ke:jɑ, am ke:jɑ
le:kt
gpʊlt

202, 234, 235, 240, 241, 242,
247, 248, 249a, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 253, 254, 255,
256, 257
237, 238, 239, 249c
236
233

18
4
1
1

[not polled:
243, 249b, 249d
3]
________________________________________________
ly:əg (ɑmo:l) (ALS) 202, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239,
240, 241, 247, 248, 249a,
249c, 250, 251, 252a, 252b,
253, 254, 257
lʊek
255, 256
lʊk (ɑmol)
233, 242,139 (256)
si: (SG)
235

19
2
2 (1)
1

[not polled:
243, 249b, 249d
3]
____________________________________________________________
Twenty-two informants (92%) produced grammatical and phonologically-similar
forms of the 3rd sing.pres. or the infinitive for ALS käija. Twenty-three (96%) also
produced the ALS imperative form lüeg, eleven (49%) of which appended the modal
particle amol. As previously mentioned, Gilbert’s transcriptions are not the only source

139

The recording for this participant was marred by static and was therefore difficult to transcribe
phonetically.

103

of distinctive lexical items used by the Alsatian speakers in Medina County.

The

Ellsasser Wordbuch140 (1981) also provides an indispensable source of vocabulary used
by TxAls speakers in Castroville.

The ninety pages of entries are preceded by an

introduction which points to certain difficulties in orthography, but the dictionary’s goal
of documenting TxAls vocabulary is not diminished by these discrepancies.

The

Ellsasser Wordbuch (EW) defines lexical items adequately while simultaneously
providing a general guide to pronunciation. It is especially valuable for its extensive
record of TxAls vocabulary (the only one in existence). The short excerpt from the EW
below gives the reader an insight into some lexical differences between TxAls lexical
items and SG (and near-standard TxG).141 Several participants remarked that many items
listed in the EW were “not the way they spoke,”142 i.e., that it represents only a portion of
the TxAls speech community. In addition to phonological differences, many lexical
items used by TxAls speakers affect comprehensibility with other TxG dialects.143 I use
the examples below in an introductory role to present some general lexical differences
between TxAls and TxG speakers, despite certain lexical commonalities between TxAls
and other German dialects. No gender is indicated in the EW.

140

Entries from TxAls and ALS dictionaries have not been transcribed using the IPA, as with the SG
entries (Langenscheidt 1995), but the detailed description of ALS phonetic differences can be referenced in
Chapter Four.
141 TxG lexical items are examples taken either from Gilbert (1972) or my interviews conducted with
Texas Germans in Medina and Gillespie Counties. They are not exhaustive and are meant only to illustrate
general differences between TxAls and TxG.
142 For example, #238 made a point of mentioning that the EW (1981) was only “one man’s way of
speaking Alsatian.”
143 Many of the participants had difficulty understanding my SG during the interview sessions as well as
some of my first attempts at pronouncing TxAls.

104

Table 3.3: Lexical examples from the Elsasser Wordbuch
TxAls (EW)

Gloss

ALS (Nisslé
2008)
äbbis

SG

TxG
variations
was, etwas

1. abis144

‘something’

2. ardapfel

‘potato’

3. geis

‘goat’

Ardäpfel m,
Kartoffel f
Hàrdäpfel m,
Grummbeeraf
Gaiss f
Ziege f

4. sah146

‘to see’

sah

sehen

5. hàfe

‘cooking pot’

Kochhàfa m

Kochtopf m

6. namlich

‘alike, same’

namlig

derselbe,
gleich

7. verbracha147 ‘to break’

verbracha

zerbrechen

8. ross

‘horse’

Ross n

Pferd n

9. sieter

‘since’

zitter

seit

(Koch)topf
(Map 6)
dasselbe,
übereins,
gleich
kaputt
(machen)
(Map 118)
Pferd
(Map 103)
seit

10. zwiesle

‘whisper’

zwisla,
fleschtera

flüstern

flüstern

etwas

Kartoffel
Ziege
(Map 66)145
sehen

For instance, Example (3.3) below of the ALS demonstrative namlig-, SG
derselbe (‘the same’) listed above shows its current use by TxAls speakers:

144

Most TxAls speakers pronounce this [εpɪs].
These numbers refer to the Gilbert (1972) maps that record responses for these items.
146 This is one of several monosyllabic verbs in ALS. The past participle of sah, gsa, was listed in the EW
(1981), but g’sahne was often used by interviewees as the past participle of SG sehen (‘to see’); gsei
(‘been’) was not included in the dictionary, but is a distinctive past participle belonging to the Mulhouse
dialect and was used by all TxAls participants.
147 The adjectives verbrocha and verhejt (inf. verhehla) were also used by my participants for the Gilbert
(1972) item, “The table is broken,” but this is not listed in the EW (1981).
145

105

(3.3) Demonstrative namlig- (‘the same’)
a. Eikel 6.1: He asked the same question yesterday.
#202: Ař hàt d’namlig g’fřo:gt geschteřt.
SG: Er hat gestern dieselbe Frage gestellt.
b.

#239: Wu n ich uf d’Walt kumma bin, dřno sin miř in
namliga Hüs gsei. . .
SG: Als ich auf die Welt gekommen bin, sind wir
danach in dasselbe Haus gewesen. . .
‘when I came into the world, we were then in
the same Haus…’

As one can see, several of these ALS/TxAls lexical items are quite distinct from
their SG/TxG counterparts. Some items, of course, are also shared by or similar to other
southern German dialects (e.g., Badisch, Bavarian), such as Geis (‘goat’) or Erdapfel
(‘potato’), or the High Alemannic spoken in Switzerland. This is indicative of the strong
lexical kinship Alsatian shares with other German dialects on one hand, and the similarity
of TxG to SG on the other.
Such distinctions are also recorded in Gilbert (1972) maps for Medina County, for
the translation items “horse” and “a girl.” The Gilbert item for “horse” (SG Pferd, ALS
Ross) investigated lexical variation and is compared with my 2009 data in Table 3.4:

106

Table 3.4: Lexical distinctiveness for “horse”
Gilbert (1972) Map 103: (lexical variation)
“a horse” SG ein Pferd, ALS a Ross
___________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
___________________________________________________________
ros (ALS)

4, 9, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 23, 24,
25, 27

pfe(:)rt (SG), 1, 3, (4), 5, 6, 8,
fe(:)rt
10, 11, 12, 13,
4, 15, (17), (18),
(21), 26, (27)
peɒ(t)
2, (15), 16, 22
gaul
(5), 7
hařs

202, 234, 235, 236, 237,
238, 239, 240, 241, 242,
243, 247, 248, 249a,
249b, 249d, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 253, 254,
255, 256, 257

25 (96%)

(251)

-

249c

1

[not polled:
233
1]
___________________________________________________________
No other county included in Gilbert’s (1972) study recorded the ALS term Ross.
All eight Gilbert (1972) participants who have been identified as probable fluent TxAls
speakers produced ALS Ross. Again, dialect-mixing on the lexical level can be observed
by two (4, 8) of the five participants who mentioned several dialects being spoken at
home. Interesting is the duplicate response of both the ALS Ross and SG Pferd by #s 4,
17, 18, 21, and 27 (also by 2009 participant #251). Looking at the geographic location of
these participants shows them all in the eastern portion of Medina County, indicating
probable frequent contact between these individuals and different German dialects.

107

Another lexical item recorded solely in Medina County was the Gilbert (1972)
translation task which investigated lexical variation for “girl,” as in ALS Maidla for SG
Mädchen.
Table 3.5: Lexical distinctiveness for “girl”
Gilbert (1972) Map #110: (lexical variation)
“a girl” SG Mädchen, ALS Maidla
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
____________________________________________________________
maidlə (ALS): 7, 8, 9, 12, 19,
20, 21, 23, 24,
25, 27

202, 233, 234, 235, 236,
237, 238, 239, 240, 241,
242, 243, 247, 248, 249a,
249b, 249c, 249d, 250,
251, 252a, 252b, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257

27 (100%)
metçən (SG),
me:tʃən, etc.: 3, 5, 6, 11, (12), 13,
14, 15, 17
metçə, me:tʃə: 1, (7, 8), 14, 18, (21)
(etc.)
me:dəl
4, 10, (12, 18)
vi:çt (LG)
2, 15, 16, 22
____________________________________________________________
Eleven of the thirteen Gilbert participants produced ALS Maidla. In addition,
other differences can be observed in Gilbert’s (1972) data between TxAls and TxG
lexical items such as ALS Büa and SG Jungen (Table 4.11), (or phonological differences,
such as in ALS Křyt and SG Kraut in Table 4.8).
I have introduced several distinctive ALS lexical items which differ from the
near-standard TxG dialect by comparing my 2009 data with Gilbert’s (1972) data in
Medina and Gillespie counties. In addition, I have identified a group of speakers in
Gilbert’s data who produce these items consistently, as well as a group of speakers who
108

produce both ALS and SG items that are indicative of dialect-mixing. Chapters Four and
Five also includes observations of these speakers’ responses to further substantiate these
hypotheses. The following discussion investigates the extent to which TxAls speakers
insert lexical items from the main language in contact, English, into the ancestral
language (AL).

3.3 LEXICAL BORROWING
The TxAls speech community (and TxG) is a prime example of “unequal
bilingualism” in a language contact situation. Winford (2003: 33-4) addresses borrowing
in such a linguistic setting as follows:
The languages of immigrant groups and ethnic minorities
absorbed into a larger host community are particularly
susceptible to lexical borrowing from the dominant
language. Eventually, such minority groups tend to become
bilingual, or to shift entirely to the host language. The
greater intensity of contact during the phase of bilingualism
and shift, as well as the asymmetry in power and prestige of
the languages involved, promote borrowing, primarily into
the subordinate language.
It is not surprising to find a uni-directionality in borrowing in TxAls, that is,
words are borrowed from the dominant language, English, into the recipient language,
TxAls, but not vice-versa. There was no occurrence of the reverse during interview
sessions. Supporting this directionality and its correlation to the power and prestige of
the source language (§1.4.1) is also the rare borrowing of any Spanish words into TxAls.
The only Spanish word encountered occurred during the Gilbert (1972) translation task
for English “pumpkin”, which was usually translated as galawasa (Span calabasa).

109

Some clarification of terms is necessary here, as there has been much discussion
of the differences between borrowing and code-switching,148 since “borrowing,”
“insertion,” and “switching,” were first discussed by Haugen (1953). However, there is
general agreement that distinctions can be made which revolve around the frequency of
use of a loanword, the breadth of its acceptance by speakers in a speech community, and
the number of word items. Some also include the degree of structural integration of the
loanword to distinguish between the two, i.e. Clyne (2003) maintains that only
established borrowings can be integrated structurally, but in the case of code-switching.
There is also acknowledgment that these two phenomena cannot always be strictly
separated, but lie on a continuum (Myers-Scotton 2006).
Other terms have also been developed for these two phenomena. Clyne (2003:76)
prefers to use the generic terms “transference” (transfers of single or multiple items) for
borrowing and “transversion” for code-switching (crossing over to another language) in
discussions of these contact-driven phenomena. Although Clyne’s (2003) terms are
helpful in comparisons of other structural language contact phenomena,149 the terms
“borrowing” and “code-switching” are used here, as they are the terms generally
employed in the literature on the topic. Borrowing refers to established loanwords
(usually single-word or single semantic units) used intra-sententially,150 which are
consistently and widely used by most speakers in the community and are usually
phonologically and grammatically integrated.

148

Code-switching refers to both intra-

See also Clyne (2003: 70-92) for a thorough discussion of terminology and models surrounding
borrowing and code-switching.
149 Clyne (2003) discusses a whole spectrum of phonological (see §4.4.3), morphological, and syntactic
phenomena in terms of transference.
150 Code-switching has further been differentiated between intra-sentential (switching within the same
phrase or sentence) and inter-sentential (whole sentences are produced before switching to another
language) (Myers-Scotton 1993: 3-4).

110

sentential and inter-sentential language alternation and includes “nonce borrowings”
(Poplack, Sankoff, & Miller 1988).
To facilitate a brief discussion of lexical borrowing and frame a discussion of
phonological transfer in the Chapter Four, I draw upon Thomason’s (2001: 70-1)
borrowing scale in situations of language contact in which she correlates social and
linguistic contexts (intensity of contact,151 attitudes, speaker fluency or bilingualism) with
the extent to which lexical and structural features are borrowed:
Table 3.6: Borrowing scale152 (Thomason 2001)
_______________________________________________________
Stage
Features
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Casual contact (borrowers
Lexical borrowing only: most often nouns,
need not be fluent)
but also verbs, adjectives, and adverbs
2. Slightly more intense contact Function words (conjunctions and adverbial
(borrowers must be reasonably particles like ‘then’), i.e. still non-basic vocafluent bilinguals)
bulary; slight structural borrowing; phonological
features such as new phonemes realized by new
phones, but in loanwords only.
3. More intense contact (more
bilinguals, attitudes, and other
social factors favoring
borrowing)

More significant structures are borrowed,
usually without resulting major typological
change, i.e. derivational affixes, pronouns,
etc. Phonologically, loss of native phonemes
not found in the source language, etc. In syntax, such features as word order and of coordination and subordination.

4. Intense contact (very extensive Heavy lexical and structural borrowing
bilingualism, social factors
strongly favoring borrowing)

_______________________________________________________

151

Thomason (2001: 69) notes that intensity of contact is “a vague concept, and it cannot be made much
more precise because it interacts with speakers’ attitudes as well as with more easily specified factors, such
as the level of fluency…and the proportion of borrowing-language speakers who are fully bilingual…”
152 Thomason’s scale is not reproduced in its entirety, but its main features are described.

111

This scale will also be referred to in the discussion of phonology in Chapter Four.
A second framework provides a hierarchy of purely linguistic (structural) constraints
developed by Muysken (1981) as found in Winford (2003: 51):
nouns > adjectives > verbs > prepositions > co-ordinating
conjunctions > quantifiers > determiners > free pronouns >
clitic pronouns > subordinating conjunctions
Muysken (1981) bases his hierarchy on the “accessibility” of certain structures, i.e. nouns
and adjectives are borrowed more frequently than verbs or prepositions because they
form “less tightly knit subsystems of the grammar than functional morphemes do”
(Winford 2003:51). In order to draw any comparisons for TxAls with regard to these
scales, I first describe the nature and extent of the integration of English lexical items into
TxAls.
Borrowing into TxAls is mainly limited to single-item occurences of nouns and
verbs,153 as in the following example:
(3.4)

Mir hàn hett morga ’s [Johnson grass] g’brieselt.
SG: Wir haben heute morgen das Johnson-Gras gesprüht.
‘We sprayed the Johnson grass this morning.’

These borrowed nouns largely represent cultural borrowings (Myers-Scotton 2006:
212),154 i.e., items for which there was no adequate Alsatian word in the homeland, as in
words pertaining to the immigrants’ new environment (Johnson grass, pasture,155 tank,
krick ‘creek’) or to technological innovations which took place after immigration (Gilbert
1965b: 110), such as [ka:ra] (‘car’), [bƱ:gi] (‘buggy’), or [ti:r, taijər] (‘tire’). Note #254’s
use of such terms in a recount of an accident he experienced:
153

This seems to have been due more to the inability to recall the word at that moment or the loss of the
original Alsatian word due to infrequency of use or lack of transmission.
154 Myers-Scotton (2006: 212-15) defines these as “words that fill gaps in the recipient language’s store of
words” versus core borrowings, or “words that duplicate elements that the recipient language already has.”
155 Many of the TxAls did not use the English word ‘pasture’ in the Gilbert translation task, “The animal
died out in the pasture,” but instead consistently translated it with Fald, SG Feld (‘field’). This response is
also noted by Gilbert (1972).

112

(3.5)

Un dr [pickup] isch a sidis un d’ tir isch kapütt. Un ich
bin nitt üssagfloga, ich bin am [steering wheel] verboga . . .
‘and the pickup is on its side and the tire is ruined. And I
wasn’t thrown out, I was wrapped around the steering wheel…’

Winford (2003: 37) discusses borrowing in terms of social motivation and further
defines the motivation for cultural borrowing as one of “need” versus “prestige” for core
borrowing. For example, participant #234 (opening quote, Chapter Four) inserts music
machine (‘juke box’), [kauntř]156 (‘counter’), and [bu:dəl] (‘bottle’). The word budel,
ALS Flàsch, would be considered a core borrowing,157 whose use might have originally
been motivated by the “prestige” associated with using the English word. This speaker
borrowed and phonetically integrated the English “bottle,” which has now become
embedded as the lexical item budel.
There are also examples of verbs borrowed into TxAls, although several fluent
speakers have displayed continued loyalty to TxAls by expressing mild disapproval for
inserting English lexical items into their discourse. Fluent speaker #202 often quotes
(with a shake of the head) a TxAls (C.G.) who frequently integrates English verbs into
his sentences:

156 As noted earlier, Gilbert (1972) used the symbol ř for the apical trill and transcribed certain items
phonetically when these were pertinent to allophonic distinctions. This same symbol is used to make
distinctions between the TxAls and SG/TxG [r].
157 It could also be considered a cultural borrowing, if the Alsatian immigrants were unfamiliar with glass
bottles in their region.

113

(3.6)
a. C.G.
ALS:
SG:

Hett morga hàn ech durch’s Fansteř k’vatcht
un’s hàt [blenty] geragent un das [like] ich.
Hett morga hàn ech durch’s Fansteř g’lüegt
un’s hàt viel geragent un das hàn ich gàrn.
Heute morgen habe ich durch’s Fenster gesehen und
es hat viel geregnet und das hat mir gefallen.
‘This morning I looked out the window and it
was raining a lot and I like that.’

b. #235
ALS:
SG:

I han’s [enjoyed].
Ich han’s g’niasa.
Ich habe es genossen.
‘I enjoyed it.’

c. #249d

I hàn Elsàssisch geřeeda, sie hàn in Ànglisch
geànsert.
Ich hàn Elsàssisch g’řett, un sie hàn’s in Ànglisch g’saijt.
Ich habe Elsässisch gesprochen, sie haben in Englisch
geantwortet.
‘I spoke Alsatian, they answered in English.’

ALS:
SG:

The verbs in (3.6a) and (3.6c) have been structurally integrated into the speaker’s
statement, and partially integrated phonologically. For Clyne (2003), this would indicate
an established loanword rather than code-switching. Appel & Muysken (1987) might
include this in the expressive function of code-switching, in which the speaker expresses
his mixed identity. Many TxAls speakers still integrate certain English lexical items
phonologically, which might have several motivations. It could indicate a conscious act
of loyalty to the AL. For this speaker, this could also be related to the fluency and
frequency with which he uses the AL.158 The adverb “plenty” in (3.6a) is also frequently
used by TxAls speakers, so much so that it has almost replaced the lexical item, viel.
Many participants noted that “plenty” was usually used instead of viel, even though they
were careful not to use it in translation tasks. It seems that certain prescriptive (and
158

Poplack, Sankoff, & Muller (1988) noted that phonological integration increased with the loanword’s
frequency of use in their studies in Ottawa/Hull.

114

purist) efforts by a few fluent speakers have emphasized that viel is the Alsatian word and
should be used instead of the English “plenty.”159
In reviewing the types of borrowing that occur in TxAls and comparing these with
the above stages described by Thomason (2001), it appears that the extent of lexical
borrowing did not progress past the first stage (see also §4.4.3), i.e. past borrowing
nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.

These borrowed items were predominantly

cultural borrowings of content morphemes. This is also in relative compliance with
Muysken’s (1981) hierarchy, but it is interesting that there is no evidence of borrowed
adjectives. The limited extent of English lexical items in TxAls probably has less to do
with the intensity of contact and more to do with sociolinguistic and attitudinal factors
associated with the recipient language, i.e. stigmatization and loss of function of TxAls,
which arrested transmission and limited the linguistic functions of TxAls. As it is now
only spoken by an aging and shrinking speaker population in restricted domains, its
lexical cache also largely represents an arrested stage in language shift.
On the other hand, positive attitudes toward the AL could also account for the low
occurrence of borrowing despite intense contact with English. Kloss (1966: 206, 209-13)
mentions pre-immigration experience with language maintenance efforts as an important
factor in the maintenance of the AL. Certainly, the long history of Alsatian as a minority
language in Europe and its existence today as the largest dialect spoken in France (Héran
et al. 2002) attests to strong ethnic foundations rooted in language. For example, TrefferDallers (1999) and Gardner-Chloros (1991) both researched borrowing from French into
Alsatian in Strasbourg. Although they found a higher rate of borrowing from French into
Alsatian which reflected the higher status of French, it was very low, around only 2 –

159

These prescriptive acts are mainly carried out by the TxAls figurehead of the community, #202, and
many speakers attempt to limit their code-switching—at least when he is present.

115

2.5%. This low percentage was attributed to a high degree of language loyalty to the
minority language, Alsatian.

3.4 LEXICAL INNOVATION AND CONVERGENCE
The renewed relationship between the Alsace and Texas might also account for
the continued scarcity of English loanwords in TxAls. Current TxAls speakers are very
interested in retrieving the Alsatian word for English cultural borrowings such as “car,”
“truck,” and “sink.” As a direct result of the organized visits and events on both sides of
the ocean, TxAls speakers’ interest in “updating” their language has been rekindled after
discovering that it is has an important communicative function. Speaker #251 speaks
about the lexical enrichment the city exchange with the Alsatian town of Ensisheim has
initiated:
…the Alsatians tell us we speak the old Alsatian here and that’s all we
knew . . . so there’s some words that I never heard of before, like this first
Alsatian we kept . . . we went to church Sunday morning and he wanted to
drive my car. And he said, “Das isch a grossi Blachboxa.” He called it a
big tin box, you know. Anyway, he drove it and we got to the corner and
he said, “Wu isch d’Bramsa?” Well, he was talking about the brake. I’d
never heard that word before. So I’m still learning . . . because we always
fill in the English word if something doesn’t come to mind right quick.
It is difficult to identify exactly what various speakers have retrieved from contact
with European Alsatian other than those mentioned by participants during interviews.
For example, #249a remarked that she learned the word for “village” ALS Dorf from her
visits to the Alsace. Her father had always referred to D’Hanis as “depot” [di:po:] and
she had always assumed this was the ALS word for “town.” #251 reports that the word
for “car” ALS Waga, TxAls cara was learned during visits to the Alsace and #202 relates
his discovery of the ALS word Reifa for “tire” [taijər] during one of his visits. It is clear,
however, that the Alsatian exchange has replenished the lexical inventory of TxAls,
116

especially with regard to English words borrowed and integrated long ago.

The

frequently-utilized TxAls adverb “plenty” has even been borrowed into ALS
conversation by visiting Alsatians.
Interesting in both TxAls and TxG are certain “loan blends,” “loan translations”160
(calques), and “loan creations” (Haugen 1953) which are shared across these two dialects.
Haugen offers a classification of lexical contact phenomena ranging generally from pure
loanwords to loanblends to creations, with various intermediate stages. The examples
already introduced such as cařa and buggy represent “pure loanwords” (Winford 2003:
43). There are also examples of creations as in the word for ‘skunk,’ TxAls Stinkkatz,
(‘stink cat’) which might have been created from the English “pole cat” and SG Stinktier.
It could also be a hybrid creation connected to the TxAls/TG word for “squirrel,”
Eichkatz161 (‘oak cat’), a term found in southern German and Austrian (Eichkatzerl)
dialects. The presence of shared loan translations and native creations in both TxAls and
TxG such as Gallerie (‘porch’), Stinkkatz (‘skunk’), and Eichkatz (‘squirrel’) supply
some lexical evidence favoring the hypothesis of the beginning formation of a TxG koiné
(Gilbert 1980: 229), or what has more recently been discussed by Boas (2009a) as the
early stages in the formation of a new world dialect (Trudgill 2004).
An excellent example of calquing in TxG is one provided by Guion (1996: 462) in
her illustration showing the borrowing of plural morpheme markers into TxG:

160 These translations are replicated on a foreign model in the native language, as with the German calque,
Wolkenkratzer (‘cloud scraper’) modeled on the English word for “skyscraper” (Winford 2003: 44).
161 This was included in the dictionary as a TxAls term, but is a term shared by the TxG and TxAls
community.

117

Table 3.7: TxG for “lightning bug”
Older fluent
Plural formation
Lichtebuks
of “lightning bugs” Lichtkäfer

Younger fluent Semi-speakers
Lichtkäfer

Lichtebugs
Lichtkäfer

The SG word for “lightning bug” is Glühwurm (literally ‘glow worm’), but TxG reflects
a direct translation of “light” + “beetle”: SG Licht + käfer which imitates the German
pattern for forming compounds. When TxAls were asked to translate “lightning bug,”
the responses showed a great deal of variation, as each respondent tried to think of the
Alsatian word (Gliajwermla, Nisslé 2008), or create something similar. This persistence
in providing an Alsatian word for me during the translation tasks was not an isolated
example, and in general, the participants often went to painful lengths (e.g., sometimes
taking several minutes accompanied by metacognitive conversations to produce a word,
showing frustration at their inability to access the Alsatian word, consulting with other
speakers present, and even calling others on the telephone for an answer) illustrates high
degree loyalty to the ancestral dialect. Various words (finally) given were Blitzkàfeř
(‘lightning beetle’), Fierkàfeř (‘fire beetle’), and Fieřmuk (‘fire fly’).162
Certain words produced by TxAls speakers also reflected lexical convergence i.e.,
where words in different languages become similar to each other (Clyne: 2003: 79). For
example, the Gilbert translation item, “What did they name the child,” which targeted the
past participle of SG nennen, “genannt,” shows variation not only in Medina County, but
also heavily in the western counties and less so in the eastern counties.

162

Gilbert (1972) also records a great deal of variation in other counties for TxG speakers in Map #111.

118

Table 3.8: Convergence of lexical items in TxAls
Gilbert (1972) Map 87: (irregular verbs)
“What did they name the child?” SG Wie haben sie das Kind genannt?
ALS Was han si d’Kind gnännt?
___________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
___________________________________________________________
gəna:nt (SG) 11, 13, 17, 19
gənent (ALS) 1, 3, 5, 12, 15,
20, 21
gəna:mt
7, 8, 9, 10, 14,
16, 18, 26, 27
gənemt
2, (18), (21)
gənɔ:mɑ
khaisɑ
periphrastic: (noun nɔ:ma)
unknown:

241

1

247
235, 237, 238, 240, 253, 256
202, 239, 249a,* 250, 254
234, 236, 248, 249c, 251,
252b, 255, 257
252a

1
6
5
8
1

[not polled: 4, 6, 22, 23, 24, 25
233, 242, 243, 249b, 249d
5]
___________________________________________________________
* khaist
All of the Gilbert (1972) participants polled produced the weak participle form –t
of SG/URA nennen ‘to name’ prescribed by SG, in stark contrast to the two 2009
speakers who produced genamt and genemt. The data suggests there was already some
lexical transference from the English verb “to name” at this point, but structural
maintenance of the weak participle suffix –t. The picture today looks quite different. Six
(28%) TxAls speakers produced the lexical item nàma for “to name”, but with the strong
participle ending –a. 38% had to paraphrase the sentence with the noun nàma in order to
complete the task and 24% (five speakers) employed the URA strong verb haisa SG
heissen.

Part of the discrepancy lies in the fact that Gilbert fieldworkers prompted the
119

verb nennen, which I did not prompt. However, the 2009 responses indicate a partial
lexical loss of the ALS verb nänna (Nisslé 2008: 252), which shows signs of
convergence with the English equivalent “to name” and the ALS noun nàma. The
Gilbert (1972) item (Map 45), “the red ants that sting,” also revealed some interesting
verb forms for SG stechen (‘to sting’) indicative of convergence between English “sting”
and ALS stacha (3rd.pres.indic.). Participants #249b and #256 produced stanga in this
phrase.
Another phenomenon of language contact is language alternation, or codeswitching. The next section investigates instances of code-switching between English
and Alsatian observed during interviews and translation tasks.

3.5 CODE-SWITCHING
The actual term “code-switching” was first discussed by Gumperz (1964) within
the confines of discourse functions. However, code-switching has come to signify all
kinds of language switching regardless of function and has become the focal point of
research on language contact phenomena. Research on the topic can be divided into the
two main areas: social motivation (why the speaker switches)163 (Poplack 1980, Blom &
Gumperz 1982, Myers-Scotton 1993a, etc.), and structural constraints (where it occurs)
(Auer 1995, Muysken 2000, Myers-Scotton 1993b, etc.). Given the fact, however, that
the majority of the TxAls-speaking community (1) can no longer be considered
sufficiently fluent in both English and TxAls to spontaneously switch between the two
codes (most are formerly-fluent speakers who rarely use Alsatian), and given that (2) the
use of TxAls is extremely limited (mainly to the domain of home and friends), discussing

163

Most of the recent discussions on motivation focus on the premise that the speaker consciously switches
and employs this as a strategy in negotiating symbolic power.

120

socio-psychological motivations (strategies) for code-switching is fairly moot, and
analyzing grammatical constraints on such a small scale is not informative. However,
given that code-switching does occur, it is informative to look at these instances to gain
insight into fluency issues of the speakers. For this reason, Appel and Muysken’s (1987)
taxonomic differentiation between discourse functions in code-switching which includes
the speaker’s linguistic competency and stylistic choices are used for descriptive
purposes here.

Structural constraints as pertain to TxAls are only approached

perfunctorily within theories of phonological, grammatical, and lexical similarity in
contact situations (Muysken 2000, Clyne 2003).
The discussion in this section moves past discrete English items integrated into
the vocabulary which are widely accepted and used in the TxAls community, and
investigates the issue of language alternation or code-switching (CS). I observed three
general scenarios during my interviews where language alternation occurs:

(1) the

interview usually begins in English, and as the interviewees become more confident and
relaxed, they move into Alsatian, often switching back and forth to English; (2) during
Alsatian conversation, TxAls speakers switch intra-sententially to individual English
words (beginning quote, Chapter Four), or, (3) speakers switch completely to English for
several minutes.

Most of the intra-sentential code-switches seemed to occur in the

narratives of the limited number of fluent speakers.
Appel & Muysken (1987) differentiate between five discourse functions in codeswitching: (1) referential (lack of fluency); (2) directive (to the listener); (3) expressive
(of speaker’s mixed identity); (4) phatic or metacognitive; and (5) poetic (jokes, puns,
stories). I observed cases of code-switching for all of these functions, which will be
briefly addressed below.

121

In the following example of the first scenario with a fluent 82-year old TxAls, the
speaker begins a story of the day she took her younger sister to school in English
(Alsatian segments are translated in the footnote):
(3.7): #239:
So one day I took her to school, they said you could bring
your siblings along and I took her along…she was talking
Elsess, so she says, “I want, wu isch mi Kittl?. . . Lord, I got
so embarrassed and I said, “Don’t say that, say ‘coat.’ You
shouldn’t talk like that . . . Well, she wanted her coat, you
know. And I got embarrassed and I said, “Don’t talk like
that.” And then she came home and she told Mama, “Oh,
boy, she really did give it to me, because I said I wanted mi
Kittel. Vell, Mama, . . . D. hat gsaijt,’Nei, dü sollsch nitt so
reeda.’" Sie (Mama) hat gsaijt, [well], das isch, dü
brüchsch nitt [worry], [well] lass nur geh, das, dü lehrsch
so genuch. And she learned it. 164
This speaker alternates languages both inter-sententially and intra-sententially.
The poetic function of the story determines the main choice of English, perhaps also for
the listener’s benefit (at this point, the speaker is unsure of the listener’s fluency). It is
also most likely that the insertion of ALS Elsess triggers the switch to Alsatian in the
following clause. Clyne (2003: 162) discusses lexical triggers which facilitate a codeswitch within his concept of lexical facilitation. Interesting, too, are the insertions of the
English discourse marker “well,” discussed later in this section.
This next example illustrates what Appel & Muysken (1987) would term a
referential function in code-switching during conversation, triggered by a gap in the
speaker’s lexical competence. Semi-speaker #240 does not know the ALS word for
“generation.”

164

Translation: Where is my coat?; my coat; D. said, “No, you shouldn’t talk like that.”; She (Mama)
said, well, you don’t need to worry, let it go, you’ll learn it soon enough.

122

(3.8): #240:
Un nitt züe viel kenn das [say], kann das jetz no [say].
Eini vum salli nin Brüedr, eine isch mi Grossvatr g’sei.
Ich bin di viert [generation].
‘And not too many can say that, can still say that.
One of those nine brothers, one was my grandfather.
I’m the fourth generation.’
For #240, the use of the English verb ‘say’ seems to be an unconscious slip (also
indicative of the infrequent use of the AL), as he repeatedly produces the ALS verb sàga
before and after this passage. The English and ALS lexical items for ‘to say’ are very
similar, which has probably triggered the switch. Clyne (2003: 162) identifies bilingual
homophones (words that sound the same or nearly the same in the two or more
languages) as lexical items that facilitate a code-switch. #240’s switch to “say” is also
reminiscent of Clyne’s (2003: 75) reflection on an intra-sentential switch triggered by
congruent lexicalization165 (Muysken 2000: 131), where both languages share a common
grammatical structure that can be filled by the insertion of the lexical item from either
language:
(3.9): Der Farmer’s GOT Schafe.
‘the farmer’s got sheep’
Clyne (2003: 75) remarks that this seems to be different from Muysken’s (2000) category
of insertion,166 as

165

Clyne (2003) includes this classification in his term “transversion,” or the way some lexical items
trigger a switch.
166 Muysken’s subcategorizes code-switching into three types: insertion, alternation, and congruent
lexicalization.

123

the speaker is crossing over into the other language rather
than transferring something . . . from one language to
another. We may be dealing here with a process that is
psychologically different to other kinds of lexical
transference. This needs to be specially labeled in a way
that distinguishes it from the lexical transference
commonly referred to as ‘code-switching.’
Clyne (2003: 75) distinguishes insertion and alternation from this “crossing over”
by introducing a new term, “transversion.” Example (3.7) would also be considered
“transversion” by Clyne’s definition. Further examples of transversion facilitated by
bilingual homophones are shown in Example (3.10):
(3.10)
a. Gilbert #34:
#252:
ALS:
SG:

Mir sin mit ira167 gànga.
Wir sind mit ihr gegangen.

b. Gilbert #129:

‘Is that a squirrel on the pecan tree?’

#256:
ALS:
SG:
c. Gilbert #46:
#233:
ALS:
SG:

‘We went with her.’
[miř ha:n mɪt həɽ gɔŋɑ]

[ɪʃ das a aigakats an ði: nysabɔim]

Isch das a Eichhörnla ufm Nussboim?
Ist das ein Eichhörnchen auf dem Nussbaum?
‘There is something in your left eye.’
[dɛř ɪʃ ɑ di:ŋ ɪn dini oi]

Da isch ebbis in di linka oig.
Da ist etwas in deinem linken Auge.

Bilingual homophones such as TxAls [di] and [ði] (‘the’) or [əř] (fem.dat in unstressed
positions) and [həɽ] (‘her’) often triggered a code-switch.
The context within which speech is produced seemed to affect the frequency of
code-switching, which increased when the speaker was confronted with translation tasks

167

Many of the TxAls speakers use variations of the SG dative ‘ihr.’

124

removed from the flow of natural speech production. During the translation tasks, it was
evident that speakers switched to English when they could not access the Alsatian word
(referential function, Appel & Muysken 1987). In these cases, the speaker prefaced a
comment to me in English (directive) with “What IS the Alsatian word?” or to
themselves (phatic), usually preceeded by a pause.

This even occurred with core

vocabulary words which informants recognized or produced later, such as ALS
Fanschter, SG Fenster (‘window’), ALS Kryt, SG Kraut (‘cabbage’), or even ALS
Melch, SG Milch (‘milk’), and reflects the infrequent use of the AL by TxAls speakers.
Interesting within the context of code-switching is the occurrence of English
discourse markers in TxAls such as “well” and “you know.” The loss of the German
modal particles (ja, doch, mal, aber, etc.) and use of English discourse markers in
German-American dialects has been well-documented (Salmons 1990, Goss & Salmons
2000, Fuller 2001, and Boas & Weilbacher 2009).168 Several of the TxG interviews I
have conducted indicate a slightly higher occurrence of the English markers “well” and
“you know” in TxG conversation than in TxAls. In the case of two couples of a “mixed”
marriage, i.e. where one spoke TxG and the other TxAls, there was a noticeable absence
of English DMs in the Alsatian speaker’s discourse versus the Texas German’s
utterances. In TxAls, there is still evidence of ALS modal particles, but also of English
discourse markers (DMs) on a limited scale (as in Example 3.7 and the opening quote),169
which would argue against DMs as established borrowings in TxAls (see Salmons 1990).
Below is a short list of recorded occurrences and approximate translations followed by
samples of ALS DM occurrences in TxAls conversations:
168

Clyne (2003) also documents this development in German dialects in Australia. See Matras (1998) for
an interesting typological explanation for DM code-switching due to “cognitive pressure exerted on them
to draw on the resources of the pragmatically dominant language for situative, gesturelike discourseregulating purposes” (1998: 282).
169 Clyne (2003: 223) also notes a considerable level of maintenance of DMs in the Australian Western
District settlements.

125

(3.11)
amol
àwr
doch
gànz
ja

‘once’
‘but, really’
‘really’
‘really’
‘well’

a. #254:
Sall Hüs

ols
‘ever’
scho ‘actually, really’
un
‘and’170
weisch ‘you know’

hàt sie ja amol geeigen un hàts verkäuft feř a bissi nix.

sal hy:s hɔt si ja əmol gəaign ʊn hɔts fɛrkoift fɛr ə bɪsi nɪks.

‘She once owned that house and sold it for a little bit of nothing.’
b. #202:
Dàs isch anànder G’schicht, dàs isch ganz inteřessant...
‘that is another story, that is really interesting...
c. #234:
Dàs isch àwer a dummi Froi, die hàn g’ dacht . . .
‘that is really a dumb woman, they thought . . .’ and
Àwer d’Kinner hàn immř gsait, wařum kenna miř nitt ols mitgeh.
‘But the children always said, why can’t we ever go along.’
d. #239:
Ja, da isch a hertř Tag gsei . . . Mama, Müettr hat àlles, weisch,
gtràga und un àlles gbacha, weisch, in dam Oofa.
‘Yes, those were hard days . . . Mama, Mother carried everything,
you know, and baked everything, you know, in the oven.
These examples illustrate that TxAls speaker still use a range of Alsatian discourse
markers in their conversation.

170

The fluent speakers make extravagant use of the conjunction un ‘and’, using it to string their entire
narrative together. See the beginning quote of Chapter Four for an example.

126

3.6 SUMMARY
This chapter began with an introduction to some of the ALS lexical items which
differ from SG and TxG, based on (1) Gilbert’s (1972) data, and (2) excerpts from the
Texas Alsatian dictionary, Ellsasser Wordbuch (Tschirhart 1981), compiled by a
descendent of one of the first Castroville colonists. Examples for the ALS verbs lüega,
SG sehen (‘to look’) and ALS ovakaija, SG umfallen (‘to fall down’), substantiated
maintenance of ALS verbs in TxAls. Lexical items substantiating the distinctiveness of
TxAls versus TxG were examined for the Gilbert items, such as “Look how that tree is
falling down,” with emphasis on the two verbs mentioned above.

Other items

investigated were “a horse” (TxAls a Ross, TxG ein Pferd), and “girl” (TxAls Maidla,
TxG Mädche(n)). In Gilbert’s (1972) study, these ALS lexical items were found only in
Medina County. I also noted evidence of dialect-mixing on the lexical level by (but not
limited to) five Gilbert participants (bolded and italicized), who claimed more than one
dialect spoken at home (Alsatian, “High German,” and Low German).
The investigation into lexical borrowing from English identified most items as
cultural borrowings, i.e., words for unfamiliar objects in their homeland not indigenous to
the Alsace, such as those for indigenous plants (calabasa ‘gourd, melon’)171 and animals
(Stinkkatz ‘skunk’), or technological terms for objects that appeared during the
technological boom at the beginning of the 20th century (car, buggy). There were few
occurrences of core borrowing. I also determined that most borrowed items are nouns,
with some occurrences of verbs, either borrowed directly (“say”, “worry”) or structurally
integrated (g’vatcht ‘watched’).

171

This term actually refers to a variety of gourds or melons. There is also the French term calabase based
on the older Spanish term which might suggest that this term was perhaps already familiar to the Alsatians.

127

I compared the extent of borrowing into TxAls from English to Thomason’s scale
and found that borrowing into TxAls did not progress past the first stage. It seems that
borrowed vocabulary plays only a small role in the lexicon of the community.172 I
proposed that this is due to attitudinal factors, i.e. language loyalty, rather than intensity
of contact, given the scarcity of English loanwords observed in the TxAls spoken today.
I also noted that TxAls speakers have retrieved many “lost” Alsatian words through the
renewed contact with the Alsace in Europe, or created an Alsatian word during
translation tasks for items for which they typically used the English word, such as
“lightning bug” or “sink,” which also substantiates a high loyalty to their ancestral
language. Some lexical convergence of verbs was also observed such as TxAls genàma
ALS genännt, but not to any significant degree.
I investigated the language contact phenomena of code-switching in TxAls, using
Appel & Muyskens’ (1987), Muysken’s (2000), and Clyne’s (2003) discussions on the
topic as a basis for my observations.

I found many examples of referential and

metacognitive switching indicating a lack of fluency in the AL which I mainly attributed
to infrequency of use.

I also examined code-switching triggers under the general

category of Clyne’s (2003) lexical facilitation (Muysken’s 2000 “congruent
lexicalization”) and found several intra-sentential examples of switching to English. This
switching occurred predominantly in the context of homophones, such as “the” (ALS d’),
or “her” (ALS ir), and seems to be more of an unconscious act, or a different
psychological process than of that usually discussed under code-switching, i.e. conveying
“intentional meanings of a socio-pragmatic nature” (Myers-Scotton 1993a: vii). This is
not surprising considering that many of the participants are formerly-fluent speakers of
TxAls. I briefly investigated discourse markers in the conversation of TxAls speakers
172

Poplack, Sankoff, & Miller (1988) also note this in their study in Ottawa/Hull, Canada.

128

and found scattered instances of English DMs “well” and “you know.” However, there is
still ample evidence of ALS modal particles in TxAls, which might account for the low
frequency of English DMs. As noted, the current data is insufficient to reach an informed
conclusion.
The general lexical assessment of TxAls indicates a high retention of vocabulary
necessary for daily familial interaction and for home and agricultural work tasks
(ranching, hunting, making sausage and molasses, etc.). As most of the immigrants were
farmers and craftsmen and the AL was fairly limited to informal domains of home and
neighbors, this is not surprising. The limited scope of borrowing and occurrences of
code-switching in the discourse of TxAls speakers seem to be indicative of a high degree
of language loyalty which would support preservation. All of these aspects discussed
above substantiate a lexically extensive preservation of the ALS dialect in private
domains. The next chapter introduces and examines the extent of the preservation of the
ALS phonological system.

129

CHAPTER FOUR: THE PHONOLOGY OF TEXAS ALSATIAN

Un’r isch ins Kri:eg gànga—[World War II]—un wu’r
zrükumma isch, sin mr in a klei Tànzhall wu sie a [music
machine] kàà hàn, unr hàt a [budel] bier kàà un hàt mir
immr ãg’lüegt un g’lacht un ich hàn ksait zu de àndere
Frau, àndre Maidl „Wer isch sallr wu steht dett an sallem
[countr] mit sallem Bier un lüegt mich immr ã un làcht? Sal
isch dr junior H., hat sie ksait. Ooooh. Ich hàn scho vum
sallem keert, àbr ich hàn in nitt kennt, un drnou hàn mir
mitinànnr gassa. Ich bin sachzin Johr kseei. Un da hàn
ich kiirouta wu ich àchzeeni kseei bin. Un er hat nitt kenna
tànza. Un ich hàn g’tànzt wie ewer es mir glei kseei bin.
Un ich hàn ksait, wenn er nitt tànza düet, dann gàng ich
nitt mit’m. Un da hàt er lerne tànza.
--#234, March 2008173

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides phonological information for identifying the main donor
dialect of TxAls speakers in Castro’s colonies and determining the extent of phonological
maintenance of this ancestral dialect in Medina County, Texas. Phonological features of
Alsatian are easily distinguishable from SG, although the Alsatian dialect area is not
discrete and encompasses local variation. Boas (2009a: 172) points to this difficulty in
establishing a specific donor dialect for New Braunfels TxG, in that “identifying
particular phonological features with their counterparts in the donor dialects is inherently
173

‘And he went to war—World War II—and when he came back, we went to a little dance hall where
they had a music machine. And he had a bottle of beer and kept looking at me and laughing. And I said to
the other woman, other girl, “Who is that standing there at that counter with that beer and keeps looking at
me and laughing?” That is the junior H., she said. Ooooh. I had already heard about him, but didn’t know
him. And afterwards we ate together. I was sixteen. And I married when I was eighteen. And he couldn’t
dance. And I danced as if it didn’t matter to me. And I said, if he wouldn’t dance, I wouldn’t go out with
him. And he learned to dance.’
130

problematic, because a specific feature is likely to be found in several areas.” This is not
as problematic for TxAls, as many phonological features are quite distinct from other
TxG dialects.

This phonological distinctiveness constitutes the main reason for

examining the TxAls phonological inventory for evidence of the preservation of these
features. Phonological features were also examined because of their unique property of
systematicity and patterning in processes of phonological change, which aid its
identification (Sihler 2000: 16).
To preface discussions on the phonological inventory of TxAls, the two Germanic
dialects in contact with Alsatian (ALS) are briefly introduced in §4.2 and the main
consonantal and vocalic features differentiating ALS from these two dialects are
identified. SG is used a reference point for recognizing variation. Subsequently, in §4.3,
basic features separating two regional varieties of Alsatian are compared in order to
establish Castroville’s ancestral donor dialect. §4.4 compares distinctive ALS features
with those produced by TxAls speakers by examining Gilbert’s (1972) data and samples
from TxAls speakers collected during this study to identify the degree of retention of
these features in TxAls today. §4.5 briefly addresses two phonological developments in
TxAls and §4.6 summarizes the findings of this chapter.
To provide a brief overview of ALS phonological features maintained in TxAls, a
sample of other lexical items from the Ellsasser Wordbuch (EW) highlights major vocalic
and consonantal differences between TxAls and SG:

131

Table 4.1: ALS phonological features in TxAls174

ALS features

TxAls (EW)

SG

English
gloss

1. [x] for SG [x,ç]: Milch,
Melch [mɪlx, mεlx]

milich [mɪlɪx]

Milch [mɪlç]

‘milk’

2. [k] for SG [ç]: mankmol
[mankmol]

mangmol
[maŋmol]

manchmal
[mançmal]

‘sometimes’

3. [v] for SG [b], [i:] for SG
[aɪ]: bliewa [ḅli:və]

bliewa [ḅli:və]

bleiben [blaıbən] ‘to stay’

4. trilled apical [r]175 for SG
[r,ʀ,ɐ]: Kràga [krɔāə]

grake [ārɔkə]

Kragen
[kʀagən]

‘collar’

5. [ʃ] for SG [s]: Sàmschtig
[sɔmsʃtɪk]

Samstig
[sɔmsʃtɪk]

Samstag
[samstak]

‘Saturday’

6. [ɔ] for SG [a]: sàga [sɔgə]

sage [sɔgə]

sagen [sagən]

‘to say’

7. [a] for SG [ɛ]: Harz [harts]

harz [harts]

Herz [hεrts]

‘heart’

8. [y] for SG [aʊ]: Krüt [kryt]

krüt [kry:t]

Kraut [kʀaʊt]

‘cabbage’

9. [yə] for SG [u:]: güat [āyət]

güet [āy:ət]

gut [gu:t]

‘good’

10. [iə] for SG [y:] griasa [āriəsə]

griese [āriəsə]

grüssen
[gʀy:sən]

‘to greet’

11. [ɔi] for SG [aʊ]: boija [ḅɔijə]

boije [ḅɔijə]

bauen [baʊən]

‘to build’

174

ALS features are based on Keller (1961), Philippe & Bothorel-Witz (1989), and Waterman (1991) and
ALS lexical items are from Nisslé (2008). SG lexical items and their meanings and phonetic transcription
are from Langenscheidt (1995).
175 The EW describes the [r] as a “lightly rolled r as in some dialects of German or Spanish,” which
describes the apical trill characteristic of ALS. This will be represented by the symbol [ř] (also used by
Gilbert) to distinguish the allophone from the phoneme /r/ and to facilitate comparisons with Gilbert’s
(1972) data.

132

Four ALS consonantal and three ALS vocalic phonological features identified above are
analyzed in this chapter:
1.
2.
3.
4.

use of the velar fricative [x] in all environments (1),
spirantization of intervocalic /b/ > [v, β] (2),
apical trilled [r] (4),
fortis and lenis distinctions within the set of labial, alveolar, and velar
stops, e.g., [g] vs. [ā] (4),
5. backing and lowering of Middle High German (MHG) ë > a (7),
6. retention of MHG long vowels [i:, y:] (8),
7. retention of MHG diphthongs ie [ie, ia] and uo [ye, ya], as evidenced by
rising diphthongs (9, 10).
Items (10) and (11) in the table above illustrate the unrounding of rounded front vowels
and diphthphongs also found in other German dialects. Item (3) is discussed within the
context of ALS representations of SG [ç]. Item (5) shows the palatization of SG /s/ and
Item (6), the velarization of SG /a/. To form a basis for discussing these differences, the
following sections provide background information on the possible ALS donor dialect(s)
of TxAls.

4.2 PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES OF EUROPEAN ALSATIAN (ALS)
To establish a phonological basis of European Alsatian with which to compare
Texas Alsatian features of Medina County, several phonological descriptions of
European Alsatian were consulted (e.g., Keller 1961, Matzen 1973, Philipp & BothorelWitz 1989, Vassberg 1989,176 Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003, etc.). Most descriptive work
has centered on the Lower Rhine Alsatian dialect, mainly due to the intense contact
situations with Franconian177 and French. However, several studies have focused on
176 Vassberg (1989) provides descriptions from the Encyclopedie de l’Alsace (1985) and Matzen (1973),
both of which were unfortunately unavailable to me.
177 Keller (1961: 119) states that “what characterizes the Alsatian dialectal scene is the degree in which it
has been subjected to infiltration by northern, Franconian forms,” which explains the major isoglosses
running west to east and bending northward as they cross the Rhine into Baden.

133

forms of Upper Rhine Alsatian, notably Philipp & Bothorel-Witz’ (1989) description
based on the dialect of Colmar, which represents the northernmost boundary of the Upper
Rhine Department, and Vassberg’s (1989)178 attitudinal language study in Mulhouse in
the south.
Alsatian-French dictionaries (Adolf 2006, Nisslé 2008) and the textbook
J’apprends l’Alsacien avec Tommy et Louise (Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003) of the
Mulhouse dialect used in elementary schools with its appended grammatical and phonetic
charts is also consulted for comparison.

Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) adds an

interesting additional perspective of a prescriptive text. The textbook and dictionaries
present a phonetic inventory which focus on problematic sounds for their target audience,
in this case native French speakers (in the textbook, a French word is provided next to
each phoneme in addition to the Alsatian word).
The following sections briefly introduce other German dialects in contact with
ALS in the Alsace, using a comparative description of consonantal features to separate
and distinguish ALS from these related dialects and SG. Illustration 4.1 provides an
overview of the German and Romance dialects in contact:

178

Vassberg’s (1989) description is one of the broader dialects of Low Alemannic, which also emphasizes
the variation found within the political borders of the Alsace.

134

Illustration 4.1: The Alsatian speech area (Matzen 1973)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Lothringian Rhine-Franconian
Palatinate Rhine-Franconian
Southern boundary of the NHG
diphthongization
Lower Alsatian Low Alemannic
Low Alemannic influenced
by Franconian (Strasbourg)
Romance enclave in upper
Bruche valley

7. Alemannic speech island in Romance area
8. Romance enclave of Orbey
9. Isogloss bundle separating Upper and
Lower Alsatian
10. Upper Alsatian Low Alemannic
11. Isophonic border of the Sundgau
12. Romance enclave of Moetreux
13. Romance enclave of Courtavon-Levoncours
14. High Alemannic (Sundgau)

135

4.2.1 Regional German dialects in contact with Alsatian
There are three regional German179 dialects (Matzen 1973, Phillip & BothorelWitz 1989, Vassberg 1989) within the political boundaries of the Alsace: (1) RhineFranconian, in northern political border areas to Germany and French provinces, (2) High
Alemannic in the southern border area to Switzerland, and (3) Alsatian, a Low
Alemannic variety,180 which spans most of the Alsace and is bound by the Vosges
Mountains in the West and to the East, by the Rhine River, which forms its eastern border
with Germany. The dialect areas in contact have not changed significantly since the midnineteenth century (see Bohnenberger 1953). Whereas the Franconian dialects once
influenced the Alsatian dialect to a higher degree (Keller 1961: 119), French181 is
gradually taking on this role. Influence from contact with HAlem in the south must also
be considered.

4.2.2 Alsatian (LAlem): distinguishing consonantal features
The following consonantal features based on Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989:
315-18) and depicted in Illustration 4.2 distinguish Alsatian (LAlem) from the RhineFranconian dialects of the Lorraine and Palatinate in the northern Alsace and High
Alemannic (HAlem) in its southern region (1989: 313). A further comparison is made to
Standard German (SG).

179

There are also two Romance dialects in contact on the western and southern border of the Alsace,
Lorraine and Franc-Comtois.
180 Low Alemannic spills over political borders into Baden. Bohnenberger (1953) defines an extended area
for Low Alemannic with a division between a western half (Upper Rhine Alemannic) and an eastern half
(Bodensee Alemannic).
181 For a discussion of more recent French influence on Alsatian, see Vassberg (1993), Broadbridge (2000),
Bister-Broosen (1996b, 1997).

136

i.

/p/ ~ /pf/: Alem [pfɛrt] / Fran [pɛrt] SG Pferd (‘horse’) (Keller 1961: 118,
Philipp & Bothorel Witz 1989: 315-317). The [pf] is characteristic of the
LAlem and HAlem dialect, and extends completely through the Alsace
along the Selz-Lauter isogloss, dividing Alsatian from the Franconian of
the Lorraine and Palatinate. It is also a feature shared by SG.

ii.

/x/ ~ [k] or [ç] (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 315): There are two
distinctions to be made here.
- The Sundgau-Bodensee isogloss: HAlem [xɪnt] ~ LAlem [kɪnt], SG
Kind (‘child’). LAlem distinguishes itself from HAlem to the south in that
it uses [k] versus [x] for initial [k-] lexica, which is a feature it shares with
SG.
- Lower Rhine Alsatian [iç] ~ Upper Rhine Alsatian [ix, ɛx], SG ich (‘I’).
There is a further shift of [ç] to [x] in Upper Rhine Alsatian just south of
Colmar, which distinguishes it from Lower Rhine Alsatian and SG (see
§4.3 for a discussion of Upper and Lower Rhine Alsatian). Colmar is
situated at the limit of where the ich-sound [ç] occurs for SG [x]. This is
not a feature shared with SG.

The remaining LAlem features are also NOT shared with SG:
iii.

Intervocalic /b/ ~ [v, β]: LAlem [ova] / HAlem [oba], SG oben (‘above’).
This isogloss runs just above the [x] - [ç] isogloss, but below Mulhouse
and Altkirch, forming a further distinction between LAlem and HAlem.

iv.

“Weakening”182 (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 315) of intervocalic /g/ ~
sometimes [k], sometimes [j]: [mɑ:kə, mɑ:jə,] ~ [ma:gɪn], SG Magen
(‘stomach’). A shift of intervocalic /g/ to [k] characterizes Upper Rhine
Alsatian and the dialect of Baden, and a shift to [j], Lower Rhine Alsatian.
These two allophones distinguish LAlem from HAlem and SG.

v.

Three “voiceless lenis stops [p, t, k]” (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 316)
(or according to Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003: 4, [ḅ, ḍ, ā]) for the SG
series /p, t, k, b, d, g/, e.g. [pallə] versus [bεllɪn], SG bellen (‘to bark’), etc.

The next section identifies vocalic features which distinguish ALS from SG and
its northern contact dialect, Rhine-Franconian.

182

This can be connected to a lenition process affecting some German dialects in the interior of Germany,
often termed the Binnendeutsche Konsonantenschwächung ‘Inner-German consonant weakening’ (Russ
1994:7).

137

Illustration 4.2: Major Alsatian183 Isoglosses

MAJOR ISOGLOSSES:
ei / i
eis / is SG Eis ‘ice’
u / ye
bruder / brüeder SG Bruder
‘brother’
p / pf
[pfʊnt] / [pʊnt] SG Pfund ‘pound’
öü / oi
[bloi] / [blöü] SG blau ‘blue’
ç/x
[pyç] / [pyx] SG Bauch ‘belly’
j / k, g, x
[mɔ:jə] / [mɔ:gə], [mɔ:kə], [mɔ:xə]
SG Magen ‘stomach’
v/b
[ove] / [obe] SG oben ‘above’
k/x
[[kɪnt] / [xɪnt] SG Kind ‘child’
g(e)wan/gsi(n) SG gewesen (past part.) ‚been’
win/wi
SG Wein ‘wine’
wund/wunde
SG Wunde ‘wound’

183

The map is based on Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 317). I have added isoglosses and examples from
Vassberg (1989: 33) based on Matzen (1973).

138

4.2.3 Alsatian (LAlem): distinguishing vocalic features
Alsatian differs from SG mainly in its vowels (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989:
316). The following vocalic features184 are shared by speakers in the Upper Rhine and in
some parts of the Lower Rhine and are especially salient to the discussion of Texas
Alsatian:
i.

Middle High German (MHG) long vowels /i:/, /y:/, /u:/
have not been diphthongized in LAlem as in SG:
LAlem. [is, hys] (MHG îs, hûs) = SG [ais, haʊs]
(‘ice, house’).

ii.

MHG diphthongs ie [iə] and uo [ye]185 have not been
monophthongized as in SG:
LAlem [hiəta, fyətər] = SG [hytən, fʊtər]
(‘to watch over, fodder.’

iii.

MHG ë [ε] has undergone backing and lowering186 to [a],
unlike SG:
LAlem [ʃpak] = SG [ʃpεk] (‘bacon’).

This last vocalic feature is perhaps the most distinctive feature dividing ALS from
SG and neighboring dialects. ALS also belongs to the large area in which front rounded
vowels and diphthongs are unrounded (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 318).

For

example, SG Kühe [kyə] (‘cows’) becomes Kieh [ki:] in ALS, or SG Tür [ty:ɐ] (‘door’) is
ALS Teera [tɛ:rɑ] (Nisslé 2008) or TxAls Derr [dε:r].
Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 314) provide the following inventory of vocalic
phonemes for the Upper Rhine city of Colmar:
184

The Upper Rhine area belongs to Area V) as presented in the Encyclopedie de l’Alsace (1983: 2327;
2337-2338), whose vowel features are described as follows:
1) No Bavarian ([blaɪvə], etc.) diphthongs: [bli:və] SG bleiben ‘stay;’
2) palatalization of MHG ū and uo: [syfa] saufen ‘to drink’; [fy:ətəʀ] SG Futter ‘fodder;’
3) survival of diphthong ie: [hi:ətə], [hɪ:ətə] SG hüten ‘watch over;’
4) opening of MHG ë (ɛ)> [a] as in [ʃpak] SG Speck ‘bacon.’
185 Palatalization of MHG ū and uo (see previous footnote).
186 This was referred to as “opening” in Vassberg (1989: 37-39).

139

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

eight short stressed vowels: / i, ɪ, ɛ, a, y, ʊ, ɔ, ɑ/,
eight long stressed vowels: /i:, ɪ:, ɛ:, a:, y:, ʊ:, ɔ:, ɑ:/,
two unstressed vowels: /ə, i/,
two rising diphthongs: /iə, yə/,

v. closing diphthongs: /ai, ɛi, ɔi/.
Their description emphasizes the difference in length (short, long) of both stressed
and unstressed tense and lax vowels,187 which Phillip & Bothorel-Witz (1989)
differentiate via use of the colon. Adolf (2006) also emphasizes the length of particular
vowels in his description of the sounds of Alsatian: “sometimes with ii, sign of vowel
length: liide, SG leiden (‘to suffer’). Many Alsatian texts utilize this doubling of a vowel
to denote length. In addition to the high tense vowel [i:], the lengthened lax back vowel
[ɔ:] is often written as kàà, SG gehabt, (past part. ‘had’) to denote length. Philipp &
Bothorel-Witz (1989: 316) designate this lengthening (:) as a phonemic difference, which
they substantiate with the following lexical pairs:

187 There is controversy surrounding the definition of “tense and lax,” as to whether to express this
difference in vowel quality as muscular (ATR, -ATR, Wiese 2000: 20) or as decentralized/centralized. The
former is used here as a basis for discussion.

140

Table 4.2: Vowel lengthening in URA

Phoneme

Colmar

SG

English

/i/ ~ /i:/

is ~ i:s

Eis188 ~ Eisen

ice ~ iron

/y/ ~ /y:/

hys ~ ly:s

Haus ~ Laus

house ~ louse

/ɪ/ ~ /ɪ:/

mɪ t ~ ʃtɪ:l

mit ~ Stiel

with ~ handle

/ε/ ~ /ε:/

rεtə ~ lε:p

reden ~ Löwe

to talk ~ lion

/a/ ~ /a:/

palə ~ ma:l

bellen ~ Mehl

to bark ~ flour

/ʊ/ ~ /ʊ:/

hʊnt ~ ʊ:ʀ

Hund ~ Ohr

dog ~ ear

/ɔ/ ~ /ɔ:/

ʀɔs ~ tɔ:r

Roß ~ Tor

horse ~ gate

After reviewing the examples above, it is evident that only the first example for /i/
demonstrates a true minimal pair proving separate phonemes. The second pair for /y/ is a
near minimal pair, which is close enough to argue for this dichotomy.189 Subsequent
pairs in the list such as “palə ~ ma:l” seem to suggest this might be so. The lax /ɑ/
included in Philipp & Bothorel-Witz’ inventory description is also not included above,
but there is evidence for this same phonemic distinction provided by Nisslé 2008, who
lists both àsa [ɑ:sɑ] (‘by herself/itself’) and àss [ɑs] (‘than’). On the other hand, TroxlerLasseaux et al. (2003), designate only /i/ and /i:/ as separate phonemes (see below).190 In
TxAls, the minimal pair for ice: iron does not exist: ice and iron [i:s] are homonyms (see

188

The digitalized Wenker sentence #4, Der gute alte Mann ist mit dem Pferde durch’s Eis gebrochen und
in das kalte Wasser gefallen, shows an isogloss running roughly along the Rhine for Eis between [ǐs] in the
Alsace and [īs] in Baden.
189 Nisslé (2008) also infers a short and long stressed [y] in these lexical items: Hőss ~ Lős.
190 This might be indicative of an influence from High Alemannic in the Mulhouse region. High
Alemannic was especially resistant to certain vocalic changes such as vowel lengthening between the
medieval and modern period (Kyes 1989: 154).

141

Gilbert 1972, Map 5). As this pair indicates, both tense and lax vowels in stressed
position are frequently lengthened in TxAls in lieu of the short stressed vowel.191
For the consonantal features of URACol, Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 318)
identify the following phonemes and allophones:
i.

Voiceless lenis /p, t, k/ occur in all positions and
correspond to the SG series /p, t, k/ and /b, d, g/;

ii.

/g/ is sometimes [k], sometimes [j] intervocalically,
depending upon the preceding vowel;

iii.

both /ç/ and /x/;

iv.

[v] for intervocalic /p/; and

v.

the younger generation’s use of [ʃ] for /s/ after front vowels.

To make a broad comparison between the URA dialect spoken around the northern Upper
Rhine city of Colmar as described above and the URA dialect spoken around the southern
Upper Rhine city of Mulhouse (the donor dialect of the majority of Texas Alsatians), I
consulted Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003).

These authors provide the following

descriptive inventory of vowels and consonants for URAMul (2003: 4):
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

nine vowels: /ɔ, i, e, ɛ, a, o, u, y, i:/,
five diphthongs /aɪ, ɔɪ, ɛɪ, ya (yə),192 ɪa/,
ten consonant phonemes: /ḅ, ḍ, ġ, f, ʃ, x, h, j, v, ts/,
two additional consonant clusters: /ʃḅ, ʃḍ/.

If one compares this inventory with the URACol inventory above, one detects
slight differences between these two cities of the Upper Rhine Department indicative of
the variation occurring even within short distances (and points to the inherent difficulties
191 This is perhaps indicative of a continuation of an internal process of vowel lengthening which affected
MHG short vowels in most German dialects (see Reis 1974, Kyes 1989, Page 2006, 2007, etc. for a
discussion of conditions and causes for German vowel lengthening).
192 This is the allophone given by the authors in addition to the phoneme.

142

involved in creating descriptive grammars of regional dialects). Waterman (1991: 191)
describes the following articulation for the set of stops in Alemannic dialects:
Determining the precise phonetic quality and the
distribution patterns for the labial, alveolar, and velar stops
in the various Alemannic dialects is a complicated task. As
a rule of thumb one may say that, though these sounds are
unaspirated and voiceless (at least relatively so) throughout
the entire Alemannic area, their pronunciation in the upper
(southern) dialects tends to be decidedly fortis, whereas the
lower (northern) dialects employ mainly, sometimes
exclusively, a lenis articulation.
Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989) cite voiceless lenis stops [p, t, k] for URACol 193
and Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) the voiceless [ḅ, ḍ, ā]. This slight difference in using
the alternative stops /b, d, g/ is most likely due to the convergence of HAlem194 and
LAlem features in the Mulhouse area, as illustrated by the Wage/Waje isogloss running
just below Colmar indicating variations of [g], [k], and [x] for intervocalic /g/ for
URAMul. Complete reliance on the Colmar description for analyzing TxAls is therefore
problematic, and necessitates the inclusion of additional sources. To further illustrate the
complexity of the situation, one TxAls speaker offered a minimal pair for dier
(‘expensive’) ~ tier (‘animal’), which is also recorded by Nisslé (2008). This minimal
pair would indicate the phonemic status of both [d] and [t] for this speaker, but is is
unclear whether this holds true for the majority of TxAls speakers.

Further data

collection targeting the use of voiced ~ voiceless stops in TxAls would be necessary to
fully investigate the possibility of their phonemic status and constitutes a possible topic
for future research.
This section has provided descriptions of vocalic and consonantal features which
distinguish the Alsatian dialect from neighboring dialects in contact and from SG or
193

Adolf’s (2006) dictionary of LRA to the north also notes only voiceless stops [p, t, k].
Russ (1989: 371) describes both fortis /p, t, k/ and lenis /b, d, g/ plosives for HAlem centered around
Zurich. See also Goblisch (1994) for a discussion of consonant strength in Upper German dialects.
194

143

standard-near dialects. The Alsatian dialect is actually sustained by several regional
varieties which can be roughly divided into Upper and Lower Rhine Alsatian (see
Illustration 4.2). The next section briefly describes the main differences between the two.

4.3 REGIONAL ALSATIAN VARIETIES: UPPER AND LOWER RHINE ALSATIAN195
Visiting TxAls speakers on one of their first trips to the Alsace noted differences
between Alsatian regional dialects as they traveled from Ensisheim northward through
Colmar to Strasbourg:
vo mir noch Strossburgh kome sin isch der himmel nim
blau g’sey ehr isch bluee wore und sie han nit mittag
g’asse sie han mittau g’asse awer doch sin mir guet fort
kome mit anander . . .196
–B.T., handwritten Speech 1976

There are enough varieties of Alsatian as to make a generalized description
inadequate, in fact, as many varieties as there are speakers, villages, or cities (Matzen
1973). However, Matzen (1973) notes a process of unification and convergence towards
Strasbourg Alsatian and Mulhouse Alsatian centered around these two cultural and
economically influential cities. Due to a bundle of isoglosses running west-east across
the middle of the Alsace just north of Colmar (#9 in Illustration 4.1), one can speak of
two “types” or regional varieties of Alsatian (Keller 1961: 119, Vassberg 1989: 34):

195 For detailed descriptions of the Alsatian dialect, see Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989), Vassberg (1989),
Encyclopedie de l’Alsace, Vol. 4 (1983), Hessini (1981), Beyer & Matzen (1970), Keller (1961).
196 ‘When we got to Strasbourg, the sky wasn’t blau, it became bluee, and they didn’t eat mittag, they ate
mittau. But still we understood each other just fine . . .’

144

i.

a southern variety of Alsatian, denoted by Matzen (1973) as
oberelsässisches Niederalemannisch (‘Upper Alsatian Low Alemannic’)
(#10), or what I shall term Upper Rhine Alsatian (URA), represented here
by the Mulhouse and Colmar dialects of the Haut-Rhin department, and

ii.

a northern variety centered around, but not including, Strasbourg, of the
Bas-Rhin, which Matzen (1973) terms unterelsässisches Niederalemannisch (‘lower Alsatian Low Alemannic’), which will be
referred to as Lower Rhine Alsatian (LRA)(#4).

Most of the isoglosses generally distinguishing ALS vowel features from neighboring
dialects lie well to the north of Strasbourg, which means that most vowel features are true
for most of the Alsace. Other major phonological and morphosyntactic isoglosses which
separate URA from LRA are shown below:
(4.1) Isoglosses separating URA / LRA:
a. ach-Laut [x] / ich-Laut [ç]: in LRA, both voiceless fricatives
appear in complementary distribution; in URA, the ach-Laut
occurs in all positions.
b. Wi / Win, SG Wein (‘wine’).
c. Männle / Männel, SG Männlein (‘little man’).
d. Wage / Waje, SG Wagen (‘car’): SG intervocalic [g] has URA
variants [k] and [x]; in LRA, it weakens to [j].
The last of these major isoglosses (d.) actually runs just below Colmar, illustrating
differences between the URA of Colmar and Mulhouse. Another major isogloss, the
Wunde / Wund (‘wound’) isogloss, indicating the retention of MHG unstressed final –e in
the Mulhouse area, distinguishes the Mulhouse dialect from Colmar. Differences such as
these should be considered when analyzing TxAls, and require a separate designation.
The URA around Colmar will be identified as URACol and that around Mulhouse as
URAMul where pertinent.
145

An advent calendar published in the Alsace (Bisch 2006) conveniently juxtaposes
these two “types” as it designates two variations for each of the day’s chosen object
(Example 4.2). A description of the calendar names these two variations haut-rhinoise
(‘Upper Rhenish’) and bas-rhinoise (‘Lower Rhenish’).197
(4.2) Calendar variations for URA/ LRA:
a. e Vegala / e Vejele, SG Vögel (‘bird’);
e Glàskugla / d Glàsköjel (‘ornament’) (4.1d above),
b. Kàmi / Kàmin (‘fireplace’) (4.1b),
c. e Glocka / e Glock (‘bell’),
d. e Wiehnachtsbàum / e Wihnàchtsbaum (‘Christmas tree’),
e. dr Starn / dr Stern (‘star’),
f. s’ Chrìstkindla / s’ Chrisch(t)kindl (‘Christ child’) (4.1c)
g. Mannala / Männele (‘little man’). 198
In the following discussions on phonological features (and later, morphosyntactic
features in Chapter Five) maintained by Alsatian speakers in Medina County, it will
become evident that the variations given for URA above are representative of that
produced by TxAls speakers. The next section will highlight vocalic and consonantal
features previously described representative of the URAMul dialect transplanted to the
Texas frontier based on Gilbert’s (1972) Linguistic Atlas of Texas German. This serves
the dual purpose of (1) confirming URAMul as the main donor dialect of TxAls, and (2)
demonstrating the preservation of major features of the ancestral dialect in TxAls.

197

http://web.mac.com/sierentz/iWeb: “Les 25 fenêtres s'ouvrent sur des images sous-titrées en dialecte,
versions haut-rhinoise et bas-rhinoise grâce au concours du professeur Raymond Matzen.”
198 A further observation can be made from the items in (4.2). Certain features (in descriptions of the
dialect found in the latter half of the 20th century) previously associated with the Strasbourg dialect (Rhine
Franconian LAlem, Illustration 4.1, #5) are marked as features for LRA, indicating some diffusion and
convergence of Strasbourg features southward, i.e.:
a. the retention of MHG ë (4.2e)
b. the use of /ʃ/ after front vowels—also found in Colmar (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 318),
c. the diminutive ending -le and –el (or –l) (see 4.2f, g).

146

4.4 TEXAS ALSATIAN
This section serves the descriptive purpose of identifying URAMul phonological
features that have been preserved in TxAls, as well as pointing to some internal
developments in TxAls which have most likely occurred as a result of contact with
English or other TxG dialects. As previously noted in §4.1, Gilbert (1972) provides
invaluable phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical data on the Alsatian dialect as
spoken in Medina County in the mid-20th century. Many of these maps which targeted
morphosyntactic or lexical features simultaneously provide important phonological data
on TxAls. ALS vocalic and consonantal features described earlier in the chapter also
typical of URAMul are compared with TxAls as recorded by Gilbert (1972) and the
responses to Gilbert’s items by participants in this study.

4.4.1 Preservation of Alsatian vocalic features
It is ALS vocalic features which most differentiate TxAls from the more dialectleveled TxG dialect and SG, many of which can be easily identified from viewing
Gilbert’s linguistic maps. The following sections discuss the three ALS vocalic features
discussed in 4.2.3 which also shared by URAMul: (i.) the opening of MHG ë > a, (ii.)
the retention of the MHG long vowels î and û [i:, y:], and (iii.) the retention of MHG
diphthongs (rising and closing diphthongs).199

4.4.1.1 Backing and lowering of MHG ë
One of the most noticeable vocalic features which often interferes with
comprehension when listening to TxAls is the maintenance of the URA /a/ and its

199

Russ (1989: 370) refers to these as ingliding and outgliding diphthongs, respectively.

147

allophones, [a, ɑ, ɔ, ə] in environments where one would usually find [ε] in SG, i.e. the
characteristic described above as the backing and lowering of MHG ë. Consider the
following examples:
Table 4.3: Backing and lowering of MHG ë 200

SG

SG

URA

TxAls

Gloss

1. er

[ε:ɐ]

[ar]

[ar]

‘he’

2. essen

[εsən]

[asɑ]

[a:sə]

‘to eat’

3. die Feder

[fe:dɐ]

[fadrɑ]

[fɔ:dr]

‘feather’

4. nett

[nεt]

[nat]

[nat]

‘nice’

5. der Speck

[ʃpεk]

[ʃpak]

[ʃpak]

‘bacon’

6. sterben

[ʃtεʁbən]

[ʃtarvɑ]

[ʃtɔ:rvɑ]

‘to die’

7. wegnehmen [ve:kne:mən] [ɑ'va:kna:mɑ] [ɑ'va:kna:mɑ] ‘to take away’

Participant #234 gave an additional vocabulary lesson that illustrates this feature: “un a
scissor is a Scha:r (SG Schere), un a Ma:sr (SG Messer ) a knife . . .”
The Gilbert translation item, “They’re taking it away,” shows the phonological
feature of the opening of MHG ë, as well as the URA lexical difference in the verbal
prefix.201 [ɑvak] is the URA prefix equivalent to SG weg [vɛk] (‘away’) (Nisslé 2008:
174). [fʊrt] is also listed as a synonymous prefix in Nisslé 2008, but is not listed with the
URAMul stem [namɑ] SG nehmen (‘to take’).
200

The lexical and phonetic rendering of the items in this and following charts are based on Langenscheidt
(1995) for SG, D’Lehrschtuwa: Wärterbuach (2008) for URA, and The Linguistic Atlas of Texas German
(1972) and the Elsasser Wordbuch (1981) for TxAls.
201 This item actually targeted verbal prefixes. The targeted morphosyntactic feature is indicated after the
map number and underlined in the case of a phrase or sentence.

148

The responses of all twenty-seven participants in Gilbert’s study for Medina
County are listed in the analysis for this item below. The numbers next to the phonetic
transcription represent each participant as coded by Gilbert. If participants produced
several variations of the feature targeted, they are noted under each, with subsequent
pronunciations in parentheses. The participants in bold type indicate the thirteen Gilbert
noted who mentioned Alsatian parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents. Again, only
phonemic forms for lax vowels were transcribed in Gilbert’s maps, i.e. [e] includes
allophone [ε], [u] includes allophone [ʊ], and [o] includes allophone [ɔ], etc.
Table 4.4: ALS /a/ [a, ɑ, ɔ, ə] for SG [ε]
Gilbert (1972), Map 94 (Verbal prefixes)
“They’re taking it away,” SG Sie nehmen es weg, URA Sie namma’s awag.
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
vek (SG)
veç
veχ
ə'va:k (URA)

4,202 6, 11, 18
(11), 14, 15
2203
9, 21, 24, 25

əwak
vak
ə'vek
ə’ve:k
əwək
a'veç

23
7, 8, 12, 19, 26
1
27
3

fort (SG)

5, (8), 10, 13, 17,
20, (21), 22
-

-

16
(15)
(20)

240
235

fʊřt
fut
fu:t
ført
[Not polled:204

239, 249a, 249c, 250, 251,
252a, 253, 254, 255
(250)
238, 241, (249c), 251, 257
248
-

234, 237, 247, 256, 252b

233, 236, 242, 243, 249b, 249d

202

9
(1)
4 (1)
1

5

6]

As noted in the introduction, Gilbert informants #4 & 8 indicated that HG and Alsatian were spoken at
home.
203 Informant #2 is designated as one of the most fluent Low German speaker in the entire atlas project by
Gilbert (1972: 17). #16 and 22 were also designated as LG speakers.

149

The Gilbert responses show a great deal of variation for this item, due to the combinatory
possibilities of both prefixes (weg-, fort- ‘away’) and vowels for the item, together with
the county-wide sampling of the broader dialect base.

In Gilbert’s (1972) data, forms

which reflect the disyllabic prefix (awag-, aweg-) predominate (12/27, or 44%), four of
which produced the URA awag (‘away’).

Comparatively, ten (48%) of the TxAls

speakers sampled produced the URA disyllabic prefix with, one of which produced the
SG [ε] response [ə’vek], an admixture of SG and URA forms. Note also the forms
[əwək] and [əwak], both of which show possible evidence of phonological transference
from the similar English form, “away”.205
Gilbert’s (1972) questionnaire item “two windows” provides another example of
this distinctive vocalic feature in contrast to surrounding TxG dialects, i.e. SG/TxG
Fenster versus URA Fansteř.

Although plural formation206 is the feature under

investigation, the data also shows the backing and lowering of MHG ë > a in TxAls, as in
its URA donor dialect. Illustration 4.3 of Gilbert’s Map 61 illustrates the uniqueness of
the responses recorded in Medina County (lower right-hand corner) compared with the
other thirty-one counties.

204

Unfortunately, this item was located quite far down (#s 84 and 88) on Gilbert’s list. Due to time
limitations usually (mental and physical capabilities of the participant), it was occasionally ommitted to
shorten the task
205 Speaker #250, who produced both [əwak] and [ə'vak], had some difficulty in remembering certain
lexical items. He rarely spoke Alsatian, and was visibly tiring at this point.
206 Neither the SG nor URA plural of this word adds a suffix or undergoes a vowel change (see §5.4.3).

150

Illustration 4.3: ALS /a/ for SG [ε]
Gilbert (1972), Map 61 (Plural formation)

As shown in the map above, eight Gilbert respondents produced variations of the ALS
[fɑnʃtəř] (=

in map above) versus the widespread TxG variation [fεnstər(n)] (= ○

or | ), SG Fenster (‘windows’).207 The ALS [fɑnȓtəř] was recorded solely in Medina
County. The following table provides a comparative analysis between Gilbert’s (1972)
data and my re-sampling of current TxAls speakers for this item.

207

See Chapter Five for a discussion of plural forms in Alsatian.

151

Table 4.5: MHG ë > a
Gilbert (1972) Map 61 (Plural formation)
“two windows” SG zwei Fenster, URA zwei Fanschteř
___________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
___________________________________________________________
fɑ(:)nʃt(ə)ř
(URA)

9, 19, 20, 21, 23,
24, 25, 27

fɑnʃtřɑ
fɑ:nʃtřs
*fenʃtər
fenstər (SG)
fenstərn
fensters

4, 8, 10, 17, 18, 26
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13
5, 11, 12, 14, 15
(10), 16, 22

202, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239,
243, 247, 248, 249a, 249b,
249d, 250, 251, 252a,
252b, 253, 254, 256, 257
255
235
241,208 (236), 242, 249c

20
1

1
3 (1)

Unknown:
233, 240
2
____________________________________________________________

Fourteen of the fifteen speakers from this study produced the URA [ɑ]. At this point, it is
interesting to observe the thirteen participants and their responses in Gilbert’s study who
specified Alsatian ancestors. The eight speakers #s 9, 19-21, 23-25, and 27 in Eastern
Medina County consistently produce Alsatian features which indicate fluency in the
ancestral language. The five speakers #s 4, 7, 8, 12, and 18 mention exposure to TxAls in
the home, as well as High or Low German. Their responses here and in further examples
show evidence of dialect-mixing, as with [fεnȓtər], where the SG [ε] is produced, but
with the Alsatian [ ʃ ]. These five speaker responses will continue to be shown in
boldface, but are also italicized to facilitate comparison with the first group.
208

Special circumstances surrounding #241 might serve to explain his production of this “mixed” form.
He has had formal education in German, lived in Germany, and currently lives in Europe.

152

The next section examines a second vocalic feature that has been maintained by
TxAls speakers, the retention of MHG long vowels î and û [i(:), y:].

4.4.1.2 Retention of MHG long vowels
The isogloss for the diphthongization of MHG long vowels î and û, e.g. SG [ai]
and [au] respectively, lies in the northernmost region of the Alsace (see Illustration 4.2,
#3). The fronted [y:] for MHG û predominates in URAMul, as illustrated by the lexical
items in Table 4.6:
Table 4.6: Retention of MHG long vowels î and û

SG / gloss

SG diphthongs URA

mein ‘my’

[main]

[mi]

[mi:, mini]

der Wein ‘wine’

[vain]

[vi:]

[vi:]

das Eis ‘ice’

[ais]

[ɪs]

[i:s]

das Haus ‘house’

[haus]

[hys]

[hy:s]

das Kraut ‘cabbage’ [kʁaut]

TxAls

[kryt] [křy:t, gřy:t]

Gilbert’s translation item “my head” SG mein209 Kopf targeted the production of
the SG diphthong [ai], as did the item “icicles” SG Eiszapfen.

Gilbert participant

responses for “my head” are noted below with a comparative sampling from this study:

209

The Gilbert participants used [mi:] characteristic of the Alsace south of Straßburg, as mapped for the
Wenker sentence #14, Mein liebes Kind bleib hier unten stehn, die Gänse beißen dich tot. The three
participants who used [mi:n] show a correlation to the isogloss cutting above Straßburg.

153

Table 4.7: ALS [i] for SG [ai]
Gilbert (1972) Map 25 (Diphthong [ai])
“my head” SG mein Kopf, ALS mi Kopf
_____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
_____________________________________________________________
mi(:) (ALS)

9, 19, 21, 25, 27

202, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238,
239, 240, 242, 241, 243, 247,
248, 249a, 249b, 249c, 249d,
250, 251, 254, 255, 252a,
252b, 256, 257
25

mi:n
mini
main (SG)

2,210 15, 16, 22
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11,
12, 13,14, 17, 18,
20, (21), 24, 26
7, 8

233, 253
(249a)

mai

2
(1)

-

Not polled: 23
_____________________________________________________________

Five of the eight Gilbert participants in Table 4.7 who were assumed to be fairly fluent
TxAls speakers produced the Alsatian form [mi:], one was not polled, and the remaining
two produced the SG [main]. Speakers who produced the SG form above produced the
SG form (4, 12, 18) or a variation (7, 8) which included the diphthong [ai], but not the
final –n, indicative of the ALS form.
There is no phrase within Gilbert’s maps which focuses upon the SG vowel
diphthong au to illustrate the ALS retention of the palatized MHG [y:]. However, two
items targeting lexical variation for “cabbage” and “a stomach ache” show the use of

210

This is the Low German speaker mentioned in Gilbert’s (1972) notes on participants. It is evident here
and in other examples that Low German and Alsatian share certain vowel features.

154

[y(:)] by Medina County participants.

Table 4.8 shows the responses for the item

“cabbage:”
Table 4.8: ALS [y:] for SG [aʊ]
Gilbert (1972), Map 102 (Lexical variation)
“cabbage“ SG Kohl,211 URA s’ Krüüt
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
____________________________________________________________
křy:t (URA)

9, 19, 23, 27

gřy(:)[ə]t

21, 24, 25

syřkķi:t
syrgrut

20

202, 235, 237, 240, 241,
243, 247, 248, 249a,
249c, 252a, 252b, 256
234, 236, 238, 239, 249d,
251, 254, 255, 257
253
-

13
9
1

ko:l (SG)

(1), 2, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22
kraut
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
13, 14, 17, 18,
(21), 26
Unable to recall:
250
1
[Not polled:
233, 242, 249b
3]
_____________________________________________________________
All eight Gilbert participants indicated as probable TxAls speakers (9, 19-21, 23-25, 27)
produced the [y(:)] for SG [au] (#20 uses [syr] for sauer ‘sour’ when prompted for the
translation of “cabbage”). The trilled apical /r/ typical of ALS (usually designated as [ř]
in Gilbert’s transcriptions) is noted in the Gilbert (1972) responses for “cabbage,” and
was also articulated by all but one of the 2009 TxAls speakers. Note also the variation in
the transcription of the lexical variant křyt between voiced [g] and voiceless [k]. Also in
211

The variation Kraut seems to have been stigmatized during WWII, when it was used as a demeaning
term for the Germans, and is not given in Langenscheidt (1995) as the translation for “cabbage,” unless
looked up under the reverse order under “Kraut,” where cabbage is given as the second (b) alternative.

155

evidence is the next vocalic feature under discussion, the retention of the MHG diphthong
ie (ye), realized by what Philipp & Botherel-Witz (1989) characterize as a rising
diphthong.

4.4.1.3 Rising and closing diphthongs
The third distinctive vocalic feature includes the retention of MHG dipthongs ie
and uo (ye), realized in URA as [iə] SG [y], and [yə] SG [Ʊ] (refer to 4.3.3). Philipp &
Bothorel-Witz (1989) divide these into two groups, the rising [iə212 (ia)213, yə, (ya)/ and
closing diphthongs /ai, ɛi, ɔi/. They describe closing diphthongs as “best considered to
consist of two phonemes,” or biphonemic (1989: 316).

One often sees the rising

diphthongs written with a raised second element, as in yə, which is utilized in this text to
distinguish the rising diphthongs from the long vowel [i:] (represented by the graphemes
ie in most texts). Table 4.9 shows several examples of rising diphthongs in ALS lexical
items:

212 Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 316) describe the elements of these two diphthongs as follows: “the
first element is usually half-long, the second being close for /iə/ almost an unstressed [ε], and for /yə/ it is
almost a lightly labialized [œ].” One often sees these rising diphthongs written with a raised second
element, as in yə.
213 Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003: 4) add allophones [ia, ya] to [iə, yə].

156

Table 4.9: Rising and closing diphthongs in ALS

SG

URA

TxAls

Gloss

der Bube [bubε]

d’r Büa [by:ɑ]

[by:ɑ, byjə] ‘boy’

die Liebe [li:bə]

d’ Liawa [liəβɑ]

[liəβə]

‘love’

der Rahm [ʀa:m]

d’r Rühm [řy:m]

[řyəm]

‘cream’

-- (schauen)

lüaga [lyəāɑ]

[lyəāə]

‘to look’

suchen [zu:xən]

süacha [syəxɑ]

[syəxə]

‘to search’

das Mädchen [mætçεn] s’ Maidala [maidlɑ] [maɪdlɑ]

‘girl’

tausend [taʊsənt]

toisig [tɔisik]

[ḍɔɪsik]

‘thousand’

neu [noi]

näi [nεi]

[nεi]

‘new’

Although there was no item which targeted rising or closing diphthongs, Gilbert
Map #19 which looked at the production of the SG rounded front vowel /y/ revealed that
rising diphthongs were articulated only in Medina County. Table 4.10 substantiates the
presence of rising diphthongs in TxAls for the Gilbert (1972) translation item, “sweet
potatoes.”

157

Table 4.10: ALS [yə] for SG [y]
Gilbert (1972), Map 19 (Unrounding of rounded vowels)
“sweet potatoes” SG Süsskartoffeln, Bataten214
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
____________________________________________________________
URA: (rising diphthongs)
syəs, si:əsə, syəsi:
9, 19, 20, 21, 24
zy:əs, zy:əsə, zy:əsi

-

zi:əsi:, zi:əs

23, 25, 27

zy:s (SG)
zi:s, si:s(i)
zy:sə, sy:sə
zi:sə, si:sə

13
17, 18, 8
3, 5, 14
4, 7, 10, 12, 15,
22, 26, (27)
2
16
(14, 16)

zø:t, sø:t
zød tufəl
swi:t
patha:də(s)

236, 240, 249a,
249b, 249c
235, 241, 243, 247,
248, 249d, 253,
254, 251, 256, 257
250, (254)
242

202, 234, 237, (240)
(243), (248), 252b
233, 238
252a, 255

kətɔfł
unknown

5
11
1 (1)
1

4 (3)
2
2

Not polled:
1, 6, 11
239
1
____________________________________________________________
This particular item spurred speculation among many of interviewees as to an
“Alsatian word,” understandable as sweet potatoes were not in the vocabulary of the early
Alsatian immigrants.

The eight TxAls speakers in Gilbert’s study and this study

produced the rising diphthong [yə] and [iə] for the SG [y]. While Gilbert’s speakers
214

Most of the participants used [pəte:das] or a close variant in Gilbert’s study. My study revealed the
variant [patha:das].

158

exhibited an almost-even split between [s] and [z] word-initially, none of the sampled
speakers in this study used the [s] word-initially. For ALS, Adolf (2006) notes that s is
“always strong in all positions and never a ‘z’.” There is also no /z/ documented in
available descriptions of URA. This trend toward increased use of [z] can perhaps be
attributed initially to contact with other TxG dialects, but is likely due to convergence
with English, the speakers’ dominant language.

4.4.2 Preservation of consonantal features
Four consonantal features of URAMul are discussed in this section. As in the
presentation of TxAls vocalic features, the TxAls description is supported by Gilbert’s
(1972) data and a 2009 resampling of his data, supplemented by descriptive sources and
additional data obtained from the sociolinguistic interviews. One of the most distinctive
consonantal features, which also separates ALS from SG and HAlem, is the spirantization
of the SG intervocalic voiced bilabial stop [b] > [v, β]. A feature which further separates
the two regional Alsatian dialects, URA and LRA, is the voiceless velar fricative [x] in
all environments (Matzen 1973: 112-3) in URA and shared by HAlem. In contrast to SG,
a division in environments occurs in the distribution of [x] and [ç], with [x] occurring
after back vowels and [c] occurring elsewhere.215 The representation of intervocalic SG
[g] also separates URA from LRA: in URA it is variously represented by the allophones
[g, k, x] versus LRA [j]. The fourth feature is the realization of /r/, which is described as
an apical trill ([r]) in ALS. It is not possible to isolate this as an URA feature from
neighboring Germanic dialect regions, as this apical trill is one of several allophones for

215

Robinson (2001: 16) defines these environments as follows: [x] occurs after back vowels (long and
short): a, u, o, ɔ, and the back diphthong au; [ç] occurs elsewhere: a) after front vowels (long and short) and
diphthongs: i, e, æ, y, ø, ai, oi; and b) after the consonants n, l, and r.

159

/r/ in German dialects: a voiced uvular fricative [ʁ] and uvular trill [ʀ], an apical trill [r],
and a glide [ɐ] in syllable-final positions.

Descriptions of SG consider the uvular

fricative [ʁ] phonemic and do not include the trilled allophones (Fox 1990, Hall 2000,
Wiese 2000).216 This feature is of particular interest to this study as it seems to be a
feature which distinguishes TxAls from other western TxG dialects and SG and has been
preserved by most speakers.
In analyzing the above features, it is acknowledged that these dialect areas are not
discrete and are constantly changing (e.g., Wiesinger 1982). As Boas (2009a) repeatedly
points out in his analyses of New Braunfels Texas German, donor dialect areas are not
discrete, and various features are shared by other regional dialects.

4.4.2.1 [v, β]217: [b]
The first consonantal feature which has been maintained in TxAls is the ALS
fricative [v], also realized by its allophone [β] in URAMul where the intervocalic voiced
stop [b] is found in SG, as in the following examples provided by participants:

216

Wiese (2000: 8) proposes a uvular approximant, rather than a uvular fricative, to which he assigns
phonemic status, represented in his analysis by the symbol [ʀ].
217 Often transcribed with the grapheme v (English) or w (German).

160

(4.3) TxAls/ALS

SG

Gloss

[ɔ:βə]

Abend

‘evening’

[ɔβər]

aber

‘but’

[byeβə]

Buben

‘boys’

[bli:βə]

bleiben

‘to stay’

[eβərɑl]

überall

‘everywhere’

[lɑvə]

Leben

‘life’

[tryəβələ]

Trauben

‘grapes’

Gilbert (1972) also notes this spirantization of SG intervocalic [b] in Medina County in
the translation task, “two boys,” in Map 65. A resampling of Gilbert’s data by this
study’s participants showed the following responses, which are compared with Gilbert’s
(1972) data in Table 4.11:

161

Table 4.11: Spirantization of intervocalic [b]
Gilbert (1972), Map 65 (Plurals of nouns)
“two boys” SG zwei Jungen URA zwei Büa 218
___________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
___________________________________________________________
by:ə (sing.)
by:βə
bu:βə
bu:bə

4, 18
5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12

by:əβə (URA) 19, 20

233, 241, 249a
236, 252a, 252b, 255
242
-

by:əbə

21, 23, 24, 25

237, 240, 243, 247, 248,
249b, 249d, 250, 253,
254, 256
234, 239

by:əβlə
by:(ə)βələ
by:əβələs
bi:əβlə
bi:əblə
bi:blə

9
27
(7)

238
(241), 249c, 251, 257
235
202
-

3
4
1

11
2
1
3 (1)
1
1

juŋən (SG)
3, 11, 26
juŋə
14
juŋs
2, 15, 16
juŋəns
1, 13, (15), 17, 22
___________________________________________________________
Other examples taken from the narratives of TxAls speakers in this study illustrate the
systematic use of the labial fricative /v/ and [β] in intervocalic environments:

218

Nisslé (2008). The EW gives büie for “boy,” and Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) show d’r Büə(-wa) for
the Mulhouse region. In SG, der Bube is an acceptable alternative to der Junge (‘boy’).

162

(4.4) Spirantization of SG [b]:
a.

# 239: Sie hàt kenna ihra Nàma schriewa, àwr dàs isch alles.
IPA: [si hɔt kɛnɑ iřə nɔmə ʃři:vɑ, ɔβr dɔs ɪʃ ɑləs]
SG: Sie hat ihren Namen schreiben können, aber das ist alles.
‘she could write her name, but that is all.’

b.

#240: Ei Familia hàt drei junge Büewela kàà, un mir sin gànga

IPA:
SG:

c.

eweràll.
[a:i fami:liə hɔt dřai juŋə byəβələ kɔ: ʊn mɛř sɪn gɔŋɑ
e:βəřɔl]
Eine Familie hat drei junge Buben gehabt, und wir sind
überall gegangen.
‘one family had three young boys, and we went
everywhere.’

#234: Mi Vàtr isch g’storwa wu ich sechs Johr àlt g’se bin.
IPA:

[mi: fɔ:tr ɪʃ gʃto:řβɑ βʊ iç sɛks jo:ř ɔlt kse: bɪn]

SG:

Mein Vater ist gestorben wo ich sechs Jahr alt gewesen bin.
‘my father died when I was six years old.’

The above examples give an indication of the widespread use of the ALS [v, β] in the
discourse of Texas Alsatians. The next section investigates the retention of the ALS
velar fricative [x] in TxAls.

4.4.2.2 [x] : [ç]
Unlike the preceding feature, there is much variation found in the occurrence of
the velar and palatal fricatives [x], and [ç], respectively. The isogloss between [x] (also
termed ach-Laut) and [ç] (ich-Laut) as in URA [pyx]: LRA [pyç]219 (‘belly’) separates
URA [x] from LRA [ç] (see Illustration 4.2) in all environments. To examine the
occurrence of these two fricatives in TxAls, Gilbert’s (1972) item for “milk” was resampled. Table 4.12 maps the results of the 2009 re-samplings with Gilbert’s original
data collected in Medina County:
219

This particular minimal pair supports the argument for [x] and [ç] as two separate phonemes in this
dialect.

163

Table 4.12: URAMul [x] for SG [ç]
Gilbert (1972), Map 26 (Monosyllabic vs. Disyllabic)
“milk” SG Milch, URA Melch220
___________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
___________________________________________________________
milx
miləχ
milaχ

(URA)
221

234, 236, 237, 241, 242,
249a, 249c, 252a, 252b
19
27

*mila
milç
miliç
mełiç

(SG)

1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 15,
(20), (21), 24
4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14, 18, 20,
21, 23, 25, 26
17

miltʃ
miɑlk
mi:əłk

-

202, 235, 238, 239, 240,
247, 251, 253
243, 248, 249b, 249d,
250, 254, 255

8 (30%)
7 (26%)

256

1 (3.7%)

-

233
2, 16, 22
(15)

9 (33%)

1 (3.7%)

-

milk
(5)
257
1 (3.7%)
___________________________________________________________
The Gilbert participants identified as producing URA phonological features fairly
consistently (# 9, 20, 21, 23-25, 27), in this case [x], produced SG/TxG [ç] instead of the
expected [x]. There was some variation among the current participants in this study, but
the ach-Laut [x] is predominant in the responses of current TxAls speakers for this item.
The high occurrence of [x] in the 2009 data compared with Gilbert’s (1972) data might
220

Nisslé 2008. The EW notes the TxAls word for milk as disyllabic milich [milix]. Troxler-Lasseaux et
al. provides the lexical item d’Milch [milx].
221 It is unclear whether this symbol χ is meant to represent the velar or uvular fricative. Gilbert (1972)
only utilizes the one symbol and it must be assumed that this represents the velar fricative. As he notes,
phonetic symbols for non-tense, non-low vowels [ɪ, ɛ, ʏ, ʊ, œ, and ɔ] have not been used in transcriptions,
but have instead been recorded phonemically. The assumption is that this is also the case for this symbol.

164

point to the renewed contact with ALS in the late 1970s.

Table 4.12 also reveals

developments in this lexical item indicative of internal processes of change. The form
[mɪlɑx] produced by 30% of the 2009 informants shows vowel epenthesis between the
liquid and fricative. It also shows a tendency (26%) of current TxAls speakers to drop
the fricative word-finally (apocope) in ALS [mɪlx, mεlx] (‘milk’) resulting in [mɪlɑ].
There are other instances, however, where TxAls speakers produce [ç]. One such
example is the pronoun [iç], where one would expect to hear URAMul [εx]. I have
observed that the velar fricative [x] often occurs in unstressed positions, as in Example
(3.6) in §3.3, [. . . hɔn ɛx] (‘have I’) whereas the palatal fricative [ç] seems to occur in
stressed positions, as when it precedes hàn.

When I inquired further into the

pronunciation of “I have,” one fluent speaker reported that he produced only the [i] (‘I’)
before hàn (‘have’). These occurrences could be attributed to contact with the TxG
dialects which share the SG complementary distribution of [x] and [ç], unlike the
URAMul donor dialect. It also could be specific to this particular environment where the
two fricatives [x] and [h] occur together.
The findings surrounding the alternation of the velar and palatal fricatives thus far
suggest a variety of explanations for some of the developments highlighted in this
particular item. Gilbert’s (1972) data shows a strong tendency in Medina County toward
the broad use of the linguistically unmarked (e.g., Campbell & Muntzel 1989, MyersScotton 1993a, etc.) palatal fricative in this environment, which could be indicative of a
beginning TxG koiné. The current data, however, shows a reappearance of the URA
velar fricative in an SG/TxG environment marked for [ç]. It is possible that this feature
became socially marked in a positive manner after contact was resumed with the Alsatian
homeland and was re-integrated into TxAls. The presence of two forms illustrating the
process of epenthesis ([mɪlx→mɪlax]) in both the 1972 and 2009 data and a third stage
165

involving apocope ([mɪlax→mɪla]) which appears only in the 2009 data also suggest
internal processes at work.
An examination of a third feature, the set of stops, in the next section aids in
describing the particular preservation and/or developments of this URA feature in
Medina County.

4.4.2.3 The set of labial, alveolar, and velar stops
Waterman (1991: 191) points to the complicated patterns connected with the set
of unaspirated, voiceless stops in the various Alemannic dialects and makes a distinction
between a fortis articulation (p, t, k) in the southern dialects and a lenis articulation (b, d,
g) in the northern dialects. Furthermore, the ALS dialect is also characterized by a
“weakening” (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 315) of intervocalic [g] realized by several
variants separating LRA and URA: [j] is characteristic of LRA,222 while the allophones
[k] and [x] occur in URA. Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) describe only voiceless stops
[ḅ, ḍ, ā] as noted above, thus defining the allophonic variation as [ā] and [x].223
Considering the variation within URA donor dialect(s), it is not surprising that the
distinction between fortis and lenis articulations, e.g., [k] and [g], was extremely difficult
to detect in the interviews I conducted. 224 Reviewing Gilbert’s (1972) transcribed items

222

Phillip & Bothorel-Witz describe the use of [j] and [g] in URACol depending on the preceding vowel:
[j] appears intervocalically after lax vowels [ɑ, ɔ, ε], and [k] after [i], according to their examples (1989:
318).
223 There is some controversy involving the exact phonetic feature involved in the articulation of the stops,
as some scholars (e.g. Hall 2000, Wiese 2000) argue for [voice], while others (e.g. Iverson & Salmons
1995) prefer to treat the issue in terms of aspiration, and therefore argue for the feature of [spread glottis].
The phonetic feature of voice is preferred in this discussion.
224 Transcriptions are always subjective realizations. What I perceived sounded more like [g] than [k].
Expectations of the fieldworker also play a role in perception. If one is not familiar with the Alemannic
lüege, one might think this to be an adaptation of the English word “look.”

166

given for lexical differences in Example (3.1), intervocalic environments for SG /g/ were
consistently transcribed as [k] in the verb lüege (‘to look’):
(4.5): MED 9:

[lyəkə mol vi: salə boim ke:t]
look once how that tree falls
‘look how that tree is falling down.’

Current participants produced something similar to this intervocalic [k] variant when
asked to translate Gilbert’s item, “Look how that tree is falling down.”
(4.6)
#234:
#239:
#254a:

[ly:eġə mol vi: d' boim umɑke:t]
[ly:əġə mol vi: salə boim u:mke:jɑ thy:ət]
[lyk vi salɑ bɔim khe:t]

In Gilbert’s (1972:1-2) analysis of plosives in the intervocalic environment in the
beginning summary of linguistic differences between TxG and SG, he also points to
tenseness in distinguishing [p, t, k] from [b, d, g]:
For many speakers [p, t, k] lose their aspiration in the specified
environments (intervocalically). [p, t, k] are voiced, but remain
tense, intervocalically, i.e., only tenseness serves to differentiate
[p] from [b], [t] from [d], and [k] from [g] in this position. This
rule holds for many speakers; for a few informants, the rule is
generalized to all environments…and final non-tense stops are
voiced, unlike Standard German.
The articulation of labial, alveolar, and velar stops shows a great deal of variation in TxG
in general, as also observed in TxAls. The next section examines the occurrence of the
apical trill in TxAls, a feature which distinguishes it from many of the western TxG
dialects.

167

4.4.2.4 Apical trill /r/
Considering the fairly frequent contact with TxG over a long period of time, the
use of the apical trill /r/ in Castroville Alsatian can be considered another example of
phonological maintenance of the Alsatian donor dialect.

Adolf (2006) notes in his

Alsatian dictionary that “unlike English, /r/ is trilled and is either a weak, voiced, uvular
friction sound or a tongue tip trill,” indicating the presence of both apical and uvular /r/ in
ALS,225 as in SG and HAlem (Russ 1989: 371). Furthermore, he states that “Alsatian /r/
is always pronounced wherever it is in the word” indicating an absence of the glide
counterpart [ɐ] found in SG syllable-final positions.
My interviews conducted in Castroville revealed consistent use of the apical trill
versus the uvular trill, with occasional occurrences of the retroflex [ɻ]. When an ALS
speaker in France was asked about the predominant use of the trilled [r] in Castroville
(versus the uvular fricative observed), she replied that “they speak like the farmers used
to around here,” implying an older, rural, and perhaps less “prestigious” ranking of the
apical trill in the Alsace today.226 Drawing any conclusions about the realization of /r/ is
almost impossible, as it is a feature shared by many dialect areas, including HAlem
spoken in the Sundgau in southernmost Alsace. However, it is interesting that the TxAls
speakers interviewed utilized the apical trill systematically with little variation. This
might indicate that at the time of the main Alsatian immigration wave from 1830-1860,
the apical trill was dominant in rural Upper Rhine areas. This could have also been the

225

Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989) do not mention either the apical or the uvular/velar trill in their brief
consonantal description of Colmar, but all /r/ positions are transcribed with the uvular [ʀ].
226 This certainly could be attributed to the influence of the more prestigious French uvular [ʀ]. When one
looks at discussions on which of these allophones is historically the oldest, the uvular fricative or the apical
trill, opinions vary. King & Beach (1998: 280) note: “Whatever the origins of uvular [ʀ], there is no
question that it became the most common pronunciation, certainly in most German cities of any size,
consigning apical [r] to marginality, to the provinces, and to the mock-factitious pronunciation of the
stage.”

168

case for many other rural areas from which other German immigrants to Texas
originated, as Gilbert (1972) also notes the predominant use of the apical trill (see below)
for TxG. Influence from Spanish is highly unlikely, given that social interaction between
the Spanish-speaking community and the Texas Alsatians was rare.

Unfortunately,

Gilbert only sampled a small number of counties for the realization of [r] in two
positions: word-initial in rennt (‘runs’) and syllable-final in Haarbürste (‘hairbrush’).
Gilbert (1972: 2) concludes in his phonological comparison of TxG /r/ with SG:
Most speakers use apical [ř] or its glide counterpart [ɒ].
Retroflex [r] is common in some areas, especially in Lee
Co. Uvular [ʀ] rarely occurs.
The Gilbert (1972) translation item “He is running” was chosen over “hairbrush,”
as it became evident that it was not a term known to most TxAls speakers. Participant
#252b remarked, Ich gloib, di Lit hàn kai [hairbrush] khàà wu se kumma sin, (‘I believe
that people didn’t have hairbrushes when they came’). When “comb” was substituted in
later sessions, Kamm was immediately produced. Still, some TxAls speakers went to
great lengths to produce an Alsatian word for “hairbrush,” ALS [ho:rbεrʃtɑ] (Nisslé
2008: 221):
(4.7) “hairbrush”
a. 241:
b. 247:

[ɑ kambuřȓt]
[ɑ ho:řbřʊʃ]

c. 251:

[ɑ ho:řɑʃtři:çř]

d. 254b:

[ɑ ho:řbuřʃt].

Gilbert’s (1972) Map 2 records the distribution of word-initial /r/ in eight counties
(three counties polled only two TxG speakers) for the phrase Er rennt jetzt.
following responses were recorded for Medina County:
169

The

Table 4.13: /r/
Gilbert (1972) Map 2, (phonetic realization of /r/)
“He’s running now,“ SG Er rennt jetzt, URA Ař řennt jätz.
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
____________________________________________________________
Trilled [ř]:
8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 202, 234, 235, 236, 237,
(URA)
20, 21, 22, 23,
238, 239, 240, 241, 242,
24, 25, 26, 27
247, 248, 249a, 249b,
249c, 249d, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 253, 254,
255, 257
24
Retroflex [ŗ]: 10
(241, 253)
(2)
Uvular [ʀ]:
4
(SG)
Unable to recall:
233, 256
2
[Not polled: 11 participants;
243
1]
____________________________________________________________
The trilled apical [r] was dominant in Gilbert’s responses recorded in Medina
County (14/16).

However, eleven of these polled participants know at least some

Alsatian, which somewhat lessens the impact of the result.

This feature was also

prevalent in eastern counties polled (DeWitt, Fayette, Bastrop) where Polish, Czech,
Slovak, and Sorbian settlements are located, whose phonetic inventory all have some
trilled realization of /r/. All samplings of TxAls in this study of the item attest to the
trilled apical [r], although two of these sixteen speakers often used the retroflex [r] with
other items.
The predominance of the apical trill suggests that the maintenance of this feature
could be considered an example of what Guion (1996: 461) terms “structure
exaggeration” in order to assert ethnic identity.

170

4.4.3 Phonological transference
Weinrich’s (1953:22) constraint of “holes in the pattern” for phonological
borrowings (the existence of phonemic inventory “gaps” which facilitate importing new
phonemes), offers an explanation for this “phonic transference” (Clyne 2003: 78), but
does not address how it is effected. Thomason’s (2001) Borrowing Scale addresses
borrowing of lexical, phonological and structural items in terms of the intensity of contact
in order to explain why only certain items are borrowed. For example, borrowing new
phonemes are indicative of “slightly” to “more” intense contact, depending upon their
context. Winford (2003: 56) suggests that the appearance of new phonological features
in a recipient language in situations of language contact might not be borrowing, but
substratum transfer, i.e, new features are introduced by shifting speakers and then
imitated by native speakers.

Clyne (2003: 76) suggests the more neutral term,

“transference,” where a “form, feature or construction has been taken over by the speaker
from another language, whatever the motives or explanation.” This transference seems a
plausible explanation for the appearance of new phonic alternations [ç] for the URA
fricative /x/ noted above.
The occurrence of both voiced and voiceless stops in TxAls (contrary to the
phonological descriptions used for reference) is most likely a “phonic transference” from
several languages in contact. As described in Chapter Two, the first group of colonists
was linguistically diverse. There was already intermarriage between Alsatian, German,
and French colonists in the earliest years of its settlement. In these families, one parent
often spoke Alsatian and the other, a more standard-near German dialect. Gilbert (1972:
2) remarks that

171

. . . in Medina County, Alsatian German and Texas ‘High
German’ interact with English and Spanish in a complex
three-way process. Also, French and East Friesland Low
German were once widely spoken in the county.
As already noted several times, social interaction between the Spanish-speaking
community and the Texas Alsatians was rare, so that contact-induced change from
Spanish is highly unlikely. It is reasonable to assert, however, that (1) voiced stops were
already present in the Alsatian spoken by the main group of colonists; (2) bilingual
speakers of TxAls or TxG and English integrated these stops into TxAls. Unfortunately,
the processes and causes of this development cannot be ascertained due to the time
elapsed and absence of data which might have shed more light on the contact situation.
Open syllable lengthening is somewhat more transparent. Noticeable among the
responses of participants in this study has been (1) a systematic lengthening of vowels [a,
e, i, o, u] in both open and closed syllables, and in the utterances of some speakers, (2) a
further diphthongization of these lengthened vowels in open syllables, particularly [o:] >
[o:ʊ], [e:] > [e:i], and [i:] > [i:j], as is shown in example 4.8:
(4.8)
a.

Vowel lengthening in open and closed syllables
[fɑnʃř]>
[fɑ:nʃř]
‘window’

b.

[diɑ] >
[is]
>
[kse] >
[do] >
[dʊnʃɪk] >

c.
d.
e.

[di:ə] > [di:ja]
[i:s]
[kse:] > [kse:i]
[do:] > [do:u]
[dʊ:nʃɪk]

‘the.dem’
‘ice’
‘been’
‘here’
‘Thursday’

This could conceivably be due to a combination of several factors. For example,
it could have had its beginnings as a conscious “structure exaggeration” (Guion 1996:
461) of an already-present vowel lengthening in stressed open syllables on the part of
TxAls speakers to differentiate themselves from other German speakers. One could also
172

argue for a later-occurring phonological transference from the Texas accent into TxAls.
Prosodic features such as accent, tone, and nasalization have been noted to be especially
prone to diffusion in language contact situations (e.g. Lehiste 1997, Matisoff 2001, Epps
2006). The long monophthong characteristic of the Texas accent as [pɑ:] ‘father,’ versus
Midwestern [pa] (Ladefoged 2006: 93), marks the speech of Medina County speakers,227
which could especially influence TxAls semi-speakers, whose dominant language is
English.

In addition, this feature is reinforced in European Alsatian by a separate

phonemic set of lengthened vowels described by Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989) (see
Table 4.2), making it especially salient to TxAls speakers. Further transcription and
examination of current and Gilbert’s (1972) data is necessary to more aptly analyze this
vowel lengthening and diphthongization.

4.5 SUMMARY
The main impetus of this chapter has been to first provide a description of several
phonological features which define the URA of Mulhouse, and secondly, to identify these
features in current TxAls speech samples in order to demonstrate maintenance of the
ancestral language. The following URA features were selected to compare with TxAls
speech samples:
1. backing and lowering of MHG ë [ε] > a [ɑ],
2. retention of MHG long vowels î [i:] and û [y:],
3. retention of MHG diphthongs ie [ie, ia] and uo [ye, ya],
as evidenced by rising diphthongs,

227

Several European Alsatians remarked on a “drawl” in the speech of the Texas Alsatians when asked
about the Alsatian spoken in Castroville. One native Alsatian noted that when he first met #202, he noticed
was Schleppendes ‘a dragging’ about his speech that “sounded like Willie Nelson.”

173

4. use of the velar fricative [x] in all environments,
5. spirantization of SG intervocalic /b/ > [v, β],
6. the set of labial, alveolar, and velar stops, and
7. the apical trill for all positions of /r/.
A resampling of Gilbert’s (1972) data substantiated a high degree of maintenance of
these features in the responses of twenty-seven 2009 informants. Gilbert’s (1972) data
also established the uniqueness of these features as compared with responses in the other
thirty counties. It was also determined that eight of the twelve Gilbert participants in
Medina County who claimed Alsatian heritage or language were fairly consistent in their
reproduction of URA features, while the remaining five often produced variants which
substantiated dialect-mixing of Alsatian and near-standard TxG varieties, as in Fenschteř
SG Fenster, URA Fanschteř.

Observations on three phonological developments in

TxAls mainly attributed to language contact were also introduced:

(1) the phonic

transference of [ç] from TxG, and (2) the occurrence of both voiced and voiceless stops,
and (3) the transference of lengthened monophthongs from the American Texas accent.
This chapter has focused on the analysis of a selected set of URA phonological
features maintained in TxAls which distinguish it from some of its neighboring dialects
and SG. This analysis constitutes only a beginning of the work necessary for a deeper
evaluation of these and other features. My analysis has nevertheless shown that these
features have been largely maintained by present day speakers with only minimal
variation. The next chapter will present morphosyntactic features of TxAls which can be
traced back to URA and which also distinguish it from neighboring TxG dialects.

174

CHAPTER FIVE: THE MORPHOSYNTAX OF TEXAS ALSATIAN
Wie luschtig sin d’ Mannala
Mit deřa volla Kannala
Wie veller as d’ Kannala sin
Wie luschtigř as di Mannala sin.

Wie luschtig sin di Wiewela
Bi deřa siessa Triewela
Wie siessř as d Triewela sin
Wie luschtiger as d Wiewela sin.

‘How happy are the little men
With their full little cans.
The fuller the little cans,
the happier the little men.’

‘How happy are the little women
With their sweet little grapes.
The sweeter the little grapes,
The happier the little women.’
--recited by #254, March 16, 2007

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter investigates morphosyntactic features of the Texas Alsatian noun and
verb to identify the extent of preservation of the Upper Rhine Alsatian (URA) donor
dialect(s) in today’s Texas Alsatian (TxAls) dialect. The examination of morphosyntactic
features such as the case, gender, and number of nouns were chosen for several reasons.
These features are easily identifiable and thus lend themselves to examining linguistic
preservation, loss, or change, which not only underpins the descriptive goals of this
study, but also informs studies of linguistic maintenance and loss in the general field of
language contact (e.g., Dorian 1973 on Scottish Gaelic, Holloway 1997 on Brule Spanish,
Damke 1997 on German in Brazil, etc.). There is also a fair amount of literature on
morphosyntactic features in other TxG dialects (e.g., Gilbert 1965a, Salmons 1994,
Guion 1996, Boas 2009b, etc.) and related German-American dialects (e.g., Huffines
1990, Born 1994, Keel 1994, Louden 1994, Van Ness 1996, Nützel 1998, etc.) important
for comparative work. Many of the ALS morphosyntactic features discussed here are also
distinct from SG and TxG, as in demonstratives, monosyllabic verbs, or the double175

infinitive construction, which aids in determining the extent of preservation of the ALS
donor dialect.
A similar methodology to the previous chapter is followed in the discussion of
these morphosyntactic features. Features of the Upper Rhine Alsatian dialect around
Mulhouse (URAMul) and Colmar (URACol) are identified and indexed against standard
German forms to highlight preservation or particular variations in TxAls (additional
descriptive notes from URACol underscore regional concurrence and variation within
URA). Many of the same works used in the previous chapter are consulted.228 To
investigate the preservation of distinctive URA structures by 20th and 21st century TxAls
speakers, Gilbert’s (1972) linguistic data recorded in the 1960s in Medina County is
examined and compared with my re-sampling of his data, based on interviews conducted
with twenty-seven TxAls speakers. In Chapter Four, eight of Gilbert’s twenty-seven
informants were identified as fairly fluent Alsatian speakers and five additional
informants produced forms which showed dialect-mixing of Alsatian and other TxG
dialects.229

These participant’s numbers are shown in boldface type in the tables

comparing the Gilbert (1972) data with my re-sampling to (1) facilitate recognition of
URA features or to (2) more easily identify speaker variation indicative of dialect or
language contact.
The analysis of the TxAls noun (§5.4) (and verb) is based on establishing TxAls
similarities to URA (§5.3) and differences from SG (§5.2). Noun gender, case, and

228 For URAMul, Nisslé (2008) and Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) were consulted; for URACol, Philipp &
Bothorel-Witz (1989) and Philipp & Weider (2002); for TxAls, Gilbert (1972) and the Elsasser Wordbuch
(1981); for SG, Langenscheidt (1995) and Rankin & Wells (2001).
229 These eight participants were identified as #s 9, 19-21, 23-25, 27, born 1879, 1884, 1893, 1901, 1907,
1914, 1919, and 1920, respectively. Gilbert (1972: 17-18) identified five additional participants (#s 4, 7, 8,
12, 18, born 1894, 1916, 1886, 1892 and 1894, respectively) who had Alsatian-speaking parents or
grandparents. Gilbert (1972) also notes three fluent Low German speakers, #s 2, 16, and 22, whose
utterances occasionally coincide with Alsatian speakers and point to interesting similarities between the
two dialects.

176

number are first discussed, with a separate discussion of URA case marking. Case
marking was singled out for discussion for several reasons. First of all, there is extensive
literature on case loss in German and TxG (e.g. Eikel 1949, Gilbert 1965, Schrier 1965,
Barðdal & Kulikov 2007, Born 2003, Boas 2009b, etc.) which provides a wide range of
data for discussing the dynamics of change due to internal processes and/or contactdriven (external) processes.

Case marking is also obvious: it is one of the first

grammatical features with which learners of German have difficulty, as illustrated by the
SG masculine definite article declinations below:
Table 5.1: Masculine definite article declinations, der Mann (‘the man’)

Nominative Accusative Dative

Genitive

SG

der Mann

den Mann

dem Mann des Mannes

TxG230

der Mann

den Mann

den Mann

--

URA

d’r Mànn

d’r Mànn

im Mànn

--

URA case marking differs from both TxG and SG. The URA dialect is characterized by
a merger of the nominative and accusative forms, while TxG is characterized by a merger
of the accusative and dative forms found in many northern German dialects (Boas 2009a:
125). Lastly, Alsatian exhibits several marked determiner forms which seem to have
been preserved in TxAls.
In addition to determiner markings, I also examine the pronoun system (§5.4.5) to
establish the degree to which this URA case opposition has been preserved. I then turn to
the verb and examine features relating to finite and non-finite forms, inflectional endings,
tense, and mood of the URA donor dialect (§5.5). I again compare data from my

230

Salmons (1994: 60) also identifies these same case markings for TxG in Gillespie County.

177

resampling of Gilbert’s (1972) translation tasks to establish the degree of preservation of
these features in TxAls (§5.6). A brief examination of the syntactic properties of the
modal auxiliaries and word order in §5.7 concludes my examination of morphosyntactic
features in TxAls.
It is helpful to consult the SG case and gender system as an index for comparison
even though it is somewhat problematic, as the prescribed SG system brushes aside a
great deal of regional, stylistic, and social variation. Even regional descriptions such as
those used here (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989, Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003) must
generalize when presenting a coherent picture of a dialect’s features, as variation occurs
even within one speaker’s utterances (Fuller & Gilbert 2003), i.e., one speaker does not
consistently produce the same sounds or form for one phoneme or morpheme.
The SG grammatical system is first described, beginning with aspects of gender,
case, and number, to introduce the reader to the prescribed norms of German necessary to
understanding the significance of the TxAls data presented in this chapter.

5.2 THE SG NOUN: GENDER, CASE, AND NUMBER
SG maintains four cases—nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive—and three
grammatical genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter, represented by the nominative
determiners der, die, and das (‘the’) respectively. There is some noun inflection (weak
masculine nouns, dative plural) which reflects case, but it is the extensive declension of
determiners which marks the function of the noun in the noun phrase (Rankin and Wells
2001: 55-63).

178

The following example illustrates the SG noun and determiner forms possible
with the masculine noun, Mann (‘man’).231 The masculine case represents the largest
range of inflection found in SG case-marking patterns:
Table 5.2: SG Masculine noun inflection for case and number

der Mann ‘the man’ definite article indefinite article Plural
NOM

der Mann

ein Mann

die Männer

ACC

den Mann

einen Mann

die Männer

DAT

dem Mann

einem Mann

den Männern

GEN

des Mannes

eines Mannes

der Männer

In SG, the nominative/accusative distinction is mainly evident in the masculine
forms. While SG still prescribes genitive markings to show relation between nouns e.g.,
possession, or its use after certain prepositions, genitive case markings have generally
been replaced by dative markings in most modern colloquial varieties:
(5.1):
SG:

Wegen des
Regens bin ich nicht zum Park gegangen.
am I not to the park gone
Because the.GEN rain

Colloq:232

Wegen dem
Regenø bin ich nicht zum Park gegangen.
Because the.DAT rain
am I not to the park gone
‘Because of the rain I didn’t go to the park.’

231

There are some masculine weak nouns such as Mensch (‘person’), Student (‘student’), and Junge
(‘boy’), which have maintained older case markings, i.e., the addition of –(e)n in oblique cases (Menschen,
Studenten, Jungen). The retention of the dative –e in im Jahre is optional for many speakers, and the
expression can mean ‘in the year.’
232 #202 produced a similar phrase with the preposition wegen (‘because of’): As isch waga’m zweiten
Waltkrieg (‘It’s because of the second World War’).

179

However, genitive case markings are still found in several fossilized phrases, such as um
Gottes Willen (‘for God’s sake’), eines Tages (‘one day’), or meinetwegen (‘because of
me’). The following possibilities considered acceptable by SG and colloquial standards
exist for the genitive case (Rankin & Wells 2001: 47-8):
(5.2)

SG for “my brother’s sister:”
a. article marked for the genitive + noun suffix -(e)s:
die Schwester meines
Bruders
the sister.NOM my.POSS.DAT brother
b. –s: allowed with names and familial members
mein
Bruders
Schwester
my.POSS.NOM brother.POSS. sister
c. von substitute allowed, but not preferred:
die Schwester von
meinem
Bruder
the sister.NOM of.PREP my.POSS.DAT brother

Versus the frequently-used non-standard form:
d. meinem
Bruder seine
Schwester
my.POSS.DAT brother his.POSS.NOM sister
In the other three varieties under consideration in this study, genitive functions are
expressed periphrastically, using the dative or a preposition requiring the dative. For
example, TxAls and TxG speakers use the periphrastic forms with the dative or
accusative case (accusative for most TxG speakers) to communicate a relationship
between two nouns:

180

(5.3)
a. TxAls: #234
Wàs isch seinem Kind si
nàma?
what is his.DAT child his.NOM/ACC name
‘What is his child’s name?’
b. TxG:
1-82-1-10-a.eaf
mir tun ne masse Deutsch sprechen und auch mit den
seine Schwestern.
me do a lot
German speak
and also with him.ACC his sisters
‘But we speak a lot of German and also with his sisters.’
SG also exhibits verbs and prepositions which govern case. Within the set of
prepositions, there are separate sets which govern the accusative and dative, as well as a
set of place prepositions (Wechselpräpositionen), which govern either accusative or
dative. This is dependent upon whether motion is indicated or not, (Rankin and Wells
2001: 125). If motion is indicated (unless confined to a specific location), the accusative
is mandated, otherwise the dative is required. Thus, there is the possibility of either
dative or accusative forms for these “two-way prepositions:”
(5.4)

The two-way preposition an (‘on’):
Das Bild hängt an der
Wand.
the picture hangs on the.DAT wall
Ich hänge das Bild an die
Wand.
I hang the picture on the.ACC wall

Prepositions which require the genitive case (statt ‘instead of’, während ‘during’, trotz
‘despite’, etc.) are currently in use, but are mainly used with the dative colloquially.
The SG noun is also marked for number. Plural formation is accomplished via
various combinations of suffixes and vowel changes. Rankin & Wells (2001: 157) define
five basic plural endings for SG nouns, ø, -e, -er, -en, and -s. In some instances, the stem

181

vowel of the noun also has an umlaut (cf. Table 5.4). A brief introduction to these same
properties of the noun in Upper Rhine Alsatian is given in the next section.

5.3 THE UPPER RHINE ALSATIAN NOUN: GENDER, CASE, AND NUMBER
This section describes the structural properties of the noun in the donor dialect,
URA, with emphasis on the descriptive analyses of the dialect spoken around Mulhouse
(URAMul) for reasons already established.

Brief comparative notes on TxAls are

provided, but the bulk of the data illustrating the degree of maintenance will be discussed
in §5.4.
Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003: 117) describe three grammatical genders and four
grammatical cases similar to those of SG (additional variations of URACol are in
parentheses):
Table 5.3: URAMul case and gender

Indefinite NOM
MASC

a Mànn

ACC

DAT

d’r Mànn d’r Mànn im Mànn

GEN

vum Mànn d’ Mànner
(di) 233

‘man’
FEM

a Frài

‘woman’
NEUT

PL

d’Frài

d’Frài

in d’r Frài vu d’Frài

(di)
a Kind

’s Kind

d’Fràia
(di)

’s Kind

‘child’

im Kind

vum Kind

d’Kinder
(di)

233

Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 321) note two articles in URACol for the feminine singular and plural:
[t, ti].

182

Articles marking gender are phonologically reduced forms (d’r, d’, ’s) of SG der,
die, and das, respectively. As a general rule, gender assignment in URAMul coincides
with gender assignment in SG, although not always, as in SG die Butter (fem) (‘butter’),
LAlem d’r Butter (masc),234 and can also vary within the region (Philipp & BothorelWitz 1989: 319).
The dative and the genitive cases are both expressed within a prepositional
phrase. The dative phrase is introduced by the preposition in [ɪn] combined with the
dative marking [m] for the masculine and neuter nouns, URAMul im, SG dem, and a
dative-marked feminine d’r.235 The genitive is expressed periphrastically in URA with
the dative-governed preposition vu, SG von (‘of’). For example, URAMul vum Mànn
(‘of the man’) differs from the SG genitive form des Mannes (‘the man’s’), although as
noted above, a dative paraphrase is now predominantly used for the genitive in German
colloquial speech.
Case-markings in the URA system of determiners show a merger of the
nominative and accusative, with an opposition between these two cases and the dative
(NA/D), as in other southern dialects, in contrast to many northern German dialects that
distinguish between a nominative and non-nominative (N/AD) (Boas 2009a: 125 citing
Panzer 1983: 1171). However, this merger is only partial (Philipp & Botherel-Witz
1989: 321), as the pronoun system reflects a distinction between three cases, e.g.,
ich.NOM (‘I’), mich.ACC. (‘me’), and mir.DAT (‘me’).
Given the periphrastic nature of the dative and genitive cases and the “loss” of

234 This is evidence of contact with French, e.g., le beurre (masc.) (‘the butter’). Consider the gender of
the French equivalent in other masculine nouns: SG die Bank (‘bench’), LAlem d’r Bank, Fr le banc, or SG
die Fahne (‘flag’) LAlem d’r Fahna, Fr le drapeau.
235 This is identical to what Philipp & Botherel-Witz (1989: 321) describe for URACol.

183

final –n,236 the noun in URA is marked only for number (Philipp & Botherel-Witz 1989:
319), unlike SG nouns marked for case (dative plural, weak masculine nouns, etc.).
Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003: 117) describe a complicated pattern for marking the plural
in URAMul by adding various suffixes and/or stem vowel changes, which overlaps with
forms described in SG plural formation237 (Rankin & Wells 2001: 157-9). However,
instead of appending the suffixes characteristic of SG, URAMul plural formation is
characterized by umlaut, i.e., the stem vowel is fronted in plural forms where possible.
Table 5.4 juxtaposes the two systems of plural formation:

236

The URA noun has undergone a loss of the final –n as indicated by the Win/Wi isogloss in Illustration
4.2 (e.g. Kamin/Kami (‘fireplace’), Magen/Mage (‘stomach’), a part of the isogloss bundle separating the
Lower Rhine from the Upper Rhine department just above Colmar. Such nouns are not marked for
number.
237 Rankin & Wells (2001: 157): “There are five basic plural endings for German nouns: --, -e, -er, -en, -s.
In some instances, the stem vowel of the noun also has an umlaut.”

184

Table 5.4: Plural formation in SG and URAMul

URAMul

sing. – plural

SG

sing. – plural

no suffix

’s Fanster – d’Fanster

no suffix das Fenster – die Fenster

(‘window-s’)
-a

’s Ohr – d’Ohra (‘ear-s’)

-e or ¨-e

der Krug – die Krüge
(‘pitcher-s’)

-er238

’s Kind – d’Kinder (‘child-ren’)

-ü > i+er; d’Hüen – d’Hiener (‘hen-s’)
-à >e+er;

’s Ràd – d’Räder (‘wheel-s’)

-à > a+er

d’r Mànn – d’Manner (‘man-men’)

-er

das Kind – die Kinder

¨ -er

das Huhn – die Hühner
das Rad – die Räder

--

- (e)n

das Ohr – die Ohren (‘ear’s’)

--

-s

das Auto – die Autos
(‘car-s’)

-à > a

d’ Hànd – d’Hand (‘hand-s’)

--

-ü > ie

d’r Füess – d’Fiess (‘foot-feet’)

--

d’r Krüag – d’Krieg (‘pitcher-s’)
-o > e

d’r Vogel – d’Vegel ‘bird-s’

--

Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 319-320) define four ways in which nouns form the
plural in URACol, which also generally describes formation of the plural in URAMul
(and TxAls):

238 Unfortunately, neither Nisslé (2008) nor the EW indicate plural formation for the noun. TroxlerLasseaux et al. (2003) provide examples in the grammar appendix and a few examples of plurals in their
glossary.

185

1. No overt ending of nouns whose stem vowel cannot be umlauted, e.g., d’r
Äpfel – d’Äpfel (‘apple – apples’);
2. The stem vowel undergoes umlaut, but no ending is added, e.g., d’r Zahn –
d’Zähn (‘tooth – teeth’);
3. The ending –a (/ə/) is added (usually feminine nouns), e.g. d’Frài – d’ Fràia
(‘woman – women’);
4. –er is added and the stem vowel is umlauted wherever possible, e.g. d’Hüen –
d’Hiener (‘hen – hens’).
Having broadly described the gender, case, and plural marking systems for SG and URA,
I now turn to the noun in Texas Alsatian.

5.4 THE TEXAS ALSATIAN NOUN: GENDER, CASE, AND NUMBER
The following sections describe the current representations of the noun by TxAls
speakers in Medina County as produced in the re-sampling of Gilbert’s (1972) translation
items and narratives in the interview sessions. The data is supported by the Ellsasser
Wordbuch (EW) where possible and juxtaposed with Gilbert’s (1972) data.

5.4.1 Gender
According to the EW,239 like SG and URA, TxAls also generally distinguishes
between three grammatical genders of masculine, feminine, and neuter, as in SG and
URA. The following table provides the gender of a sampling of Alsatian nouns and was
compiled by consulting the EW and Nisslé’s (2008) Alsatian dictionary of the Upper
Rhine, D’ Lehrschtuwa:

239 It should be stressed that the EW is not a prescriptive work, endeavoring instead to provide a descriptive
account of TxAls lexical items. The Elsasser Wordbuch does translate “the” with three forms, die, der, and
das indicative of three genders, but does not necessarily reflect actual production by current speakers.
Unfortunately, no gender is indicated for noun entries.

186

Table 5.5: TxAls grammatical genders
URA
(Nisslé 2008)
Masc d’r Mànn
d’r Büa
d’r Schtüal
d’r Tesch
Fem d’Deera
d’Hüahn
d’ Schüala
d’Zitt
Neut ’s Kessa
’s Hüss
’s Kind
’s Beld

TxAls
(EW)
mann
büie
stühl
disch
derr
hüen
schül
zit
kissi
hüs
kind
bild

SG

Gloss

der Mann
der Junge
der Stuhl
der Tisch
die Tür
die Henne
die Schule
die Zeit
das Kissen
das Haus
das Kind
das Bild

‘the man’
‘the boy’
‘the chair’
‘the table’
‘the door’
‘the hen’
‘the school’
‘the time’
‘the pillow’
‘the house’
‘the child'
‘the picture’

Many TxAls speakers produce the URA determiners marking gender for the noun
d’r (masculine), d’ (feminine), and ’s (neuter) erratically and there appears to be a general
regularization of the feminine d’ to the masculine and neuter forms. Only one Gilbert
item240 targeted the production of gender for the SG masculine noun der Honig ALS d’r
Hunig (‘honey’). Honig is not a noun of natural gender (as in woman, man, boy) and is
therefore an interesting choice. Unfortunately, approximately one half of the participants
in this study did not produce an article for “honey.” Nevertheless, a comparasion of
Gilbert’s data for Medina County with my data is informative.

240

The other four items inquired into the gender of borrowed nouns from English: “sink,” “creek,”
“candy,” and “tank.”

187

Table 5.6: Resampling: Gender assignment in Medina County
Gilbert (1972) Map #74 (Gender of nouns)
“honey,” SG der Honig, ALS d’r Hunig
________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972):
27
Roesch (2009):
27
________________________________________________________
dər (SG)

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18, 24, 27
19, 21
dř (URA)
241
dař
20, 23
salla (URA.masc. ‘that’)
də
25

dəř: 236, 238, 251, 257

4

247
1
235, 249a, 249b, 250,
254, 256
6
das (SG.neut) 22, 26
253
1
s (URA.neut) 202
1
dat
2, (22)
de:
16
no article produced with word
234, 237, 239, 240, 241,
242, 243, 248,
249c, 252b, 255
11
Word unknown:
233, 252a
2
[not polled:
249d
1]
_________________________________________________________
Thirteen TxAls speakers in 2009 produced some form of article, five of which
identified Hunig as masculine. Several comments are relevant to the responses produced
by the 2009 TxAls speakers. First, I did not prompt the production of a definite article.
Secondly, the article was produced in an unstressed position (prosodic pattern [d hʊ:nɪk])
and it was difficult to distinguish whether the speaker produced an [r] or its equivalent in
this position. It is also possible that speakers could have assigned a specific case to this
noun as well as others, but this was not a part of the data collection process. Overall,
241

This is a combination of the masculine forms of the definite (d’r) and demonstrative article (da:).

188

opportunities in Gilbert’s (1972) tasks to observe gender assignment to nouns were
greatly reduced by the high frequency of pronouns, plural and indefinite article forms.
However, a sampling of several nominative position nouns in the singular and plural
within Gilbert’s (1972) phrase items is analyzed in Table 5.7 (all grammatically correct
forms are underlined) on the facing page.
For item (a) in Table 5.7, fourteen (64%) out of twenty-two speakers produced a
determiner form indicating neuter gender for the noun, ’s Bild (‘the picture’). In 5.7 (b),
thirteen (56%) speakers out of twenty-three produced a masculine determiner form for
d’r Hund (‘the dog’). For the feminine noun, d’Deer (‘the door’) in 5.7 (c), all speakers
(100%) who produced an article assigned the feminine article. The same is true for the
plural form in 5.7 (d), d’Kindeř (‘the children’). Boas (2009a: 236) notes that gender
assignment in TxG is fairly stable. Reviewing the above results, this can perhaps also be
said of TxAls. However, there is strong evidence of either simplification to a common
article [d] due to “loss” of gender, or regularization of the feminine/plural article [d] to all
genders.242

Whether this loss is influenced by external factors (assimilation to the

dominant language, English) or internal developments (continued merging of case
markings in ALS), is difficult to conclude.243 The extent of this gender loss in TxAls can
be further defined by examining data on other case marking systems in TxAls.

242

#241 comments that definite articles for Alsatian are “easy,” because they are all the same—[də] as in
English, yet he produced several “correct” demonstrative articles [dɔs, di:ɑ] and a plural [di:] described by
URA grammars.
243 This general loss of gender distinction has been observed in other languages undergoing attrition, e.g.
Dyirbal (Aikhenvald 2000), Scottish-Gaelic (Dorian 1981), Dahalo (Dimmendaal 1983), etc.

189

Table 5.7: Resampling of TxAls Gender Assignment
__________________________________________________________
(a) neut.nom.: s’Bild (‘the picture’) in “The picture belongs to them.”
’s:

202, 234, 237, 238, 239, 242, 248, 251, 256
247
235, 241, 250, 253
240
236, 249a, 249c, 252a, 252b, 255
257
1
no article:
254
unknown:
233, 243
[not polled: 249b, 249d
_______________________________________________
(b) masc.nom.: d’ř Hund (‘the dog’) in “The dog bit that bad man.”
sal
das
d’r
də
dat

9
1
4
1
6
1
2
2]

dř & deř

236, 235, 237, 238, 239, 241, 248, 253, 254,
11
255, 257
da (demon.) 233, 240
2
də
202, 234, 242, 247, 249a, 249c,
250, 251, 252a, 252b, 256
11
[not polled: 243, 249b, 249d
3]
_______________________________________________
(c) fem.nom.: d’ Deeř (‘the door’)
də
202, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241,
242, 248, 249a, 249b, 249c, 249d, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257
25244
sali
247
1
no article:
243
1
_______________________________________________

(d) Plural.nom.: d’Kindeř (‘the children’) in “The little children see her.”
də
202, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240,
242, 247, 249a, 249c, 249d, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257
23
di, dia
(240), 241, 248, (249a), 249b
3 (2)
[not polled: 243
1]
____________________________________________________________

244

Speakers 234, 238, 239, 242, and 250 are all fluent speakers, who produced the article in the interview
sessions, but did not produce the article during the Gilbert translation tasks.

190

5.4.2 Case marking
Determiner forms, i.e. definite articles245 and demonstrative pronouns not only
mark gender, but also the function of the noun in the noun phrase. Philipp & BotherelWitz (1989: 321) characterize the declension of determiners in the Alsatian dialect area
as “a merger of the forms of the nominative and accusative which is not total in the
Lower Rhine.” The demonstrative determiners further illustrate the nominative/
accusative merger indicative of URA:246
Table 5.8: URAMul demonstrative pronoun forms247
(URACol in parentheses)
NOM / ACC sing.
masc.

fem.

neut.

da

dia

dàs

(b) “that – those”

saller

salla

sall

SG jener, der da –
jene, die da

(salla) (salli)

(a) “this – these”

PL

DATIVE sing.

PL

masc.

fem.

neut.

dia

in dam

in
dara

in dam

in
danna

salla

in
sallem

in
sallra

in
sallem

in salla

SG dieser, der hier
– diese

(salli)

(salli)

The more obvious differences in marking case can be seen in these demonstrative forms.
The demonstrative pronouns for “this” (da, dia, dàs) and “that” (salla/er, salla, sall) also
function as demonstrative adjectives before the noun, as in dia Hüen SG diese Henne
(‘this hen’), or salla/er Mànn SG jener Mann (‘that man’).

245

The indefinite article a (‘a’) is never declined, unlike SG ein (cf. Table 5.2).
URACol forms are fairly similar to URAMul, with differentiating forms for the fem. and pl. (–i) and the
nom./acc. masc (–a).
247 Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003: 119; Philipp & Bothorel Witz 1989: 321; Rankin & Wells 2001: 213-14.
246

191

TxAls speakers have generally maintained the NA/D distinction, which is
especially evident in their production of the URA demonstrative forms. Gilbert (1972)
also recorded evidence of these distinctive forms in Medina County.

Four items

investigate TxG demonstrative forms, three of which elicit translations for the English
demonstrative “this” and one for the demonstrative “that.” Map 40 reported responses in
Medina County for the demonstrative adjective “this” in the phrase, “It’s too dry this
year:”
Table 5.9: Resampling: Demonstrative adjective “this”
Gilbert (1972) Map 40: “It’s too dry this year.”
SG Es ist zu trocken dies Jahr, URA Es isch zü třukka dàs Johř.
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
____________________________________________________________
dɑ s

(ALS)

dis
dit
di:s, di:z (SG)
di:sə, di:zə
di:səs, di:zəs
dis & di:zəs
dis & di:s
unknown:

1, 4, 8, 9, 18,
19, 21, 23,
24, 26, 27
3, 17
16, 22
2, 6, 7, 11, 13,
15, 20, (21),
(24)
25
5, 12
10, (24)
14

202, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238,
239, 240, 241, 242, 247, 248,
249a, 249c, 249d, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 253, 254, 255,
256, 257
24 (96%)
233
1
249b

1

[Not polled:
243
1]
____________________________________________________________
Nine of the thirteen Gilbert participants identified as TxAls speakers (at varying levels of
fluency), responded with the URA demonstrative dàs (‘this’) and the remaining four
192

produced the SG demonstrative form dies/dieses (‘this’), thus demonstrating a 69%
retention of the URA markings. A high degree of maintenance of this demonstrative
article is also shown by the 2009 re-sampling: 92% of the participants used the URA
demonstrative dàs (‘this’).
Gilbert’s (1972) Map 42 investigated both the TxG demonstrative for “that” and
adjectives ending in the phrase “The dog bit that bad man,” SG Der Hund biβ ′den bösen
Mann.” The responses for the URA demonstrative sall (‘that’) are shown in Table 5.10:
Table 5.10: Resampling: Demonstrative adjective “that”
Gilbert (1972) Map 42: “The dog bit that bad man.”
ALS Dr Hund hàt sàlla beesa Mànn g’bissa, SG Der Hund biß den bösen Mann
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009):
27
____________________________________________________________
sɑ(:)lə (URA)
19, 9, 21,
235, 241, 247, 249a
23, 24, 25
238, 202, 234, 237,
249c, 250, 255
11 (46%)
sɑlər (URA)
27
selə
8, 12
sɑl
(URA.neut)
257
1 (4%)
sali
(URA.fem)
253
1 (4%)
dɑ
(URA ‘this’)
239, 251, 252a, 236,
240, 248, 249a, 242,
256, 252b
10
dř
(URA ‘the.acc’)
254
1
de(:)r
1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 26, 18,
(21)
′dəɒ mɑn
15
()
′ de:n (SG)
3, 10, 11, 17 ′de:
2, 16, 20, 22 di:zen mɑn
5
unknown:
233, 243
2
[Not polled:
249d
1]
____________________________________________________________
193

Medina County revealed the greatest variation found among any of the counties,
due mainly to the amount of combinations possible with the article and adjective endings
and certainly influenced by the variety of dialects (LG, ALS, TxG). The predominant
response for the remainder of the counties was usually two-fold: either (′) de: n –an or
()

′ de: n –ə. Nine of the thirteen Gilbert participants with some form of exposure to

Alsatian in the family domain produced the URA demonstrative pronoun sall for the
English demonstrative “that.” 50% of the 2009 speakers produced some form of the
URA demonstrative sall- (‘that’), 42% of which produced the preferred form salla. 38%
produced the URA demonstrative for “this.”
Again, it is unfortunate that there is no Gilbert phrase which targets the
demonstrative in a dative context. However, the dat.masc./neut. form sallem (‘that’) and
dative plural salli (‘those’) was produced by current TxAls speakers during interview
narratives:
(5.5) Narrative examples of “that” and “those”
a. #234: Wer isch sallr wu steht dert an sallem [countr] mit sallem Bier?
SG: Wer ist der da, der dort an dem.DAT.masc. Ausschank mit
dem.DAT.neut. Bier steht?
‘Who is that standing there at that counter with that beer?’
b. #202: Sitr sallem Tag hàn ich in noch nimm g’sah.
SG: Seit dem.DAT.masc. Tag habe ich ihn nicht gesehen.
“Since that day I have not seen him.” (Eikel 7.10)
c. #240: Ein vu salli nini Brüedr isch mi Grossvàtr g’see.
SG: Einer von denen.DAT.pl. neun Brüdern ist mein Grossvater
gewesen.
‘And one of those nine brothers was my grandfather.’
There is further evidence of the maintenance of dative forms in definite articles in
TxAls. Generally, the dative case in TxAls is marked by the use of the historical [m] for
the masculine and neuter gender and [r] for the feminine, as in URA and SG. A pair of
194

Gilbert (1972) phrases juxtaposes the use of accusative and dative with the SG two-way
preposition auf, URA uf (‘on’): “It’s lying down there on the floor” investigates the SG
prescribed use of the dative and “Put in on the floor!” the likewise prescribed use of the
accusative definite article. I include Kerr County to the north for comparison, as only
nine speakers were sampled in Gillespie County. Table 5.11 shows the Gilbert (1972)
responses in Kerr and Medina Counties and the 2009 Medina responses for case marking
after the two-way preposition auf:

195

Table 5.11: Resampling: Dative markings after two-way preposition auf
Gilbert (1972) Map 51: (case of definite article after prepositions)
“It’s lying down there on the floor.”
SG Es liegt dort unten auf dem (Fuß)boden, URA Es liegt dert am Boda.
______________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972:
Kerr (16)
Medina (27)
Roesch (2009): (27)
______________________________________________________________
DAT: (SG)
(0%)
auf dem, aufəm,
aufm (fu:s)bodə(n) u:fəm bo:də

-

am bo:də (URA)

-

(85%)

(84%)

3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
10, 11, 12,
13, 17, 24
1, 9, 19

241

1

202, 234, 242, 248,
249a, 250, 253,
254, 256
9

8, 14, 18, 20,
21, 23, 25,
26, 27

(234), 236, 237,
238, 239, 240,
(241), 247, (250),
(248), 251, 252a,
252b, 255, 257
11+(4)
______________________________________

ACC:
(100%)
(0%)
(0%)
auf den , aufən,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, aufn (fu:s)bodə(n)
6, 7, 8, 9,
13, 14, 15,
16
_______________________________________
NOM:
auf der

(0%)
-

(15%)
15

u:f də

-

-

up də
unknown

-

2, 16, 22

(16%)
249b, 249c, 249d,
235
233

4
1

[not polled
10, 11, 12
243
1]
________________________________________________________________
196

The thirteen Gilbert participants polled in Kerr County all responded with the
accusative definite article form den or ‘n’ after auf, but none did so in Medina County. In
support of his argument for the general loss of the dative in TxG, Boas (2009a:197) also
notes a 93% (of 38 participants) response rate for the accusative to this item in his resampling of New Braunfels TxG (Comal County), and only a 7% use of the dative. He
does not include the responses for am and an248 der, for which there were five responses,
as they deviated from the prescribed SG preposition, auf (‘on’). However, in my data set
for Medina County, this can not be disregarded, as one half of the participants responded
with the alternative am Boda (‘on the floor’), with the contracted dative form of the
preposition an + dem, also produced by eight participants in Gilbert’s (1972) data for
Medina County. Twenty-one (84%) of my 2009 respondents produced some form of the
dative case marking.
French Alsatian native M.L. identifies an249 as the preposition used in her area
around Mulhouse in the following personal response (email 7.16.2009):
It's lying on the floor:
I put it on the floor:

As legt am boda;
Ich hans an der boda glegt.

In addition, M.L. uses the verb leega in both contexts, which, according to Nisslé (2008),
means both “lie” and “lay”250 in URA. SG prescribes two separate verbs for “lie” and
“lay,” liegen and legen, respectively.
The Gilbert (1972) phrase “Put it on the floor!” SG Tu251 es auf den Boden!”
investigates the same two-way preposition auf in a context marked for the accusative.

248

An is also a two-way preposition in SG and appears to also be such in TxAls and TxG.
Some transference from other semantic uses of the SG verb liegen which requires the preposition an, as
in SG Es liegt an dir (‘It’s up to you’) might originally have occurred here. The other more likely
possibility is that the use of the same verb is the older, and that a semantic split involving two separate
forms developed later.
250 Two separate entries below each other show (1) leega: coucher, planter être couché; (2) leega: poser,
mettre, placer (Nisslé 2008: 241).
249

197

Table 5.12 compares Gilbert’s (1972) responses with my 2009 responses for Medina
County:

Table 5.12: Resampling: Accusative markings after two-way preposition auf
Gilbert (1972) Map 56: (case of definite article after prepositions)
“Put it on the floor!” SG Tu es auf den Boden!
URA Mach’s an d’r Boda!
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
____________________________________________________________
URA NOM/ACC:
(41%)
(64%)
an d(ə)ř
23, 24, 25
239, 248
2
uf d’ř (dəř)
4, 19
238, 247, 249a, 254,
256
5
uf də
8, 9, 20, 27
202, 235, 242, 250,
251
5
an də
21
234, 257
2
auf də
18
SG ACC forms
for auf, an:

(22%)
1, 5, 11, 12,
13, 15

DAT forms
for auf, an:

(22%)
3, 6, 7, 10,
14, 26

SG NOM:
auf der

(4%)
17

(36%)
237, 240, 241, 249c,
252a, 252b, 253,
255
8
-

Other: (11%)
2, (15), 16, 22
unknown:
233
1
[not polled:
236, 243, 249b, 249d 4]
____________________________________________________________

251

Gilbert’s (1972) translation of “put” here is somewhat surprising, as tu is a colloquial form. SG would
prescribe leg.

198

The juxtaposition of these two tables indicates that the NA/D opposition in URA has
been well-maintained by TxAls speakers (64% produced the URA accusative form). The
URA case opposition NA/D could be a factor in the preservation of the dative case in
TxAls. Boas (2009a: 209) notes a tendency in New Braunfels TxG to maintain the N/AD
opposition characteristic of TxG donor dialects, and observes a continued decrease in
dative case markings indicating a movement toward a nominative/non-nominative
distinction already identified by Eikel (1949: 279) and Gilbert (1965: 109), which he
attributes to internal factors (Boas 2009b). This would support an argument for internal
factors influencing the retention of URA dative case markings in TxAls. However, given
that dative case markings seem to be unusual when compared to the predominant TxG
dialect, and that this marked feature has been retained by TxAls speakers, this might also
suggest that attitudinal factors are influencing the preservation of dative case markings in
TxAls.

5.4.3 Number and plural formation
The noun in URA is marked only for number due to (1) the loss of final –n in
masculine nouns, e.g., Boda (‘soil, floor’), Waga (‘car’), Ofa (‘oven’), and (2)
periphrastic constructions using prepositions for the dative and genitive functions (cf.
Table 5.3).

In general, there is evidence of adherence to the URA system of plural

formation by TxAls speakers (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 319, Troxler-Lasseaux et
al. 2003: 117,) as described in §5.3 (TxAls examples in parentheses, orthography from
Nisslé 2008):

199

1. No change in form: e.g., most masculine nouns whose stem vowels cannot be
umlauted, Äpfel (‘apple/s’), Gàrta (‘garden/s’); some neuter as with Johr
(‘year/s’); and fem. nouns ending in –a, like Blüama (‘flower/s’);
2. No suffix, but the stem vowel is umlauted: e.g., masc. nouns Krüag – Kriag
(‘jug – jugs’) and fem. nouns, as Küah – Kiah (‘cow – cows’);
3. –a suffix: e.g. neut. nouns Ohr – Ohra (‘ear – ears’), Äig – Äiga (‘eye –
eyes’) animate masc. nouns Bür – Büra (‘farmer – farmers’), and fem.
nouns as with Gaiss – Gaissa (‘goat – goats’);
4. –er suffix, with the stem vowel umlauted where possible: e.g., masc. nouns
Mànn – Manner (‘man – men’), fem. nouns Hüen – Hiener (‘hen – hens’),
and neut. nouns, Hüs – Hieser (‘house – houses’).
Of the twelve Gilbert items examining variation in the formation of noun plurals,
four items investigated SG plural forms identical to the singular as described in (1) above
(two windows, room, plates, wagons), four targeted plural formation with SG stem
umlauting as described in (2) (two gardens, daughters, heads, cooking pots), and the
remaining four examined SG plurals similar to (3) involving SG plural affixes –e with or
without umlaut and –n (two pieces, cows, boys, goats).

Several phrases indirectly

provided the plural affix –er described in (4), as in “The little children see her,” SG Die
kleine Kinder sehen sie, URA D’ kleine Kinder sahne sie. The string of plural tasks
translated by 2009 TxAls speakers yielded the following predominant forms (Table 5.13):

200

Table 5.13: 2009 Texas Alsatian plural formation
1. no change Fansteř
Zimmeř
Talleř/Plàta253
Wàga
Hàfa
Gàrta

‘windows’
‘rooms’
‘plates’
‘wagons’
‘cooking pots’
‘gardens’

80 %252 Table 4.5
96 %
54/ 35%
100 %
55% 254 Table 5.14
78%

2. Umlaut

Tochteř
Kopf/Kepf
Kia

‘daughters’
‘heads’
‘cows’

63 %
50/50%
96 %

3. –a
(-wa)

Geisa
Bü(e)wa/
Bü(e)wala255

‘goats’
‘boys’

78 %
67/22 % Table 4.14

4. –er

Kindeř

‘children’

92 %

Table 5.14
Table 5.14

Gilbert’s (1972) Map 61 which surveyed plural formation for the item “two
windows,” SG zwei Fenster [fɛnstɐ] and URA zwei Fansteř [fanʃtəř], was discussed in
Chapter Four to substantiate the phonological distinction between [ɛ] in TxAls and [a] in
TxG in identical lexical contexts. Reviewing Table 4.5, this time with regard to plural
formation, shows that Gilbert’s (1972) eight fluent Alsatian-speaking participants in
Medina County all produced the prescribed URAMul plural form of no appended suffix
(as in SG). Three of the five participants noted earlier for dialect-mixing produced the
phonological variation [fɛnʃtəř].256 The re-sampling for the same item showed that 80%
(20/25) of this study’s participants produced the URA form. Two additional participants
252

Percentages are calculated upon the actual number of productions, i.e., they do not include “unknown”
and “not polled.”
253 One speaker identified this form (Plàta) as Castroville Alsatian “slang.”
254 The occurrence of multiple lexical variants such as Pfan, Topf, Geschirr, Schüssel, and Pot influenced
the percentage figures, as it did for the item Talleř/Plàta.
255 sing. Büa. Speakers also produced the diminutive form Bü(e)wala “little boys.”
256 Note SG/TxG influence of ε ~ a.

201

produced variants, Fanschteřs and Fanschtřa, the first257 likely influenced by English
plural forms, with the latter more likely a case of morphological transference of the URA
suffix –a added to most feminine nouns.
There was a high degree of concurrence of TxAls plural forms with those of URA
where (1) no change was stipulated (Fansteř, Zimmeř, Talleř, Wàga, Büa, Gàrta), or (2)
with those requiring the rarer ending –er (Kindeř), but plural forms with a vowel stem
umlaut showed variation (Tochter, Topf, and Kopf/Kepf). Table 5.14 - 5.16 tabulate the
2009 responses for the singular and plural forms of “head,” “cooking pot,” and
“daughters” (all of which involve a vowel stem umlaut in both URA and SG plural
formation) in order to investigate the degree of maintenance or loss of plural forms:

Table 5.14: 2009 Resampling of plural formation for Kopf (‘head’)
“head/s” in “my head” and “Two heads are better than one.”
SG Kopf/Köpfe, URA Kopf/Kepf
____________________________________________________________
Singular
Plural
(27)
____________________________________________________________
kɔpf

202, 233, 234, 235,
236, 237, 238, 239,
240, 241, 242, 243,
247, 248, 249a,
249b, 249c, 249d,
250, 251, 252a, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257

kɛpf

kɔpf

202, 234, 238, 239,
240, 241, 248, 249b,
250, 252b, 254, 256

12

233, 235, 236, 237,
247, 249a, 249c, 251,
252a, 253, 255, 257

12
26
[not polled: 242
1
(242), 243, 249d
3]
_____________________________________________________________

257

This participant was an Irish woman born in Poteet, who learned Alsatian when she married. She was
96 years old at the time of the interview.

202

One half of the 2009 participants have maintained the URA form, Kepf. Gilbert’s (1972)
data for Medina County (Map 29) showed that eleven of the thirteen (84%) TxAls
produced the URA plural form, Kepf. This indicates a decrease in use of this particular
plural form among TxAls speakers today. Table 5.15 examines the similar lexical item
Topf (‘pot’), which has an identical plural affix.
Table 5.15: Resampling of plural formation for Topf (‘pot’)
“cooking pot/s,” SG (Koch)topf/töpfe
URA (Koch)hàfa/ø oder (Koch)depfi
_____________________________________________________________
Singular
Plural
_____________________________________________________________
-hɔ:fɑ 202, 235, 237, 240,
(URA) 243, 249a, 249c,
249d, 251, 253,
257

11

-tɔpf (SG): 241, 250, 239,
252b

4

-hɔfɑ: (URA) 202, 237, 240,
241, 248, 249b,
249c, 249d,
251, 254, 257
11
-hɔfɑs
235
1
-tɔpf
239, 252b
2

-tøpfə (SG) ___________________________________
OTHER:
8+(2)
-pfɑn(lɑ)
234, (235), 236,
-pfɑn(lɑ)
238, 248, (250)
-tʃiř
247
-

6
236, 238, 250

-ʃʏsel

255

-ʃʏslɑ

255

-pɔt

233, 249b

-pɔt

233, 252a (pɔts)

Unknown:
[not polled:

252a, 253, 256
242

3
1

pl:

0

247, 253, 256
3
234, 242, 243,
249a
4]
______________________________________________________________

203

The lexical response Topf258 for “pot” was rarely given. The four participants who
produced Topf in the singular also produced the same form for the plural, although URA
plural forms show a stem umlaut (Depfi). The URA lexical variant Hàfa was preferred
by most informants. Overall, Gilbert’s (1972) data (Map 6) also showed a great deal of
variation in Medina County, with seven of the thirteen TxAls speakers producing -topf
(two were not polled), and only one producing –hàfa. This is almost a reversal of the
responses in my study, where twelve respondents produced –hàfa, and four –topf.

Table 5.16: Resampling of plural formation for Techteřa (‘daughters’)
“two daughters,” SG zwei Töchter
URA zwei Techteřa
___________________________________________________________
doxtəřɑ:
doxt(ə)ř:

202, 238, 254
3
233, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 248, 249b, 249d,
250, 251, 252a, 252b, 253, 255, 256, 257
17
doxtəřs
235, 247, 249a
3
maidla
234, 242, 249c, 243
4
____________________________________________________________

There was no Gilbert item which inquired into the singular form for SG Tochter
(‘daughter’). Table 5.16 shows that 2009 participants do not utilize the stem umlaut to
form the plural, and only three append the plural suffix –a. Most speakers produce the
same singular form for the plural, illustrating loss of the plural suffix –a for this item. On
the other hand, masculine nouns ending in –a (as in Hàfa) whose singular and plural
forms are identical have been maintained. This would indicate that there has been a
258

In general, this item posed difficulty for most of the respondents, reflected by hesitation, comments, and
discussions who would fluctuate between pfan, hafa, kessel and topf, or forget the word they had produced
between the tasks for the singular and plural. Contributing to the general confusion was the necessity for
most of them to take time separating the differences between these due to shape, size, and function.

204

general trend to use the singular form for the plural. This regularization of the singular
form, as with the definite article, points to a general reduction in morphological
markings, i.e., and an increase in zero markings (Salmons 1983: 193-4), who also noted
an increase in –s and –n markers.

The use of the –n plural marker indicating

convergence with TxG forms was not observed in my data, nor was the –s marker
observed with any significant frequency in narratives or translation tasks (with the
exception of Irish native speaker #234), which would indicate any regularity of
morphological transference of the English plural marker. There was some indication that
the diminutive –la was sometimes used as a strategy to compensate for uncertainty in
forming the plural. The next section examines the URA diminutive, -la.

5.4.4 The diminutive
The isogloss –el /-le for the diminutive belongs to the isogloss bundle which
roughly separates URA from LRA and runs just north of Colmar (see Illustration 4.2).
There are two variations of the diminutive in SG, –chen and –lein. The diminutive –chen
does not occur in URA, precluded by the lack of [ç]. The second form –lein is mainly
found in southern dialects with a great deal of variation: -el, -li, -la, -le. The diminutive
serves two general functions in relation to the noun (Iverson & Salmons 1992). One is to
express a physical diminution of an object, as in SG Haus-Häuschen, URA Hüss-Hüssla
(‘house-little house’), and the other is to express affection, as with names Klara-SG
Klärchen, URA Klara-Klärla. Diminutive constructions are also occasionally used to
make semantic distinctions, as in the case of SG Frauchen vs. Fräulein,259 which
differentiates between “pet owner” and “Miss.” It is also possible that some TxAls

259

Fräulein is now taboo in most contexts.

205

speakers use the diminutive as a morphological marker for the plural (Kartoffla, or a
Pfann/zwei Pfannla, #238).
Although neither Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) nor Philipp & Bothorel-Witz
(1989) specifically include the diminutive in their morphological descriptions, the former
often includes the diminutive ending –la in chapter dialogs, as in Tommy, hasch di
Gedichtla glehrt? (‘Tommy, did you learn the short poems?’) (Troxler-Lasseaux et al.
2003: 55), or a Diewala fir’s Louise! (‘a little pigeon for Louise!’) (Troxler-Lasseaux et
al. 2003: 73). No Gilbert (1972) items specifically investigated this feature, but the
translation task for “a girl” (Map 110) recorded several lexical variations (see Table 3.5),
such as Mädel, SG Mädchen, and URA Maidla, which are all diminutive forms based on
the archaic Magd (‘maiden’). Gilbert’s (1972) data shows the replication of the URA
diminutive exclusively in Medina County.

All twenty-seven 2009 participants also

produced the URA Maidla.
The recitation of the children’s rhyme Wie luschtig sin d’Mannala (‘How happy
are the little men’) introducing this chapter, is an informative example of the diminutive
brought by Alsatian speakers to Castroville and preserved by TxAls speakers today, not
only evidenced in translation tasks, but also in narrative portions of their interviews:
(5.6)
#234: Ař isch immř kumma mit a so kleina Säkla [candy]
‘He always came with a small little bag of candy.’
#239: Mir sin gwohnt drei Mile vu LaCoste, s’Stedtla vu LaCoste.
‘We lived three miles from LaCoste, the little town of LaCoste.’
The pronoun constitutes the last morphological feature associated with the noun
to be investigated regarding the extent of its preservation by current TxAls speakers.

206

5.4.5 Pronouns
This section examines personal pronouns in SG, URAMul, and TxAls, with
particular emphasis on the maintenance of case. The personal pronouns in URA, show
case and number, and in the 3rd pers.sing., gender. Some pronouns have distinct forms
marking case and number, as indicated by the table below.

Forms in parentheses

represent various forms in unstressed positions (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 323).
Table 5.17: URA personal pronouns260
URA

SG /gloss

1st
Nom.sing. [ix] (i)

ich ‘I’

Nom.pl.

[mɪř] (məř) wir ‘we’

Acc.sing.

[mɪx] (mi)

URA

SG/gloss

URA

2nd

3rd

[dy:] (də) du ‘you’

[a:ř] (əř)
[sɪ] (si)
[as] (s)
[sɪ] (si)

sie ‘they’

[ɪ:n] (n)
[sɪ] (si)

ihn ‘him’
sie ‘her’
es ‘it’

[ɪ:ř] (əř)

mich ‘me’ [dɪx] (di)

ihr ‘you’
dich ‘you’

[as, ɪ:ns]
Acc.pl.

[ʊns]

uns ‘us’

Dat.sing.

[mɪř] (məř) mir ‘me’

Dat.pl.

[ʊns]

uns ‘us’

SG/gloss

er ‘he’
sie ‘she’
es ‘it’

[ɛix]

euch ‘you’ [sɪ] (si)

sie ‘they’

[dɪř]

euch ‘you’ [ɪm] (əm)
[ɪř] (əř)
[ɪm] (əm)
euch ‘you’ [ɪ:nə]

ihm ‘him’
ihr ‘her’
ihm ‘him’

[ɛix]

ihnen ‘them’

Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 323) note the use of the acc.neut.sing. form ihns SG es
(‘it’) in several Alsatian dialects, which “can only designate a person of female sex,
generally a young girl.”
260

SG Rankin & Wells (2001: 221); URAMul Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003: 119); URACol Philipp &
Bothorel-Witz (1989: 323).

207

In the discussion of case markings and determiners in §5.4.2, the merger of the
nominative and accusative in URA noted by Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989) was
substantiated in TxAls. These authors also observed the incompleteness of this merger in
several Colmar determiner forms as well as in the pronominal system which showed the
maintenance of a three-way case distinction (N/A/D). This section investigates pronoun
use in TxAls to determine whether this three-way distinction has also been maintained.
Gilbert’s (1972) data offers eight opportunities to examine pronoun use in TxAls.
Five of the items investigate SG dative pronouns: mir (‘me’) (2), ihr (‘she’) (2), and
plural ihnen (‘them’) (1). The remaining three examine the acc.fem.sing. sie (‘her’) (1)
and the nom.pl. wir (‘we’) (2). Gilbert’s (1972) Map 28 and 34 recorded the responses
for the nom.pl. SG wir URA miř and the SG dat.fem. ihr URA iř. It is to be noted that
both these pronouns are shared by other TxG dialects, but the trilled ř distinguishes
TxAls from other dialects in Medina County. Unfortunately, in this data set, Gilbert’s
(1972) transcriptions did not differentiate between various realizations of /r/, which
would have definitively identified TxAls from speakers of other dialects in Medina
County. Table 5.18 shows Gilbert’s (1972) recorded responses and this study’s data for
the nom.pl. SG wir in Medina County:

208

Table 5.18: Resampling of nominative personal pronoun wir (‘we’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 28: “We went with her”
SG Wir gingen mit ihr, URA Miř sin mit ihnra gànga.
________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
________________________________________________________
mi(:)r (URA) 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
mi:ř (məř)
12, 14, 17, 19, 20,
202, 233, 234, 235,
21, 23, 24, 25, 26,
236, 237, 238, 239,
27
240, 241, 242, 247,
248, 249a, 249b,
249c, 249d, 250,
251,252a, 252b, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257
26: 100%
vi:r (SG)
2, 3, 5, (6), 11, 13,
(241)
15, 16, 18, 22
[not polled:
243
1]
_________________________________________________________

A total of eighteen Gilbert (1972) participants, including twelve of the thirteen Alsatian
speakers, produced the (URA) pronoun mir, illustrating this overlap of the pronoun with
other German dialects. Gilbert’s LG speakers (2, 11, 16, 22), however, all produced the
SG wir. Of importance here is that all 2009 TxAls speakers used the (URA) pronoun miř
or its unstressed variant meř with the apical trill.
Table 5.19 examines responses for SG dat.fem. pronoun ihr URA iř (unstressed
eř) after the preposition categorized for the dative, mit (‘with’):

209

Table 5.19: Resampling of dative personal pronoun ihr (‘her’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 34: “We went with her”
SG Wir gingen mit ihr, URA Miř sin mit ihnřa/ihř gànga.
________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
________________________________________________________
(SG) DAT.fem. i:r
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 15, 16, 17,
20, 21, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27
DAT. demonstatives:
9 (sa:ləř)
DAT.masc.
ACC.fem.
zi:, si:

(URA) iř, əř
202, 237, 238, 242,
247, 248, 251, 254
deř
salřə

239
-

im
234
dam 256
_________________________________
1, 5, 10, 14, 18, 19

233, 236, 240, 241,
249a, 255, 257

8: 31%
1
1
1

7: 27%

Other ACC pronoun forms:

sali f 235, 253
2
261
e:ns 252b
1
as
249b, 249c, 249d
3
ENG “her”
252a
1
he:
22
hɛ ř
250
1
[not polled:
243
1]
_________________________________________________________

Gilbert’s (1972) data show a 74% use of the dative marking [r] after the SG dative
preposition mit (‘with’), while only 35% of the 2009 participants produced the feminine
dative marking. Two other speakers produced the masculine form, which could have
been a result of misunderstanding the prompt. Still, if these are included, only 42%
responded with a form marked for the dative. 35% also used feminine accusative forms,

261

The pronoun ins is used for the accusative neuter “girl” in URA.

210

with an additional 15% producing the accusative neuter also acceptable in this context,
totaling a 50% usage of acceptable accusative forms. In general, the 2009 responses
show variation (including the insertion of the English pronoun “her”) in the usage of
dative and accusative forms, suggesting some merging of these two cases. Whether this
is due to external influences of language contact with English and other TxG dialects or
internal tendencies is difficult to ascertain.
A look at the production of the accusative plural pronoun SG sie URA sie
(‘them’) in the Gilbert’s (1972) phrase, “The little children see her,” is shown in Table
5.20.
Table 5.20: Resampling of accusative personal pronoun sie (‘her’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 32: “The little children see her.”
SG Die kleinen Kinder sehen sie, URA D’klaina Kindeř sahne sie.
________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
________________________________________________________
ACC.
zi:, si: 1, 5, 8, 10, 11,
12, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 27
as, ens (URA.neut):
ACC. demonstratives:
di:
sali (URA) 9
DAT.
(SG) i:r

(URA si:)
202, 234, 236, 237, 238,
239, 240, 241, 247, 248,
249a, 250, 251, 253, 254,
255, 256, 257
249b, 249d, 252a, 252b

18: 78%
4: 17%

(250)
235

(1)
1: 4%

2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14,
15, (21), 26

ENG
høɐ
4, 16
unknown:
233, 249c
2
not polled:
242, 243
2
________________________________________________________
211

The Gilbert (1972) informants showed variation between the accusative (59%) and dative
(33%) pronouns, whereas the 2009 participants all produced an acceptable variant of
accusative pronouns (96% produced an accurate translation of “her”). In reviewing these
2009 results with the previous table, there appears to be loss of dative pronouns, such as
those for “her,” but particularly for the URA dative “them.” For instance, only two
participants in this study could produce the dative plural pronoun in the phrase, “The
picture belongs to them.” Table 5.21 illustrates the use of first person pronouns
Table 5.21: 2009 Resampling of first person pronoun in nom/acc/dat contexts
______________________________________________________
“We went with her,” URA Miř sin mit ihnra gànga.
(a) NOM [mi:ř (meř)] (Table 5.16)
[not polled:
__________________________________
“He pinches me,” URA Ař pfatzt mich.

26: 100%
1]

(b) ACC [mɪx (mi)]

202, 234, 235, 236, 237,
239, 240, 241, 247, 249a,
249c, 249d, 250, 251,
252a, 252b, 254, 255,
256, 257
20: 91%
dɪx
238
1
si:
248
1
unknown: “pinches”
253
1
[not polled:
233, 242, 243, 249b
4]
__________________________________
“He came with me, “URA Ař isch mit meř kuma.
(c) DAT [mi:ř (meř)]

202, 234, 235, 236, 237,
238, 239, 241, 242, 247,
248, 249c, 249d, 250,
251, 252b, 254, 255,
256, 257
20: 80%
mɪx
240, 249a, 249b, 252a, 253
5
unknown:
233
1
[not polled:
243
1]
_______________________________________________________
212

The first person singular pronouns seem to be fairly intact in all positions, as illustrated
by Table 5.21. The nominative miř (‘I’) is produced by all polled TxAls speakers, the
accusative mich (‘me’) by 87%, and the dative miř (‘me’) by 77% in the above phrases.
19% of the speakers produced the accusative pronoun mich in the dative context,
indicating some loss of the dative form.

There was also noticeable difficulty in

producing the 2nd person plural iř ‘you’ produced in the one phrase, “You were both here
yesterday,” which investigated equivalent translations of the English past tense. These
responses are shown in Table 5.22.
Table 5.22: Resampling of nominative personal pronoun ihr (‘you’)
Gilbert(1972) Map 99: “You were both here yesterday.”
SG Ihr wart beide gestern hier, URA Iř sin baida geschtert do gseh.
_________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
_________________________________________________________
i(:)r zin(t) (URA):
8, 9, 19, 21, 22
23, 24, 25, 27

i:r vɑrt (SG)
i:r vɑ:rən

1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10,
11, 12, 15, 17
18

Other pronouns:
§ 1st/3rd pl.
2, 4, 13, 14, 17, 20
nd rd
Sing. 2 /3
Unknown:

202, 237, 238, 239, 247,
248, 249b, 249c, 250,
251,252b, 253, 254,
256, 257
-

15: 71%

-

234, 236, 255, 241
235 (dü/ɑř), 252a (dü)
240, 249a

4: 19%
2: 10%
2

[not polled: 26
233, 242, 243, 249d
4]
_________________________________________________________

213

Despite the usual hesitation and contemplation, 65% of the 2009 informants produced the
URA nominative plural form, which perhaps can be accounted for by its nominative
function in this phrase. Almost without exception, TxAls speakers circumvent the use of
the 2nd person pronouns iř (nom.) and eich (acc., dat.) in conversation, directly addressing
the person with dü. In general, however, the URA personal pronoun system has been
maintained fairly consistently by a majority of the TxAls speakers, as the above analyses
have shown.
Besides personal pronouns, the URA relative pronoun wu262 (‘who/m, that’) is
also still used by a number of TxAls speakers who produce complex sentences, as in the
following examples:
(5.7)
#234: un hàn mit d’ Wiebr, wu kla:i Babies kà hàn, . . .
SG: und haben mit den Weibern, die kleine Babies gehabt haben, . . .
‘and washed for the women, who had small babies’
#239: drno sin mir in nàmliga Hüs gsei, wu mini Muettr isch dett g’labt
SG: Danach sind wir in demselben Haus gewesen, wo meine Mutter
gelebt hat
‘after that we were in the same house, where my mother lived’
#248: Dert isch der Mànn wu n ich will sah.
SG: Da ist der Mann, den ich sehen will.
‘there is the man who I want to see.’ (see Table 5.22)
This last speaker reproduces the insertion –n in front of an initial vowel as described by
Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989: 332), reminiscent of French liaison.
URA has only one uninflected relative pronoun wu (‘who, that’) used to introduce
all relative clauses of an antecedent, whether the noun be a person, place, or thing.
Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003: 119) state that the relative pronoun in URAMul “es
262

Wu is also used for the conjunction als or wenn (‘when’), as in “Mir han Elsass g’reddt, wu mir in
d’Schüel sin (#234) ‘we spoke Alsatian when we were in school.’

214

invariable et unique. Wu est utilisé pour qui et que, sujet ou complément.”263 The
relative pronoun does not show number, gender, or case. Comparatively, the SG relative
pronouns show number, gender, and case, and are as varied as its determiners. Table
5.23 shows the inflected relative pronoun forms in SG:
Table 5.23: SG personal relative pronouns
(Rankin & Wells 2001: 334)
Masc.

Fem. Neut.

Pl.

Nom der

die

das

die

Acc

den

die

das

die

Dat

dem

der

dem

denen

Gen

dessen deren dessen denen

Two Gilbert translation tasks investigated the use of the relative pronoun /vʊ/, one in an
accusative masculine context and the other in a plural.

263

“It is invariable and unique. Wu is used for who and what, subject or object.”

215

Table 5.24: Resampling of relative pronouns
Gilbert (1972) Map 37: “There’s the man who I want to see.”
SG Da ist der Mann, den ich sehen will,
URA Dert isch dř Màn, wu n ich sahna will.
____________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972): 27
Roesch (2009)
27
____________________________________________________________
vo (colloq.):
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 24, 25, 27
sal
vas
de:n (SG)
Ø

vʊ (URA):
202, 233, 234, 235, 236,
237, 238,* 239, 241,
247, 248,* 250, 251,
252b, 254, 255, 257
17
* vu –n ich

23
1, 2, 3, 10, 12, (14),
15, 16
5, 11
26

253

1

240, 249a, 249c, 252a,
256

5

[not polled:
242, 243, 249b, 249d
4]
____________________________________________________________

Sixteen Gilbert participants (59%) produced the more colloquial pronoun wo as the
relative pronoun for the SG masculine noun Mann (‘man’). Eleven of the thirteen
Alsatian speakers used this same pronoun, and the twelfth speaker employed the URA
demonstrative sal (‘that’). It is not possible to ascertain whether these same speakers
produced the front unrounded vowel /ʊ/ indicative of URA due to the notation practices
of the fieldworkers. The other colloquial German form was (‘what’), that also does not
show gender, case, or number, was used by 30% of the participants in Gilbert’s study.
Seventeen of the twenty-three participants (74%) who were able to render the phrase in
Alsatian used the URA relative pronoun wu, which shows a high degree of preservation
216

of this form. This is not surprising, as there is only one relative pronoun versus SG’s
sixteen. However, it is surprising that such a large percentage still produce complex
sentences utilizing a relative pronoun.
This concludes the analyses on various grammatical representations of the noun in
functions of case, number, and gender. I now turn briefly to the verb to examine the
degree of maintenance of URA distinctive features by current Alsatian speakers in
Medina County.

5.5 THE UPPER RHINE ALSATIAN VERB
There is also areal variation within the regional URA dialect for the verb as
evidenced by differences between the Mulhouse description given by Troxler-Lasseaux et
al. (2003) and the Colmar dialect described by Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989). This will
be indicated by providing alternate forms in parentheses.
URA maintains strong, weak, preterite-present and monosyllabic verbs indicative
of Low Alemannic. Monosyllabic verbal infinitives do not exist in SG, and are rare in
URA (TxALs lexical items from the EW are provided for comparison):

217

Table 5.25: Upper Rhine Alsatian monosyllabic verbs

URAMul (Col)264

TxAls (EW)

SG

Gloss

1. ga

gawa,265 abga

geben

‘to give’

2. geh [ke:]

gey

gehen

‘to go’

3. hà

[hɑ]

hon

haben

‘to have’

4. loh

[lʊ:]

los

lassen

‘to let’

5. sah

[sa:]

sah

sehen

‘to see’

6. see [si:]

sey

sein

‘to be’

7. steh [ʃte:]

steh

stehen

‘to stand’

[ka:]

The infinitives of other verbs end in –a [-ə] (see Table 5.27). Like most Upper German
dialects, URA employs only the present perfect tense to express the past and exhibits no
preterite tense (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 328). The future is mainly expressed via
temporal adverbials such as morga (‘tomorrow’) or nachschta Wucha (‘next week’) with
the present tense (also acceptable in SG) in Colmar, but Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003:
120) describe the Mulhouse dialect as forming the future with wara [vɔ:řə] SG werden
(‘to become’) + infinitive as in SG. The passive voice is formed with the verb wara (SG
werden) and past participle in both areas, as also prescribed in SG. Philipp & BothorelWitz (1989) state that the present subjunctive (Subjunctive I) of indirect speech is used

264

Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003: 121) only provided orthographic representations, while Philipp &
Bothorel-Witz (1989: 326) represented these monosyllabic verbs phonetically. Note the variation between
Mulhouse and Colmar forms for “to see” and “to let.”
265 The infinitive given most likely represents a variation in TxAls, both in form and meaning. The
infinitive for SG abgeben (‘to hand in, deliver, surrender’) was designated as abga (‘to give up’), and SG
ausgeben (‘to spend’) as üsgawa (‘to distribute, disperse’).

218

solely by the older generation in Colmar, and Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) note that the
Subjunctive I is encountered only in the present tense for the auxiliaries see and hà. The
conditional for the temporal auxiliaries is well-attested in both dialect areas.
Strong and weak verbs distinguish between three personal endings in the singular
( -ø, -sch, -t), but only one in the plural (-a), whereas the other verbs exhibit varying
forms in the singular, but also one form in the plural (Phillip & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 324,
Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003: 120):
Table 5.26: URA verb endings
URA màcha [mɔxɑ] SG machen (‘make, to do’)
Person

Stem

URA

SG

Gloss

ending ending
ich

màch -

e

‘I make’

dü

màch sch

st

‘you make’

ar, as, sie màch t

t

‘he, it, she makes’

mir

màch a

en

‘we make’

ihr

màch a

t

‘you make’

sie

màch a

en

‘they make’

Unlike SG, weak verbs and most strong verbs (1 - 4) maintain the same stem vowel in the
present as in the infinitive. In SG, the second and third person often exhibit an umlauted
vowel in the present, e.g., ich schlafe, du schläfst, er schläft (‘I sleep, you sleep, he
sleeps’). However, there is vowel gradation between the infinitive and the past participle
of strong verbs, as shown in Table 5.27:

219

Table 5.27: Infinitive and past participle verb forms
URA

SG

URA Past participle

Gloss

1. heera, hera hören

g’heert

[khe:rt]

‘to hear’

2. màcha

machen

g’màcht

[gmɔxt]

‘to do, make’

3. assa

essen

gassa

[āasə]

‘to eat’

4. bàcha

backen

gabàcha [āəbɔxə]

‘to bake’

5. finda

finden

g’funda [gfʊndə]

‘to find’

6. halfa

helfen

g’hulfa

[khʊlfə]

‘to help’

6. namma

nehmen

g’numma [gnʊmə]

‘to take’

7. schriewa

schreiben

g’schriwa [gʃři:və]

‘to write’

8. verliara

verlieren

verlora

[fɛ:lɔřə]

‘to lose’

The past participle is formed with the prefix g- in URA, which is often pronounced as /k-/
before certain initial consonants, e.g. URA g’keert [khe:rt], SG gehört (‘heard’). Strong
verb past participles end in an unstressed /ɑ/ or /ə/,266 as in URA g’hulfa [khulfə], SG
geholfen (‘helped’) and weak verb past participles end in /t/ as in URA gwascht [kvaʃt],
SG gewaschen (‘washed’). Three irregular temporal auxiliaries are utilized to form the
present perfect and future tenses (Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003: 121): (1) URA hà, SG
haben (‘to have’), (2) URA see, SG sein (‘to be’), and (3) URA wara, SG werden (‘to
become’). The authors also provide a full declination of the indicative, conditional, and
266

In URAMul, the infinitive ends in the unstressed vowel /ɑ/ expressed by the grapheme a. Further to the
north, in URACol, the infinitive is described as ending in /ə/. In TxAls, there is also variation of /ɑ/ and /ə/
in utterances of the infinitive, with the distinction between these two sounds difficult to detect. In the EW,
it is recorded with the grapheme e.

220

subjunctive forms of these verbs. The following tables depict indicative conjugations of
URAMul see and hà used to form the present perfect, which provide a comparative basis
when examining TxAls:
Table 5.28: Temporal auxiliaries
URA [se:] SG sein (‘to be’) and [hɔ] SG haben (‘to have’)
(URACol in parentheses)
present

present + participle
ich

bin

ich

hàn (hà)

dü

bisch

dü

hàsch (hesch)

ar, as, sie isch
mir

sin

ihr
sie

g’see [kse:]

ar, as, sie hàt (het)

(g’si)

mir

hàn (han)

sin

ihr

hàn (han)

sin

sie

hàn (han)

+ participle

g’hà [khà]
(g’het)

Again, there is slight regional variation in past participle forms and in all
declinations of hà (‘to have’). In fact, there is great variation throughout the Alsace in
these forms of the temporal auxiliaries hà SG haben (‘to have’) and see SG sein (‘to be’),
as exemplified by Philipp & Weider’s (2002: 98) map of the present perfect forms of
haben in Illustration 5.1.

221

Illustration 5.1: ALS present perfect forms of haben (Philipp & Weider 2002)
222

For example, viewing the variations of hà immediately pinpoints a speaker’s use267 of
one of these forms with a fairly exact locality. Illustration 5.1 (Philipp & Weider 2002:
98), shows the variation in the present perfect forms of hà, and reveals the capability of
correlating a specific form to its exact geographic location. According to this 2002
representation, Philipp & Bothorel-Witz’ (1989) description already reveals a southward
spread of the middle Alsatian forms. The TxAls form [hann khà:] SG wir haben gehabt
(‘we had’) is easily matched with the URAMul form mr hann khȧȧ.

268

The historical preterite-present verbs derfa SG dürfen (‘to be allowed to’), müessa
(mien) SG müssen (‘to have to’), solla SG sollen (‘to be supposed to’), mega (maje) SG
mögen (‘to want’), kenna SG können (‘to be able to’), and wella SG wollen (‘to want’),
constitute the set of modal auxiliaries in URA (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 327;
Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003: 121). A participle with g- does not exist in URA as in SG
(Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 327), whether in Mulhouse or Colmar. Instead, the
infinitive is used. An interesting feature of the modal present perfect is its syntactic
positioning in the sentence.

In URA, the modal precedes the dependent infinitive,

whereas in SG (Rankin & Wells 2001: 107-8), it follows the dependent infinitive.

In

SG, this double infinitive construction is preferred over the past participle in constructing
the present perfect to the past participle, but with the modal infinitive in last position
(modal infinitives and their auxiliary are italicized, dependent infinitives are underlined):

267

Philipp & Weider (2002: 13) note: „Als allgegenwärtige unbetonte Elemente der Rede sind sie als
Grundpfeiler einer jeden Äußerung zu betrachten. Die Häufigkeit und die Mannigfaltigkeit der Belege
sorgen dafür, dass sie von jedem Sprecher unbewusst benutzt werden und immer ‚echt’ klingen.“
(‘As speech elements that are never stressed, they [pres.perf. forms] can be viewed as the mainstay of every
utterance. The frequency and variation of these forms ensures that they are used unconsciously by every
speaker and always sound native-like.’)
268 Philipp & Weider utilize the following transcription conventions: Vowel length is denoted by a double
vowel; å is used for what they describe as a velarized /a/. Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989) consistently use
the lax vowel notation a for this velarized /a/, but Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003) transcribe this as /ɔ/.

223

(5.8):
URA: Ař hàt nitt kenna tànza.
SG: Er hat nicht tanzen können.
‘he could not dance.’
The TxAls representation of this syntactic maintenance of the URA modal verbs is
examined in §5.7. The following section discusses maintenance of the URA verb tenses
and forms.

5.6 THE VERB IN TEXAS ALSATIAN
Compared with its URA donor dialect(s), TxAls exhibits a reduction in verb
function associated mainly with mood and voice, but tense and inflectional endings have
been maintained to a remarkable degree. For example, TxAls has maintained strong and
weak verbs ((§5.6.1), modal auxiliaries (§5.6.3) (including the emphatic or conditional
modal düe), and LAlem monosyllabic verbs (cf. Table 5.25). Not surprisingly, the past
tense is communicated exclusively via the “double perfect” which utilizes the URA
temporal auxiliaries hà [hɔ] SG haben (‘to have’) and see [se:] SG sein (‘to be’) (see
§5.6.2).

The following sub-sections examine past tense representations and the

functional nature and scope of temporal and modal auxiliaries.

5.6.1 The present perfect tense
Upper German dialects typically do not exhibit preterite forms and express the
past tense with the present perfect. In the Standard, at least, preterite forms are mainly
confined to formal written registers except for the limited use of certain preterite forms of
temporal (war ‘was’, hatte ‘had’) and modal auxiliaries (wollte ‘wanted’, konnte ‘could’)
in oral contexts. The gradual loss of the preterite in Upper and Middle German dialects
224

and in German Sprachinseln has been well-documented (e.g., Rowley 1983, Louden
1988, Nützel 1998, Rosenberg 2003) and is generally attributed to internal developments.
Gilbert (1972) also records general loss of the preterite in responses to three items which
specifically investigated the translation of the past tense into preterite or present perfect
forms (Gilbert’s items targeting verb forms focused on present indicative forms).
Boas (2009a: 224), however, reports a degree of variability in the use of the
preterite among New Braunfels informants. For example, Boas records a significant rise
(58%) in use of the preterite for Gilbert’s item “He arrived yesterday,” SG Er kam
gestern (an) versus a downward trend in the use of the preterite for the phrases “We went
home” and “You were both here yesterday,” and expresses a need to analyze more verbs.
For TxAls speakers, however, the results should be fairly obvious given the absence of
the preterite in URA varieties. The above-mentioned Gilbert items are evaluated in the
following Tables 5.29, 5.30, and 5.31, which investigated the use of the present perfect
versus the preterite for past tense translations. Boas’ (2009a) results are shown in italics
on the far right for comparison.

225

Table 5.29: Present perfect versus preterite for SG kommen (‘to come’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 97: “He arrived yesterday.”
SG Er kam gestern (an),269 URA Ař isch geschteřt àkumma.
________________________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972):
27
Roesch (2009):
27
Boas (2009a)
________________________________________________________________________
Perfect: ist . . . gekommen

(96%)

isch . . . kumma

(100%)

subj + fin.v.(ist) + adv. + p.part.:
(25): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 27

(11): 236, 237, 239,270
241, 247, 249a,*271
249c, 252b, 253,
254, 255

subj + fin.v.(ist) + p.part. + adv.:272
-

(11): 202, 234, 235, 238,
240, 248, 250, 251,
252a, 256, 257*

Preterite:
subj + pret. + adv.: (1): 11273

(4%)

(0%)

40%

58%

-

[Not polled: 26
(5): 233, 242, 243, 249b, 249d]
________________________________________________________________________
Both Gilbert’s (1972) responses and the 2009 resampling show almost exclusive use of
the present perfect tense for the SG separable verb ankommen (‘to arrive’). Conversely,
Boas (2009a)’ figures show a high percentage (58%) of use of the preterite form kam in
269

The SG verb for “to arrive” is actually ankommen, and the separable prefix would occur at the end of
the sentence: Er kam gestern an.
270 This speaker placed the adverb first (adv + fin.v.(ist) + subj + p.p.), which also constitutes an acceptable
grammatical construction.
271 The asterisk indicates speakers who utilized a form of the grammatically incorrect temporal auxiliary
URA hàn or SG haben, instead of URA see or SG sein.
272 This variant does not follow SG or URA word order, i.e. the past participle’s placement at the end of a
clause or sentence. Word order is discussed in §5.7.
273 Gilbert (1972: 17) participant #11, born in 1888, studied law for 4.5 years, indicating a high level of
education, which might account for his use of the preterite. His father was a Bavarian “who never used
dialect.”

226

Comal County versus a 40% use of the SG “double perfect” sind…angekommen. The
second item which investigated use of the preterite versus present perfect examined the
SG strong verb gehen (‘to go’). The results are shown in Table 5.30.

Table 5.30: Present perfect versus preterite for SG gehen (‘to go’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 98: “We went home.”
SG Wir gingen nach Hause, URA Miř sin heim gànga.
________________________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972):
27
Roesch (2009):
27
Boas (2009a)
________________________________________________________________________
Perfect: sint. . .gəgaŋən

(93%)

subj. + fin.v. + past part.:
(25): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 27
Preterite: giŋən: 11, 26

URA: sin. . . gɔŋǝ

(100%)

92%

(19): 202,274 234, 235, 236,*
237, 238, 239, 241, 247,
248, 249a,* 249c, 250,
251, 252a,* 252b, 253,
254,275 255, 256, 257

(7%)

(0%)

8%

[Not polled:
(6): 233, 240, 242, 243, 249b, 249d]
________________________________________________________________________
This item, too, shows similar results to the above for Medina County data collected in
1972 and 2009, with the exception that Boas’ (2009a) data for Comal County also
mirrors the high frequency (92-100%) of use for the present perfect form. A third Gilbert
(1972) translation task investigated the SG strong verb sein (‘to be’), the results of which
are summarized in Table 5.31:

274

Speakers 202 and 237 produced the colloquial form which omits the past participle, but produces the
finite temporal auxiliary, as in Mir sin heim (ganga).
275 3rd person sing. was used: Ař isch haim gànga.

227

Table 5.31: Present perfect versus preterite for SG sein (‘to be’)
Gilbert (1972) Map 99: “You were both here yesterday.”
SG Ihr wart beide gestern hier, URA Ihr sin baida gäschtert do gsee.
________________________________________________________________________
Gilbert (1972):
27
Roesch (2009):
27
Boas (2009a)
________________________________________________________________________
Perfect:
SG: i:r sait . . .gəvesən
(2): 8,276 16277
URA: i:r sin . . . kse(:)/ksi
(7): 9, 19, 21, 23,
24, 25, 27

(w/o p.part.):
(1): 22
Preterite:
va:rt: (12): 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
10, 11, 12, 15, 17,
18280
st
rd
§: 1 / 3 pl.:281
(4): 4, 13, 14, 20

(35%)

(3%)

(91%)

6%

(20):
202, 234, 235, 237, 238,
239, 240, 241,278 247,
249a, 249c, 250, 251,
252a,279 252b, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257
(9%)
(2): 236, 248

(61%)

(0%)

94%

-

[not polled: 26
(5): 233, 242, 243, 249b, 249d]
________________________________________________________________________
For this item, both the Gilbert (1972) and Boas (2009a) data show higher
percentages for the SG preterite form wart (‘were’). The Comal County results show a
complete switch with the 2009 participants in Medina County. All but two (91%) of this

276

i:r sint baidə dǫ kwe:zə gestəat (SG past part used: gewesen).

277

ji: hept baid hi:ɒ vest xystɒ (LG: ‘they had both here been yesterday’).
sie wořa baidə do: kse: geschtert (auxiliary in past perfect form).
279 2nd pers.sing. dü bisch... kse: (incorrect pronoun).
280 i:r va:rən (incorrect verb form for you.pl).
281 This symbol was not designated for either perfect or preterite, and is thus noted separately.
278

228

study’s 2009 participants produced some form of the present perfect.282 The results for
the 2009 Medina County participants are not surprising, as URA no longer exhibits a
preterite tense for the past. My TxAls narratives show only rare usage of preterite forms,
which were occasionally produced by participants with a TxG parent. (This occurrence
in speakers with exposure to both dialects suggests that these preterite forms were
acquired in intense contact situations.) The retention of preterite forms for sein and
haben evidenced in modern German today points to internal factors which might also
account for the strong preterite response in both Gilbert’s (1972) and Boas’ (2009a) data.
However, the mixed results for the SG verb ankommen (‘to arrive’) are puzzling and
require additional analysis of other verbs.

5.6.2 Temporal auxiliaries
There is variation within the URA area in expressing the future tense as also
found in colloquial SG. Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1989) note a future tense indicated by
temporal adverbials using present tense forms, while Troxler-Lasseaux et al. (2003)
describe a future tense which uses the auxiliary wara SG werden (‘to become’) as in SG.
No Gilbert (1972) item targeted the future tense, and TxAls speakers used temporal
adverbials to indicate the future, mainly using wara in passive constructions. Therefore,
the following analyses will focus on the two other temporal auxiliaries hà and see, which
are used with the past participle to form the present perfect tense in TxAls.
The present perfect of URA see (‘to be’) is formed by using a finite form of the
temporal auxiliary see and the past participle g’see (g’si) (refer to Table 5.28). The only
Gilbert translation item which targeted a past tense representation of the strong verb sein

282

This encompasses the two speakers who produced the colloquial form which omits the obvious past
participle, but produces the V1 finite temporal auxiliary, as in Mir sin heim (gànga).

229

which included the past participle was “You were both here yesterday,” SG Ihr wart
beide hier gestern (see Table 5.31). Fortunately, the distinguishing form of the past
participle g’see/g’si unique to Medina County participants was shown in Gilbert
transcriptions as compared to the prevailing preterite form [va:rt] in other counties:
(5.9): URA: Ihr sin gäschtert baida (baidi) do gsee (gsi).
a. MED 9:
b. MED 19:

[i: ř zint baidi: du: ksi: gestəřt]
[i: ř zint baidə do: ksi: geʃtəř]

c. MED 21:
d. MED 22:

[i: r zint be:də do: kse: geʃteřt]
[i: r zint baidə hi: ř gestəř]

e. MED 23:

[i: ř zint baidə do gəze:]

f. MED 24:

[i: ř zint baidə do ksə gestəř]

g. MED 25:

[i: ř zint baidi: do: gəzint gestəřt]

h. MED 27:

[i: ɒ sint baidi dǫ ksi: gestəɒt]

There is evidence of both Colmar and Mulhouse forms of the past participle and
baida (‘both’). It is also interesting that the transcriptions show a SG 2nd pers.pl. suffix –t
for the URA unitary form sin. Unfortunately, the responses for “We went home” in
Medina County were not transcribed separately, but in light of the 100% maintenance of
the present perfect form sin . . . heimgànga in the productions of 2009 TxAls participants,
it is probable that these Alsatian forms were used during the collection of Gilbert’s data.
TxAls speakers often produce the present perfect in narratives, as in the following
examples (see the transcripts in Appendix F for additional examples).

230

(5.10): TxAls present perfect forms of [se:] (‘sein’),
e.g., fin.v. of [se:] + [kse:]
a. #234:

Dü saisch nia nix, wu bisch dü g’se:i?
‘You never say anything, where were you?’

b. #251:

Min Vàter isch a Schrienř g’se:i.
‘My father was a carpenter.’

c. B. T.: 283

Awer schlimste und g’farlichste sin der Indianer g’sey.
‘But the worst and most dangerous were the Indians.’

(5.11): TxAls present perfect forms of [hɑ] (‘to have’),
e.g. fin.v. of [hɑ] + [khɑ:]
a. #240:

Ei Familia hàt dřei junga Büewela kàà.
‘One family had three young boys.’

b. #202:

Sall Zit hàn miř kà Hoschpital kàà.
‘At that time we didn’t have hospitals.’

c. B.T.:

In da letchte johr han mir oie veil fraid ka.
‘Last year we too had a lot of happy times.’

Although TxAls has mainly retained the temporal auxiliaries hà and see, there are
also examples of the auxiliary wařa SG werden (‘to become’) and its past participle
gwořa SG geworden) (‘became’), such as in #254’s remark, Sini Tant isch krank gwoořa
(‘his aunt became ill’). However, most of the instances of the past participle are passive
constructions, where wařa is used as a modal auxiliary. These modal auxiliaries are
discussed in the following section.

283

B.T.’s letters constitute the only documents known to me written in Alsatian by a TxAls speaker and
illustrate how this particular speaker perceived his spoken language.

231

5.6.3 Modal auxiliaries
As introduced in the previous section, wařa (SG werden) is also used as a modal
auxiliary in ALS to form the passive voice. As modal auxiliaries were not investigated
by Gilbert (1972), I continue to rely on transcribed data from the open-ended interview
sessions to show maintenance of these auxiliary verbs. In ALS as in SG, the past
participle of the auxiliary verb for the passive voice is not preceded by the ge- prefix, but
instead, exhibits a shortened form, wořa (SG worden). Example (5.12) shows some
examples of the passive constructions in the present perfect used by TxAls speakers:
(5.12):
a. #240:

D’ meischti hàn alli Ànglisch un es isch gàř z’halba
veřgassa wořřa.
‘Most spoke all English and it was completely or half
forgotten.’

b. #234:

Wu’ř vergřàv woořa isch, sin alli di ältscht davořna gsatzt
mit dr Wàg.
‘When he was buried, all the eldest (sisters) sat up front on
the wagon.’

As previously mentioned, no Gilbert item investigated the passive voice, but Eikel (1954)
included a translation item in his list which elicited the passive in the sentence, “The
pillow slips were changed this morning,” (SG Die Kopfkissenbezüge wurden heute
gewechselt).284

284

SG favors the preterite form, wurden, but the present perfect is equally acceptable: Die Kopfkissenbezüge sind heute gewechselt worden.”

232

(5.13):
Eikel 3.8:
SG:

The pillow slips were changed this morning.
Die Kopfkissenbezüge wurden heute morgen gewechselt.

a. #202:

’S Kopfkissi hàn miř schãnschiert hett mořga.
‘We changed the pillowcases this morning.’

b. #253:

Miř hàn neei Kopfkissi hit mořga.
‘We have new pillowcases this morning.’

The informants who were asked to translate passive Eikel items285 in (5.13) seemed to
favor the active voice, but produced the perfect tenses with no apparent difficulty during
the interview sessions (5.12), which might indicate different cognitive processes involved
between translation tasks and natural discourse.
The most frequently-occurring modals müessa (‘must’) and kenna (‘can’) (Werlen
1985: 9), however, are also the modals used most often in TxAls. Wella (‘want’) and
solla (‘ought to’) are also frequently heard,286 but the use of derfa (‘may’) and mega (‘to
like’) was rarely observed. The modal auxiliary düe SG tun (‘to do’) is also used by
TxAls speakers to express the conditional.287 The following excerpts in (5.14) illustrate
the fluent incorporation of these modal auxiliaries in TxAls narratives (the modals
auxiliaries are underlined once and their infinitive complement, twice):

285

This was only done with a few informants as time and health circumstances permitted.
This was the third most frequently-occurring modal in Werlen’s study (1985: 9).
287 For a thorough discussion of the functions of the verb tun (‘to do’) in German dialects, see Langer
(2001).
286

233

(5.14):
a. #202:

Will sie kenne anandř nitt versteh un sie mien Anglisch
ředa.
‘Because they can’t understand each other and they have to
speak English.’

b.

Ař hat gsaijt, miř solla řuwakumma un woohna mit deena.
‘He said we should come over there and live with them.’

#254a:

c. #239:

D. hat gsaijt, „Nei, dü sollsch nitt so řeeda.”
‘D. said, “No, you shouldn’t talk like that”.’

d. #234:

Un ich han gsait, “Ich wull dou kumma geh schaffa.”
‘And I said, “I want to come here to work”.’

e.

Ař kànn Elsassich güet versteh, àwr ar kànn nitt so güet
ředda.
‘He can understand Alsatian well, but he can’t speak so
well.’

#240:

The examples above also generally reflect the acceptable inflection of the URA modal, as
well as the placement of the infinitive complement at the end of the phrase.
A participle with g- does not exist for the TxAls modal verbs, nor does one exist
in any of the Upper Rhine dialects (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989: 327), whether in
Mulhouse or Colmar. Instead, a present perfect double infinitive is used:
(5.15):
a. #254:

Miř hàn iř müessa halfa.
‘We had to help her.’

b. #239:

Àwř miř hàn müen alles màcha.
‘But we had to do everything.’

c. #254a:

Ař hat nitt wulla zahla.
‘He didn’t want to pay.’

d. #202:

In d’Speelzit hasch dü nitt duřfe Elsassisch ředa.
‘During recess you weren’t allowed to speak Alsatian.’
234

The syntax of this construction is addressed in the following section.

5.7 SYNTAX OF DOUBLE INFINITIVES AND PRESENT PERFECT CONSTRUCTIONS
In SG, the double infinitive construction is preferred over the past participle in
constructing the past tense of modal verbs. The prescribed order shows the modal
infinitive in final position (see Example 5.8). However, in URA, the modal infinitive
precedes the dependent infinitive. This same order is consistently reproduced in the
speech of TxAls speakers (the finite form of the temporal auxiliary hàn is italicized,
dependent infinitives are underlined once, and modal infinitives are underlined twice):
(5.16)
a. #239:
SG:

Sie hàt nia in d’Schüel kenna geh.
Sie hat nie in die Schule gehen können.
‘She never was able to go to school.’

b. #239:
SG:

Un z’Ove hàn miř widdř heim müessa kumma.
Und zum Abend haben wir wieder heim kommen müssen.
‘And in the evening we had to come home again.’

c. #240:

Mř hàn müesse ředa mit salli un elsassisch isch widdeř
zurukumma.
Wir haben mit ihnen reden müssen und das Elsässisch ist
wieder zurückgekommen.
‘We had to talk with them and the Alsatian came back.’

SG:

d. #234:
SG:

Mir hàn müessa d’heim bliewa un d’Ma ha:lva malka fer a
Lawa màcha.
Wir haben zu Hause bleiben müssen und die Mutter
melken helfen (müssen), um genug zum Leben zu
machen.
‘We had to stay home and help mama milk (the cows) to
make a living.’

235

e. #234:
SG:

Dann hàn ich d’Wiebeř müessa fuřtjaga, will sie all mitm
(hàn) tànza wulle.
Dann habe ich die Frauen fortjagen müssen, weil sie alle
mit ihm haben tanzen wollen.
‘Then I had to chase away the women, because they all
wanted to dance with him.’

As the examples above illustrate, not only is the URA infinitive order maintained in
simple sentences as in (5.16) a. - c., but is also maintained in complex sentences in (5.16)
d. and e.
A development which suggests external influence from contact with English is the
placement of temporal adverbials within the sentence. SG (and URA) prefers placement
of time directly after the finite V1 in SVO phrases and before items referring to Manner
and Place, whereas in English, time is allocated to last position. Both SG and English
have an optional first position for the adverbial of time.
(5.17)
SG:
URA:
ENG:

Ich war heute lang in der Schule.
Ich bin hett lang in d’Schüel g’sei.
I was at school a long time today.

Revisiting Gilbert’s (1972) data and my 2009 re-sampling in Table 5.28 “He
arrived yesterday,” the TxAls responses showed an even split between placing the SG
adverbial gestern URA geschtert (‘yesterday’) after the finite verb (5.18a.) and placing it
after the past participle (5.18b.). That is, half of the respondents placed the temporal
adverbial according to the URA/SG pattern, but the other half placed it according to the
English pattern. In comparison, 96% of Gilbert’s (1972) informants placed the temporal
adverbial after the finite verb.

236

(5.18) “He arrived yesterday.”
a. URA:
b. TxAls:
c. SG:

Ar isch geschtert ankumma.
Ar isch kumma geschtert.
Er kam gestern an.

There is unfortunately insufficient data available in Gilbert’s recordings to enable a
thorough examination which could adequately substantiate this syntactic shift.

5.8 SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
This chapter has focused on providing basic analyses of the maintenance of URA
morphosyntactic structures in TxAls as well as identifying variation and indices of
change.

In order to establish a comparative framework with which to substantiate

maintenance, I provided a description of the gender, case, and number properties of the
noun and verb in SG and URA. I further established a comparative parallel by which to
identify morphosyntactic developments by summarizing and displaying Gilbert’s 1972
responses for his twenty-seven participants in Medina County next to my twenty-seven
informants for the various features under examination, e.g. gender (Tables 5.6 and 5.7),
case (Tables 5.9 - 5.12), and number (Tables 4.5 and 5.13).
These analyses revealed a further simplification in progress of already-reduced
URA nominative/accusative definite articles marking noun gender d’r, d’, and ’s to d’.
This could be attributed to the tendency of dying languages to simplify their structure, but
could also be attributed to internal tendencies as already evidenced by the alreadysimplified Alsatian dialect. In contrast, there was a high degree of maintenance of dative
case markings indicating retention of the NA/D opposition characteristic of URA. Boas
(2009a: 209) also notes a tendency in New Braunfels TxG to maintain the characteristic
N/AD opposition characteristic of TxG donor dialects, i.e. a continued decrease in dative
237

case markings which indicate a movement toward a nominative/non-nominative
distinction already identified by Eikel (1949: 279) and Gilbert (1965: 109). This would
suggest that natural internal tendencies also play a role in the retention of URA dative
case markings in TxAls.
The high percentage of speakers who maintained the NA/D opposition after the
SG two-way preposition auf URA uf (‘on’) (Tables 5.11 and 5.12) would seem to support
the hypothesis that internal factors trigger this development. 84% of my 2009 informants
produced a correct dative marking in the situation marked for the dative following auf,
and 64% produced an accusative marking for that marked for the accusative.
A resampling of the personal pronouns which still maintains a three-way
distinction (N/A/D) showed a significant retention of all three case forms, particularly in
the first and third person singular. The 2009 informants produced selected first person
singular and plural to an extraordinary degree: 100% for URA nominative plural mir SG
wir (‘we’), 91% for the URA/SG accusative singular mich (‘me’), and 80% for the
URA/SG dative pronoun mir (‘me’) in Tables 5.18 and Tables 5.21. The URA/SG
feminine accusative pronoun sie (‘her’) was produced by 78% of the informants in “The
little children see her,” but there was a greatly reduced response (and an increase in
variants) of the URA/SG dative pronoun ihr after the preposition mit (‘with’) (Tables
5.19 and 5.20). Only 31% responded with the correct dative pronoun in “We went with
her” (but an additional 12% with other dative variants).

27% responded with the

URA/SG accusative pronoun sie and 22% with another accusative form, and two
responded with the English form “her”.

This counters Fuller & Gilbert’s (2003)

suggestion that the almost homophonous English pronoun “her” reinforces the
maintenance of the dative pronoun ihr.

238

There was overwhelming substantiation of the maintenance of URA verb finite
and non-finite forms in the present and past tenses, including complex modal
constructions involving a double infinitive. The resamplings of the Gilbert (1972) tasks
which investigated the preterite vis-à-vis the present perfect as a past tense revealed a
100% correct response of the present perfect forms for URA kumma and geh, and 91%
for see (the remaining 9% omitted the past participle—an acceptable colloquial practice).
I have shown that morphosyntactic structures of the Upper Rhine Alsatian (URA)
donor dialect have been transmitted largely intact, such as dative case markings, verb
tenses and forms, and distinctive demonstratives. For New Braunfels Texas German,
Boas (2009a: 238) too observed “the relative absence of significant morphosyntactic
changes indicative of language decay and language death” and that “overall, Texas
German is rapidly becoming extinct while its morphosyntactic structures of German
origin remain largely intact.” In the words of Dorian (1978: 608), Texas Alsatian also
appears to be dying with its “morphological boots on”. However, this analysis has only
investigated certain morphosyntactic features, some of which still require a great deal of
examination and analysis, as in the high retention of feminine and plural determiner and
pronoun forms, or how the properties of certain verbs might affect maintenance or loss of
case.
The last three chapters have examined structural features of TxAls. The next
chapter focuses on attitudes, dispositions, and beliefs of TxAls speakers that have aided
in maintaining the ancestral language to the present, as well as those which are triggering
its rapid decline.

239

CHAPTER SIX: LANGUAGE ATTITUDES
Back when we would go somewhere, they would say, no,
we’re not going to talk it, because, I don’t know, they were
kind of ashamed. I don’t know why. And some of the
people didn’t want to speak it at all. Well today, they’d
give their right arm if they could. But it’s lost.
--#251, January 2007

6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter investigates current speaker attitudes contributing to the maintenance
and decline of TxAls, and the implied underlying relationship between linguistic
assessment and social identity, given that language responds to shifts in societal
constellations. Whereas macro-level factors of immigration, (non-) urbanization, and
language politicization have been described and discussed in Chapters One and Two, this
chapter focuses on individual speaker attitudes and seeks to illustrate how preservation of
the ancestral language (AL) in the face of linguistic shift is also a socio-cultural “act of
identity” (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller 1985).288
The examination of speaker attitudes is crucial to understanding why TxAls
speakers have preserved their language to the extent shown in the previous chapters,
especially when they have chosen to retain marked phonological and morphosyntactic
features of their ancestral language in situations of dialect contact with the standard-near
TxG dialects in their own community, and even within their own home.

This

phenomenon was not only evident in Gilbert’s (1972) data, but surfaced during several
288

For further discussions of language and identity, see Edwards (1985), Vassberg (1989), Baker (1992),
Blot (1995), Fishman (1999), etc.

240

interviews of TxG/TxAls couples, where TxAls was preserved and even acquired by the
TxG-speaking spouse.289
A few studies already exist which incorporate data on the attitudes, ideologies,
and language use of Alsatian speakers in Europe (Hessini 1981, Vassberg 1989, BisterBroosen 1996, Krantzer 2004).290 Vassberg’s (1989) study on language attitudes toward
the Alsatian dialect in Southern Alsace provides an interesting parallel to this study due
to its regional emphasis (Mulhouse, Upper Rhine) and reveals similar patterns of
language use in the main area of origin of the Castroville colonists. Vassberg (1989: 359)
focuses on attitudes towards the dialect, evaluations on who speaks the dialect, the
teaching and transmission of the dialect, as well as different attitudinal dimensions
suggested by Hofman (1977), such as the communicative, instrumental, or sentimental
value of the language.
The most recent research on attitudinal factors involved in the decline of New
Braunfels TxG (Boas 2009a) is the most relevant to this study, as Boas examines
language attitudes as a contributing factor in the death of TxG, pointing particularly to
initial loss of prestige and ensuing stigmatization in WWI, as well as other factors of
education, and loss of group vitality (Boas 2009a: 214, 305). References will be made to
this study where pertinent.

289 Another interesting example illustrating the strength of the Alsatian identity is the case of E.B., who
identified herself as Alsatian, but when interviewed, spoke the standard-near TxG. However, she insisted
she was speaking Alsatian. (Her father was Alsatian and her mother a TxG.)
290 Hessini’s (1981) study focuses on the Alsatian dialect spoken in Strasbourg and is based on the
hypothesis that “culturally defined space and time are the principal determining factors for explaining
alternate linguistic behavior” (http://progquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu). It is not immediately
relevant to my study due to the choice of location, but offers interesting insights and parallels. For a
discussion of language attitudes and ideologies in Germany, see Dailey-O’Cain (2000) and Elspass (2005).

241

6.2 ATTITUDES, FEELINGS, BELIEFS
Attitudes, feelings, and beliefs toward language have been recognized as powerful
factors in language maintenance, shift, and death for several decades (Fishman 1972a,
Fasold 1987, Mattheier 1996, Myers-Scotton 2006, etc.), especially in light of the rapidly
increasing disappearance of many smaller languages, i.e. those with relatively-small
speaker populations (Nettle & Romaine 2000: 7).291 Fishman (1971: 1) emphasizes the
inseparability of language from speaker assessments and behavior:
Language is not merely a carrier of content, whether latent
or manifest. Language itself is content, a referent for
loyalties and animosities, an indicator of social statuses and
personal relationships, a marker of situations and topics and
well as of the societal goals and the large-scale value-laden
arenas of interaction that typify every speech community.
Grenoble & Whaley (1998: 24) state that “subjective attitudes of a speech
community towards its own and other languages are paramount for predicting language
shift.” Following Edwards’ (1992) predictive model for language shift which allows a
description of an endangered speech community from thirty-three perspectives, they
commend its capacity to represent the complexity of speech communities on both a
macro (external) and micro-level (internal). However, Mattheier (1996: 816) lays the
survival of a speech island squarely on subjective factors of attitude:

291

Linguists estimate that of the 5,700-6,000 languages still in existence today, approximately one half will
become extinct in this century (Nettle & Romaine 2000: 7).

242

In den Forschungsdiskussionen der letzten Zeit stellt sich
jedoch heraus, dass die den Sprachassimilationsprozess
steuernden Faktoren weniger in objektiven als in
subjektiven Wirkkräften gesucht werden müssen. Nicht die
Grösse der Sprachgemeinschaft oder ihre Siedlungsdichte
ist letztlich entscheidend für den Erhalt oder die Aufgabe
der Heimatsprache, sondern bestimmte soziopsychische
Dispositionen, die gesellschaftlich als Attituden und
Mentalitäten wirksam werden und das Verhalten, also auch
die Varietätenwahl, steuern. Mark Louden spricht hier
etwa von einem Distinktionsbedürfnis, das die Old Order
Amish daran hindert, sich den Einflüssen der
Umgebungsgesellschaft und ihrer Sprache weiter zu öffnen
als unbedingt notwendig.292
Winford (2003: 258) extends the discussion of macro and micro-level variables
by emphasizing an element of “choice” on the language community’s part in participating
in language shift and death, citing the example of the Kenyan Yaaku tribe who held a
public meeting in the 1930s and decided to abandon their ancestral language from that
point onward in favor of Masai (cf. Brenzinger 1992: 213). While this might seem
unusual, it is not unlike the situation of the Texas German-speaking population described
in the Introduction. Participant #251 alludes to the stigmatization of their ancestral
language in the above quotation and one can well imagine similar conversations and
decisions taking place in the homes of Texas German communities during WWI and
WWII. Informant #202 refers to these decisions in the following excerpt (see §1.5 for
full quote):

292

‘Recent research has determined that factors which influence language assimilation should be sought in
subjective causes rather than objective ones. Neither the size of the speech community nor its settlement
density is decisive for the retention or loss of the ancestral language, but rather specific socio-psychological
dispositions which manifest themselves socially as attitudes and ideologies and influence behavior, i.e.
language choice. Mark Louden discusses the need for distinction which keeps the Old Order Amish from
subjecting itself further to the influences of the surrounding society and its language more than is
necessary,’ (my translation).

243

Drnou sin sie wiedr heimkumma, dia was gànge sin fir
iekäufa und hàn g’sait zuanàndr, mir reda nimmr Elsess
mit d’ Kindr, das profitiert sie nitt.
‘After that they went home, those that had gone (to San
Antonio) shopping and said to each other, we’re not going
to speak Alsatian with the children anymore, it won’t be of
any value to them.’
Participant #251 also exemplifies how powerful individual attitudes can be in
acquiring a language during the interwar period when Alsatian had lost prestige and
retreated to private domains of home and family. #251 was born in 1933 in the Hondo
Hospital, just 13 miles west of Castroville, but lives in Castroville. He is a fluent speaker
of Texas Alsatian and attributes his command of the language to his mother. He spoke
Alsatian with his mother daily until her death several years ago at age 94. He remembers
vividly the moment he made the conscious decision to learn Alsatian at the age of eight:
(6.1) 18-203-1-2-a.wav:
. . . how I came about getting interested in the Alsatian
language. We spoke it at home, but I was, well, it all
started when I was eight years old. It was December 7,
1941 . . . the year of Pearl Harbor . . . And about noon he
(father) came home and he said, he told mother: Jetz sin
mir im Kri:eg.293 And I’m thinking to myself: Kri:eg
(‘war’), you know, that to me that was a couple of jugs,
because Krüeg is a jug, Kri:eg is more than one (jug), but
this didn’t all add up.294 So then we start talking a little bit
and then he explained to me that we had gone into war and
all this and that and from that day on, I decided I’ve got to
learn this language and that’s how it all came about then.
It is apparent that #251’s realization that his parents’ conversations contained information
on crucial current topics motivated his desire to understand them and to learn Alsatian.
293

“Now we’re at war.”
The speaker is referring to his confusion between two homophonous words, one of which means “war”
(which was not in his vocabulary), and the other of which constitutes the Alsatian plural for the known
entity “jug” or “pitcher.”
294

244

Myers-Scotton (2006: 108) groups attitudes and ideologies under the overarching
term “ethos,” which subsumes “the realm of how personal and group beliefs, mindsets,
and psychological or cognitive orientations affect the decisions that speakers and even
nation states make about becoming or remaining bilingual.” She defines attitudes as
mainly unconscious “assessments that speakers make about the relative values of a
particular language” and ideologies as “perceptions of languages and their uses that are
constructed in the interest of a specific group” (Myers-Scotton 2006: 109). These two
concepts overlap in that they both consist of evaluations, but differ in what speakers
conclude from these evaluations (Myers-Scotton 2006: 110).
A prime example of how ideologies are constructed in the interest of a specific
group is the English-only ideology propagated to immigrants by an Anglo-centric
government in the 20th century (and still strong today) that learning English was
necessary for American cultural “membership” and proof of allegiance (see Roosevelt’s
statement, Chapter Two). An example of this on the local level in Texas is the continued
belief expressed by interviewees in TxG communities that TxG dialects are somehow
inferior to Standard German (Boas 2009a: 267, 278). This was also the case for some
TxAls speakers, who considered their dialect inferior to TxG, the status of which was
supported by “High German” newspapers and texts.
Speaker #251’s remarks on the loss of TxAls above, however, reveal a shift from
the ideology that TxAls was “not useful” and, by association with German, tainted by its
“enemy” status during the World Wars, to a present assessment that Alsatian is not only
useful, but perhaps a language in its own right. This has come about solely due to its
renewed contact with the Alsace in Europe since 1975 (see Chapter One, §5). In light of
these negative attitudes towards the ancestral dialect on the one hand, and its newlyfound communicative value with the European Alsatians on the other, I was interested in
245

gauging which of these attitudes was represented more strongly among the TxAlsspeaking community.

Question #6 on the Alsatian Questionaire (Appendix B)

investigated speaker perception of the status of their ancestral language. Respondents
were asked to define Alsatian as (a) its own language, (b) a German dialect, or (c) a
French dialect. The results are tabulated in Figure 6.1.:
Figure 6.1: “Alsatian is…”

a French
dialect, 0,
0%

no answer,
2, 6%

a German
dialect, 12,
38%

its own
language,
18, 56%

Eighteen informants (56%) regard Texas Alsatian as “its own language” and
twelve (38%) identify it as a German dialect. No respondent marked “a French dialect”.
This heightened awareness of the status of their heritage language is very different from
the comments expressed by Texas Germans in communities of Gillespie County, such as
Fredericksburg, Doss, and Stonewall. This can be largely attributed to the now thirtyyear partnership of Castroville with the Alsatian villages of Ensisheim and Eguisheim
and the close bonds which exist between the communities. Groups visit every other year,
with individuals and families visiting yearly. Three French Alsatian couples interviewed
246

while visiting Castroville exhibited great pride in the Alsatian language295

and are

conscious of the distinction between language and dialect. This is also the subject of
many discussions when the Alsatians visit Castroville. (There are currently preservation
efforts in the Alsace supported financially by the European Union to re-establish Alsatian
in the educational system and media.)
The ensuing sections analyze questionnaire responses to gauge the importance of
attitudinal and dispositional factors in both the preservation and decline of TxAls.

6.3 THE CASTROVILLE ALSATIANS
How do Castroville Alsatian speakers see themselves within a broader context,
i.e. as a member of different components of modern society and how prevalent is their
feeling of belonging to the Alsatian community? Fasold (1987: 149-58) discusses several
methods for collecting data on speaker attitudes: matched-guise tasks, questionnaires,
interviews, and observation.

In order to identify particular attitudes and ideologies

contributing to the maintenance, shift, and decline of TxAls, and identify the underlying
relationship between linguistic behavior and social identity, a specific survey was
developed: the Alsatian Questionnaire (AQ) (see Appendix B and Chapter One for
details).296 The questionnaire solicits information on individual attitudes and opinions in
order to gauge the group vitality of the Castroville community, such as perceptions of (1)
what constitutes the Alsatian identity and how central it is to the individual, (2) who
belongs to this ethno-cultural community, and (3) the social, cultural, economic value of
the ancestral language, i.e., its linguistic vitality.
295

See Bister-Broosen (1997a, 1997b) for a discussion of language attitudes in the Alsace.
Four of the forty respondents completed only the TGDP survey. Where questions from the two surveys
overlap, these are also included. In addition, four non-speakers filled out the questionnaire. These
respondents are not included in the charts representing questions which investigate language use.
296

247

In a study of ethnic identity in Canada, Breton, Isajiw, Kalbach, & Reitz (2000)
define levels which are insightful and will be used for a discussion of TxAls identity.
Breton et al. (2000: 35-7) define ethnic identity as “the manner in which persons, on
account of their ethnic origin, locate themselves psychologically in relation to one or
more social systems, and in which they perceive others as locating them in relation to
those systems.” The authors further distinguish between internal and external aspects of
ethnic behavior. External aspects are observable behavior, such as speaking in an ethnic
language, practicing ethnic traditions, participation in personal ethnic networks,
institutional and voluntary organizations, and functions sponsored by ethnic
organizations, whereas internal aspects are subjective and include attitudes, ideas,
images, and feelings.

Internal aspects are divided into three dimensions of ethnic

identity: cognitive, moral, and affective dimensions. The cognitive includes self-images
and images of one’s group, its values, heritage and historical past, and events or
personalities symbolic of the group’s experiences. The moral dimension refers to feelings
of group obligation and solidarity, as in transmission of the language to one’s children or
marrying within the group. The affective dimension encompasses feelings of attachment
to the group, as in feelings of security and comfort with the group’s cultural patterns or
associative preference for group members versus those of other groups. The following
section explores external and internal ethnic behavior of the Alsatian-speaking
community in Castroville to frame a discussion of attitudes, perceptions, and opinions on
topics central to language and cultural identity.
External aspects mirror internal aspects and cannot be completely separated from
each other. For example, language is usually the most visible external symbol of a group,
but its transmission and maintenance stem from internal “behavior” or attitudes, beliefs,
and feelings. I have shown that despite stigmatization and loss of prestige, Alsatian was
248

still transmitted to the next generation until circa 1940 and continues to be spoken and
maintained within the in-group seventy years later, which demonstrates group solidarity
and obligation.

Participation in external private and institutional groups reflects both

cognitive and affective group behavior. In the Castroville Alsatian community, there is a
dense social network of local private and public organizations in which most informants
participate. Some are strongly male-oriented, such as the Catholic St. Louis Men’s
Society or men’s coffee groups (Kaffeeklatsch) in Castroville and LaCoste which are
attended weekly and even daily at local restaurants. Many of the participants (both
genders) are members and officers in the Castro Colonies Heritage Association, which
protects and promotes historical preservation of the Alsatian culture. A majority of the
informants attended the Alsatian language class formed soon after the initiation of the
Equisheim-Castroville city partnership, which has itself become a central social network
and mainstay of the Alsatian culture in Medina County.
Several questions on the AQ investigate these internal dimensions. Question #30
probed forty297 informants’ self-images of their ethnic identity. This required participants
to select one option of the statement “Alsatian is a part/important part/very important
part/not a part of my identity.”298

The term “Alsatian,” which the speakers use to

distinguish themselves from Texas Germans, was deliberately kept ambiguous in an
attempt to encompass all aspects of cultural identity. The results are shown in Figure
6.2.:

297

The four non-speakers are included in this tabulation.
The TGDP questionnaire presented a similar question, but without “very important part.” Of the four
participants completing this questionnaire, three selected “a part,” and one selected “important part,” which
is included in this analysis.
298

249

Figure 6.2: “Alsatian is . . . of my identity”

no answer

1

not a part

0

a very important part

11

an important part

7

a part

21
0

5

10 15 20 25

All respondents replied positively, with eighteen (46%) of the participants
exhibiting a strong Alsatian self-image by selecting “very important part” or “important
part.” Twenty-one (54%) selected a more neutral position with “a part” (all four nonspeakers selected this option). Although “Alsatian-ness” is an aspect of all of these
respondents’ identity, the more neutral answer of “part” indicates that approximately one
half of the informants also include other groups (such as American, Texan, German, etc.)
in their self-image. This data projects a strong self-image which connects to the group
ethnic identity and accounts for the cohesiveness within this community of Alsatian
speakers.
The question arises, especially in light of the non-speaker responses above,
whether language is considered the most important identity marker given the shrinking
community of speakers. If language is not the most important marker, then how do semi250

speakers express their ethnic identity externally? Question #23 inquired, “What defines
your Alsatian heritage?” The participants were asked to rank a list of six items from one
to five299 in importance. “Other” was given as an option which could be specified by the
respondent. Figure 6.3 summarizes the participants’ responses.

Figure 6.3: “What defines your Alsatian heritage?”

work ethic
17%

other
1%

food &
recipes
16%

ancestral
history
27%

church
affiliation
12%

music &
songs
7%

language
20%

“Ancestry” (27%) was identified by the thirty-two respondents as the foremost
defining element of their Alsatian identity, a choice that was also selected as the main
difference separating the Alsatian and TxG communities (see Figure 6.6). “Language”

299

The rankings of 1-5 were allotted point values, with Rank 1 receiving 5 points, Rank 2 receiving 4
points, etc.

251

(20%) was ranked second, and “work ethic” (17%) occupied a strong third. “Food and
recipes” constituted a close fourth at 16% and “religious affiliation” received 12% as the
fifth-ranked item and “music & songs” last in this list of six options, not surprising as
there are no canonical Alsatian songs (the songs are either French or German).
The four non-speakers were evaluated separately in order to determine how they
evaluated the importance of language. Only two respondents ranked all six items, but all
four placed ancestry first. The points showed a three-way tie for the second rank with
“ethics,” “church,” and “food.” “Music” ranked third, and language fell to last place with
only one point.

These results match the above responses, with “church” replacing

“language.”
Narratives provided interesting insights into the importance of top-ranked
“ancestry.”

At the beginning of the interview, when asked about their ancestry,

participants were extremely versant in their genealogical tree.

The majority of

participants have genealogy studies in print and many have framed family trees hanging
on their living room walls. In conversations, ancestral information was readily and
extensively proffered,300 i.e. “My mother was a T, and she married W.”301 Ancestral
names constitute a high-status ranking in the community, a certain symbolic capital
(Bourdieu 1991) within the group. Ancestry has most likely taken the leading role for
another reason: Texas Alsatians who possess only a passive understanding of the
language or speak only a few words can still validate their Alsatian identity with
ancestry.

Ancestral roots, of course, are concrete proof of their Alsatian heritage:

recordable, printable, and displayable.

300

This was always expressed with enthusiasm and pride (perhaps to also establish a degree of status with
me as a native speaker).
301 This speaker is called by his mother’s maiden name and his first given name.

252

The following section investigates what one participant termed the “clannish”
aspect of the Alsatian community in Castroville with respect to “outsiders” and more
specifically the relationship between the Alsatian and TxG communities.

6.4 LANGUAGE USE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD “THE OTHER”
Examining attitudes of the in-group and out-group toward the less-dominant
language of a shift has captured the attention of sociolinguists (e.g., Labov 1963,
Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 1997) as prime environments for studying the effects of
speaker attitudes and ideologies in situations of language contact and decline. Castroville
presents interesting parallels to Labov’s (1963) studies on Martha’s Vineyard and
Wolfram & Schilling-Estes’ (1997) observations on Ocracoke Island. Myers-Scotton
(2006: 134) frames her discussion of speaker attitudes in these studies in terms of
language divergence and accommodation.

6.4.1 The “other”
As in the above studies, many of the older Castroville natives still do not welcome
new residents with open arms into their community. They use three terms to differentiate
between themselves and “others:” the oldest term (now rarely used), Amerikaner
(‘Americans’), was employed to refer to Anglo visitors. Another term, Hargelaufene
(‘those who come here [from “outside”]’) seems to be more general in nature and refers
to newcomers (non-natives).

Another somewhat derogatory term, Iegeschwommene

(‘those who swam in’), is used to denote Hispanic “others.” Many Castroville natives
still consider new residents a silent threat to their status and authority, although this
perception has recently softened. One participant noted with regret the extensive, but
253

unappreciated preservation efforts of newcomer and author Ruth Lawler.302 Some view
the change in hand of business entrepreneurship as opportunistic: a capitalization on
Castroville’s Alsatian identity without any authority of heritage only for the sake of
profit.
I also experienced some initial difficulties as an “outsider,” which made first
contact with TxAls speakers problematic. I was often asked why I was interested in the
Alsatian language, and was able to offer not only academic interest as a reason, but also a
personal interest in the dialect connected to personal experiences in the Palatinate and
Baden, Germany.

This personal connection seemed necessary to convince the

community of my sincere intentions behind documenting the dialect303 and overcome
certain suspicions of opportunism.
Questions #33 and #34 (see below) allowed open-ended comments on positive
and negative influences of new residents on the Castroville community. The array of
comments from Questions #33-34 on the Alsatian Questionnaire reveals the scope of
these opinions and sentiments, ranging from resentment and suspicion to a lukewarm
acknowledgment of the contributions of new residents to the community:

302 Ruth Lawler moved to Castroville, became interested in its history, and subsequently became engaged
in efforts to preserve its Alsatian heritage, but was never fully welcomed into the Alsatian community.
303 I also began to learn to speak the dialect, even though I could generally understand it, and received
much support and encouragement.

254

(6.2) Responses to AQ Question 33:
“What positive influences have new residents had?”
a. “have bought many old homes and with the financial
means have restored them”
b. “positive influence only if there is a money profit for
them”
c. “stronger Catholic values; helps reduce former
prejudices; broader concept of different views
outside Castroville”
d. “an interest in preserving the old homes of tradition”
e. “new ideas, leadership”
f. “positive growth for business, new people and ideas into
a somewhat stagnant anti-growth area”
(6.3) Responses to AQ Question 34:
“Are there any negative influences you associate with…new residents?”
a. “trying to change the culture to fit their needs”
b. “dilutes Alsatian image”
c. “contributed to demise of Alsatian language; the
cohesion of the Alsatian community has suffered;
old Alsatian values of thrift in all matters have been
eroded”
d. “loss of our Alsatian identity; rapid growth is threatening
our small-town atmosphere (especially our
schools)”
e. “we are losing our culture”
f. “new residents get elected to the city council and
sometimes their new ideas do not go over too well
with the established residents”
g. “no comment”
Figure 6.4 shows the responses to Question #32 on the questionnaire, “New
residents are welcomed in our community,” which required the participants to express
their degree of agreement with the statement.

255

Figure 6.4: “New residents are welcomed in our community”

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
strongly
agree

agree

neutral

disagree

strongly
disagree

1

24

6

5

0

Twenty-five of the thirty-six304 respondents agreed (one strongly) that Castroville
welcomes newcomers, while six remained neutral in their response, and five disagreed.
These responses do not reflect the same level of negativism toward newcomers that the
open-ended questions in (6.2) and (6.3) illustrate. The reason lies perhaps in the question
design, with its intended goal too obvious, whereas the two ensuing questions allow for
more candid responses, i.e., “Yes, we welcome newcomers, but these are some of the
undesirable/desirable repercussions.”

Comments given in the section under these

questions point to a change in perception towards “outsiders:”

304

The TGDP survey did not include this question.

256

(6.4)

Comments:
a. “It wasn’t always like this.”
b. “used to, when my grandparents were small they
would call outside people “Amerikaners” and
sort of disliked intruders into their tight knit
community. Not so much so now.”
c. “My opinion is that small towns tend to be
clannish toward “outsiders” who are not born
into the community.”

As also indicated by the responses in (6.2), many “wealthier newcomers” have
discovered Castroville and purchased property there due to advantageous land prices,
lower cost of living, and its proximity to San Antonio, which offers business and
entertainment opportunities. Over recent years, these new residents have increasingly
participated in government and business, taking official positions in government,
participating in community enhancement and preservation efforts, and purchasing small
businesses. Some of these new residents, according to several narratives, however, are
viewed as lacking the same moral ethics.

The following comment was made by

participant #202 during a discussion of recent scandals concerning misappropriation of
city funds and suggests a certain absence of integrity on the part of new residents:
(6.5) 18-202-1-19-a.wav:
Ich sag nitt, dass alli Hargelaufene nitt güet sind, awr die
meischte, was an der Marie isch, sin Hargelaufene ... die
sin nitt ... un das isch UNSERE Schuld. Mir soll da uns Leu
wehle, aber mir wolla das nitt auf die Schult’r (nehmen).
‘I wouldn’t say that all of the newcomers aren’t good, but
most of the ones at city hall are newcomers...they
aren’t...and that is OUR fault. We should vote for our
people, but we won’t take the responsibility.’

257

Native inhabitants respond to this “invasion” of newcomers by placing value on
what they have: their authenticity as natives. One of the ways Castroville locals express
this “nativeness” is via their Texas Alsatian language (see Figure 6.3 for other important
identity markers expressed by participants).

Myers-Scotton (2006: 134) labels this a

type of language divergence (versus accommodation) in the form of a symbolic protest;
that is, it distinguishes the locals from the newcomers.

6.4.2 The Texas German community: not “the other”?
Considering the co-existence of TxG speakers in the community and
intermarriage between Alsatian and TxG speakers, how do Alsatian speakers see
themselves vis-à-vis the TxG community?

Question #15 probed the strength of

belonging to the Alsatian socio-cultural group versus the TxG group and is represented in
Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: “Do you consider yourself part of the larger TxG community?”

no
answer
6%

No
38%

Yes
56%

258

Eighteen (50%) of the thirty-six respondents identified themselves as a part of the
larger TxG community (the four youngest respondents born after 1940 all responded
positively). Several factors can account for this positive response, two of which are
intermarriage and a common linguistic heritage. As in many isolated rural communities,
at some point “exogamy” becomes a necessity, i.e. marriage outside of the normal
boundaries set by a particular society, such as religion and language. The remark, “in
Castroville, you don’t have to go back very far to find out we’re all related,” was often
made with a smile. Twelve (33%) respondents, however, indicated a definite
“separateness” from the TxG community.
What constitutes this separateness of the Alsatian community? The pursuant
question #16 asked respondents to identify what they perceived as differences between
the Alsatian and TxG communities. Participants could select multiple answers among the
choices of language, church affiliation, traditions, ancestry, education, professions,
organizations, other practices, or “no difference.” Figure 6.6 shows the total number of
responses for each category:

259

Figure 6.6: “How is the Texas German community different?”

3

other

8

organizations
0

profession

1

education

20

ancestry
19

traditions
8

church affiliation

21

language
5

no difference
0

5

10

15

20

25

These responses illustrate strong ethnocentric associations with language and affirm the
language loyalty noted in previous chapters, which helps to account for the maintenance
of distinctive ALS linguistic features despite close contact with other TxG dialects and
English.

Ancestry is a strong determiner of group membership in this community.

These responses are an even stronger statement of socio-cultural affiliation with Alsatian
ethnicity, considering that many of the respondents have a German ancestor.

Low

responses to differences in church affiliation can most likely be accounted for by the fact
that a considerable portion of Texas Germans are also Catholic (see §1.4.2).
Having shown strong and positive attitudes, disposistions, and beliefs of speakers
toward their Alsatian ethnicity, other attitudes and beliefs which might be aiding the rapid
decline of TxAls will be examined in the following section.

260

6.5 THE DECLINE OF TXALS
In investigating attitudes related to the decline of Texas Alsatian, overlapping
questions in the Alsatian and TGDP questionnaires allow an expanded data base. The
following tables include data from both surveys which represent forty respondents.
Figures 6.7 - 6.10 depict subjective evaluations of reasons for the decline of TxAls, its
current practical value, and its chances for survival.

AQ #29 inquired into the

participants’ opinions as to why Alsatian is being spoken less now and were given five
statements from which they could choose multiple answers. Figure 6.7 summarizes the
participants’ opinions:

Figure 6.7: “Why do you think Alsatian is spoken less these days?”

Spanish is
more helpful
22%

Alsatians
would rather
speak English
17%

no answer
2%

not useful
11%

not transmitted
to younger
generation
39%
no future
8%

The leading answer from both questionnaires by a wide margin was “not
transmitted to the next generation” (39%) (stigmatization, low prestige), followed by a
261

second grouping of “Spanish is more helpful as a second language” (22%) (practical
value vis-à-vis Spanish) and “Alsatian speakers would rather speak English” (17%)
(fluency in the AL). The low response to the two last groupings investigating the AL’s
practical value, ‘not useful” (11%) and “no future” (8%) actually subsumes the above
statement that “Spanish is more helpful…” and reveals redundancy and awkwardness in
the formulation of this question. If the three categories pointing to the AL’s socioeconomic viability are grouped together, this places practical value (41%) at
approximately the same level as that of transmission.
This is probably a fairly accurate assessment of why TxAls is not spoken today,
i.e. a break in transmission of the AL to the next generation due to socio-historical factors
which stigmatized the dialect and resulted in its low social and economic viability.
Today Spanish has taken a place next to English as a practical second language.

Boas

(2009a: 291) also identifies this combination of sociolinguistic and economic factors, i.e.,
continued stigmatization of German dialects and their low practical value to account for
the general decline of TxG in New Braunfels.
Given the decline of TxAls, how do its speakers evaluate the future of their
language? Two questions on whether Texas Alsatian should and would be preserved
were juxtaposed in order to gauge positive attitudes toward their language against
perceptions of its place as a useful language. Figure 6.8 shows speaker opinions on its
worthiness to be preserved.

262

Figure 6.8: “Texas Alsatian should be preserved”

Unsure, 4,
10%

no
answer, 2,
5%

Yes, 34,
85%

No, 0, 0%

To the question as to whether it should be preserved, 85% responded positively
and 10% were unsure—an overwhelming positive response and indicative of the high
value they place on their ancestral language. Figure 6.9 shows speaker opinions on the
practical value of their AL.

263

Figure 6.9: “Texas Alsatian will be preserved”

no answer, 2,

5%

Yes, 6,
15%

Unsure,
16, 40%
No, 16,
40%

In stark contrast to Figure 6.8, only 15% expressed certainty of its preservation,
while 40% were certain of its disappearance and an additional 40% unsure of its future.
Much of the uncertainty expressed above stems from two insights I obtained from
speaker comments during interviews. Speakers generally exhibited a fatalistic attitude
toward preservation: they described their efforts extensively, but attributed the failure to
transmit the language to an absence of reciprocal interest. Secondly, there has been much
energy spent on private initiatives, but little done to procure political or institutional
support for the language. Reluctance on the part of the informants to express negative
attitudes might also account for the large percentage of responses for “unsure,” as many
participants know of my efforts to preserve the language.
Interestingly, in a random sampling of the TGDP questionnaires on thirty TxG
speakers the responses were very similar: 96% responded affirmatively that TxG should
264

be preserved, but only 12% believed it would be preserved (Shaw 2007, unpublished
paper).

6.7 PRESERVATION
Nettle and Romaine (2000: 177) propose a bottom-up approach to language
maintenance beginning with local groups and agencies, insisting it start on the home front
(versus schools, government, etc.) to ensure intergenerational transmission. At this stage
in TxAls where few to none of the fluent speakers are transmitting the language and
conversely, there are only rare examples of younger speakers who desire to learn it,
preservation issues are seemingly moot. Currently, Alsatian history and language are not
included in Castroville parochial or public school curricula. A recent private initiative of
Alsatian language instruction in the community has been unsuccessful due to overly
prescriptive teaching methods employed by untrained native speakers. The aging speaker
population is fast diminishing.
On the other hand, fluent speakers still have some opportunity to transmit the
language to their grandchildren. There is avid interest in and support of the local Alsatian
heritage organization, Castro Colonies Heritage Association, and in the city partnership
with the French Alsace. My suggestion to develop an educational unit for use in the
parochial and public schools has been well received. The initiation of a student foreign
exchange program between Castroville and its partner cities and the Alsace could also
rekindle interest in their cultural heritage by personalizing the experience. In fact, if
certain preservation efforts as suggested above were implemented now, and/or if speakers

265

made concerted efforts to talk to their grandchildren or great-grandchildren,305 the
language might have a slight chance of survival.
As I was interested in gauging the depth of positive attitudes as well as what the
informants believe to be effective strategies for preservation, several questions
investigated attitudes on individual agency and opinions on preservation strategies.
Investigating speaker agency in preserving Alsatian provided revealing insights as shown
by the data from the Alsatian questionnaire in Figure 6.10. Thirty-six participants were
asked to respond to the statement “I can play an important part in preserving Alsatian.”
Figure 6.10: “I can play an important part in preserving Alsatian”

no answer, 1,

3%
Disagree,
5, 14%

Strongly
Agree, 5,
14%

Agree, 12,
33%

Neutral, 13,
36%
(Strongly
disagree
0%)

305 Yves Bisch, a well-known Alsatian author in France, emphasized the importance of using the language
with the upcoming generation (i.e., his grandchildren) in his interview with me, even though the interceding
generation does not speak Alsatian.

266

Half (50%) of the respondents expressed a lack of confidence in their own ability to
preserve the language, i.e. 36% of the participants selected “neutral” and 14% “disagree,”
but 47% expressed a positive attitude toward their ability to make a difference in
preserving TxAls. This suggests that if strategies were drafted and implemented, there
would be good support from the TxAls community.
To tap into informants’ opinions on effective preservation strategies in the
community, a question which investigated possible strategies was posed, giving public
and private alternatives (Nettle & Romaine 2000), as well as an “other” option for
suggestions.

Respondents were asked to select three alternatives provided: school

programs, private language instruction, heritage organizations, city-sponsored programs,
church programs, and media.
Figure 6.11: “How to preserve the Alsatian heritage”

Church
programs
1%

Other
7%

Unknown
3%
Private
language
instruction
26%

Media
8%
Citysponsored
programs
6%
School
Programs
22%

Heritage
Organizations
28%

267

Respondents considered heritage organizations (28%), private language instruction
(26%), and school programs (22%) the most effective means of language preservation,
and city-sponsored programs were given a confidence vote of 6%. “Other” suggestions
included foreign exchange programs, family-initiated efforts, preserving old homes,
speaking the language, “what for?” and addendums such as an Alsatian column in the
newspaper.
Finally, a question segueing into attitudes toward institutional (education) support
of Texas Alsatian asked: “Should Alsatian language and/or history be a part of the
Medina County school curriculum?

Figure 6.12: Institutional support
“Should Alsatian language and/or history be a part of the school curriculum?”

No, 5,
14%

Yes, 31,
86%

Thirty-one of the thirty-six respondents (86%) answered in the affirmative.

Most

participants view the educational system as a viable means of preservation, but express
negativity through counter-comments indicating that the student would not choose to do
268

it. Several rather fatalistic handwritten comments were appended, including “probably
would have little or no interest” or “I wish this could happen, but there would not be
enough interest,” and “there are not too many people interested in the Alsatian history
and to teach the language would have no value,” as well as an interesting suggestion to
incorporate music. It appears many respondents do not consider a history unit on the
founding history of Castroville as sufficient justification for including it in the mandatory
curriculum.

6.8 SUMMARY
This chapter has shown a profile of approximately one-fourth of the Castroville
TxAls speaker population regarding attitudes, dispositions, and ideologies surrounding
the Alsatian ethnic identity based on an analysis of data from the Alsatian Questionnaire
(with supplemental data from the TGDP survey where questions overlapped).
First, I defined the “in-group” attitudes of the TxAls group towards newcomers
and the TxG community. Responses indicate a still-present, but shrinking distinction
between these groups, reflecting a diminishing degree of “group vitality.” I demonstrated
the importance and the status of the TxAls language as an integral part of the group
identity, working from the general term, “Alsatian,” with which these speakers define
themselves, and moving toward identifying the specific components which comprises
their concept of “Alsatian” comprises. I subsequently explored perceptions of individual
speaker agency and attitudes toward the preservation of TxAls.
Aspects which reflect a high degree of group vitality (in this chapter, strong ethnic
identity transmitted through language, customs, ancestry, and religious traditions), are
steadily weakening due to sheer reduction in number and strength due to marriage and
dispersement. With regard to language, the majority of speakers believe TxAls should be
269

preserved, indicating a high degree of loyalty toward their ancestral language, but have
little faith and/or knowledge of strategies designed to preserve and revitalize it. Attempts
to preserve the language have been undertaken, but are not focusing on the most vital
preservation strategies, such as transmission to subsequent generations or eliciting
political and institutional support for the TxAls language.
This study offers only a preliminary analysis of attitudes and ideologies in this
community due to certain gaps in the data, but current data suggests the importance of
further inquiry into attitudinal factors affecting the preservation and revitalization of
TxAls.

270

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION
Na, no, es isch, d’Elsassich Sproch isch dou (Castroville)
verloore, will viel von d’r elsassr Maidla un Büewa dien
Amerikaner hierouta odr Mexikaner, dann isch scho fertig,
weil sie kenne anandr nitt versteh un sie mien Anglisch
rede. Dou isch d’Sproch verloore. In ei Generatiõ isch
alles verloore. Un das seht man scho.
‘Well, no, it’s, the Alsatian language is lost here
(Castroville), because a lot of the Alsatian girls and boys
are marrying Americans or Mexicans, then it’s already
finished, because they can’t understand each other and they
have to speak English. The language is lost here. In one
generation all will be lost. And one already can see that.’
--#202, January 2007

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Participant #202 directly addresses the endangered status of Texas Alsatian306 in
his statement above (see also #202’s statement in §1.5), which reiterates one factor
behind the disintegration of its use within the family unit.

The main criteria for

determining endangerment are usually based on the number of speakers (e.g. Krauss
1992), the age of its proficient speakers (e.g. McConvell 2002), or the additional criterion
of its acquisition by younger children (Kinkade 1991).

Krauss (1992) classifies a

language as “safe” if there are more than 100,000 speakers, while McConvell (2002)
identifies a language as “strong” if all ages speak the language, but already endangered if
young children do not speak the ancestral language. When tested against any of these
models, TxAls unmistakably falls into the category of an endangered language or even
306

This does not reflect the status of the Alsatian dialect in France, which remains robust with 600,000
speakers (Héran et al. 2002: 3, Duée 2002).

271

“critically endangered” language (McConvell 2002). Its numbers are extremely small
with estimation at approximately one hundred speakers, of whom only circa 10% are
proficient in the ancestral language. These proficient speakers all exceed the age of sixty
and there are no children who have acquired the language. Despite an obvious safety in
numbers as discussed by Krauss (1992), this alone does not ensure a language’s
preservation. Its status (Nettle & Romaine 2000: 9) and contributing attitudes affected by
such factors as socio-historical events can determine its path toward survival or
extinction.

Often it is a unique combination—an “intricate matrix of variables”

(Grenoble & Whaley 1998: 2)—of these factors which provide the right conditions for its
maintenance or loss.
Expanding Weinrich’s (1953: 44) prescriptive framework for examining
languages in contact, this study has focused upon three types of descriptive analyses to
investigate and account for the extent and nature of linguistic change or maintenance in
TxAls: (1) a socio-historical and socio-cultural analysis (Chapter Two); (2) a structural
analysis of lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic features (Chapters Three, Four,
Five), i.e. lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic features; and (3) an analysis of
attitudes, dispositions, and ideologies related to prestige, choice, and preservation of
TxAls (Chapter Six). In this process, another purpose which initiated this study has been
realized: the digital documentation of the endangered TxAls dialect as it is spoken today.
The study’s research questions have served as overarching structures in the
analysis of each of these areas. These findings are summarized under each question in
the subsequent sections. The first three sections review my observations of structural
maintenance and loss as compared to the Upper Rhine Alsatian (URA) donor dialect(s)
and the latter three sections focus on extra-linguistic factors which have been
instrumental in maintaining the ancestral language or contributing to its decline.
272

I

conclude with a synopsis of implications for research areas on language contact, language
death, and linguistic change.

7.2 STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE OF THE ALS DONOR DIALECT(S)
Research Question #1:
What are some linguistic features of the European donor dialect(s) that have
been maintained in TxAls?
Structural maintenance of the European donor dialect(s) was first approached by
substantiating the area of origin of the Castroville Alsatians.

The origin of these

immigrants is well-documented, unlike the difficulties encountered when trying to
pinpoint the origin of other TxG varieties (cf. Boas 2005, 2009).

The Alsatian

community in Texas is unique in that specific villages of origin can be identified and thus
enables identification of local variation. 94% of the Alsatian colonists emigrated from
the Upper Rhine Department and a majority of these from villages located between
Colmar and Mulhouse. Two descriptive grammars of the area around Colmar (Philipp &
Bothorel-Witz 1989) and Mulhouse (Troxler-Lasseaux, Nouvelle, & Schmitt-Troxler
2003) were used as an index for identifying features characteristic of Upper Rhine
Alsatian to substantiate maintenance of and/or variation from the donor dialect(s) in
TxAls.
Although all German dialects share a common lexical stock, I recorded the
maintenance of several distinctive ALS lexical items (some of which are also shared with
other southern dialects) in TxAls vis-à-vis other TxG dialects in Chapter Three. Among
the informants who responded to specific Gilbert translations tasks for ALS verbs käija
SG fallen (‘to fall’) and lüega SG sehen (‘to see, look’) (Tables 3.1 and 3.2), or ALS
nouns Ross SG Pferd (‘horse’) and Maidla SG Mädchen (‘girl’) (Tables 3.4 and 3.5), 92100% of these participants produced the distinctive ALS lexical item.
273

In Chapter Four, I compared seven ALS phonological features (three vocalic and
four consonantal features which distinguish the ALS dialect(s) from SG) with my 2009
TxAls data, and established a high percentage of maintenance of these characteristics in
TxAls. This was substantiated by comparing Gilbert’s (1972) data in Medina County
(including thirteen Alsatian speakers) with my 2009 data from twenty-seven TxAls
speakers. For example, Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show the maintenance of the ALS backing
and lowering of MHG ë > a. For example, 88% of the 2009 participants in Table 4.5
produced /a/ in ALS Fanschteř versus SG /ε/ in Fenster (‘window’). The retention of
MHG long vowels î and û was demonstrated in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 and retention of MHG
diphthongs ie and uo was indicated in Table 4.10. The spirantization of intervocalic /b/
was represented in Table 4.11. The apical trill for /r/ was produced systematically by all
speakers, although there were occurrences of the retroflex /r/ indicative of transference
from English.

Developments regarding the velar fricative and the set of stops are

discussed in the next section.

Using Gilbert’s data, I was also able to identify

phonological cases of dialect-mixing between TxAls and TxG, as in Fenschteř
(‘window’) where both the TxG [ε] and the TxAls [̉ʃ] and [ř] were produced.
I then examined morphosyntactic properties of the noun and verb in Chapter Five,
such as gender, case, and plural markings of the noun and pronoun, finite and non-finite
verb forms, and verb tenses by applying the methodology described above. While gender
and case markings indicated simplification (see next section), plural markings remained
fairly consistent with URA markings (Table 5.13).

There was an especially high

percentage of 2009 responses showing preservation of distinctive ALS demonstrative
forms da, dia, dàs (‘this’) and saller, salla, sall (‘that’) (Tables 5.8 – 5.10).
Finite and non-finite verb forms such as monosyllabic infinitives have also been
well-maintained. As URA does not have a preterite tense to express the past, it was not
274

surprising that temporal auxiliaries and past participle forms which form the present
perfect have remained largely intact. To still be explored is the role that markedness
(Campbell & Muntzel 1989: 189) plays in the maintenance of certain distinctive
structural features in TxAls.

7.3 STRUCTURAL LOSS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN TXALS
Research Question #2:
How does TxAls differ from its European donor dialects?
This question was investigated by comparing and analyzing descriptive accounts of
Upper Rhine Alsatian around Colmar and Mulhouse (and recorded interviews of French
Alsatians) with data obtained during interviews with Texas Alsatians. I identified several
developments in progress indicative of convergence with TxG and English.
There has been a widespread loss of lexical items associated with more formal
registers (or “stylistic shrinkage,” Campbell & Muntzel 1989: 195), which is indicative of
shift which restricted use of Alsatian to private domains.

Typically, speakers can

converse on topics associated with family and work, such as childhood, holidays, and
hunting, but have difficulty with more complex issues requiring a broader base of
vocabulary.

Many formerly-fluent speakers required extra time for accessing even

everyday vocabulary due to infrequent use. English words are found intermittently in
TxAls today, and various terms common to the majority of speakers are core borrowings
integrated into the lexicon. Examples of these are cultural borrowings such as ‘tank’ or
‘pasture,’ or core borrowings such as carra, machine, sink, and budel. These established
borrowings are usually structurally and phonologically integrated. Individual speakers
also randomly insert English nouns and verbs when they cannot immediately access the
275

Alsatian term or it has been forgotten. Occasionally, English discourse markers are
inserted. These insertions are also often ponologically integrated.
Phonologically, I observed cases of vowel hyper-lengthening in both closed and
open syllables such as [fɑ:nʃtř] ALS [fɑnʃtř] (‘window’) or [do:ʊ] ALS [do:] (‘here’)
representative of the Texas accent of American English. Like Gilbert (1972: 1-2), I also
noted a great deal of variation in the articulation of labial, alveolar, and velar stops wordinitially and intervocalically ranging from lenis unaspirated voiceless stops (p, t, k, ḅ, ḍ,
ā) as in [ly:əāə, ly:əkə] (‘to look’) and [křy:t, āřy:t] (‘cabbage’), to fortis articulation as in
[khe:t] ‘(to fall’) or [pɑtha:tə, paḍha:ḍa] (‘sweet potato’). There was also evidence of

voiced labial, alveolar, and velar stops as in [bu:βə] (‘boy’), [di:ř] (‘animal’), and [gɔŋə]
(‘went’). This development, however, is difficult to account for as there is also great

variation in the donor dialects of TxAls and TxG. Although many fluent speakers still
produce the velar fricative [x] in most environments, there is evidence of a development
toward the palatal [ç]. Table 4.12 shows a tendency (26%) of current TxAls speakers to
drop the fricative word-finally (apocope) in ALS [mɪlx, mεlx] (‘milk’) resulting in TxAls
[mɪlɑ]. The form [mɪlɑx] produced by 30% of the 2009 informants showing vowel
epenthesis between the liquid and fricative most likely constitutes the intermediate form
between [mɪlx] and [mɪlɑ].
Within my morphosyntactic analysis, I noted a general simplification of definite
articles marking gender and case. Many participants regularize the ALS d’r, d’, and ’s
SG der, die, das (‘the’) to one gender article d’ in the nominative and accusative case.
Semi-speakers in particular produced this regularized article which points to substratum
transfer, i.e, new features are introduced by shifting bilingual speakers and then imitated
by speakers learning the AL as a second language (Winford 2003: 56). Although there is
a high degree of maintenance of dative case markings (Table 5.11), there is variability
276

evident in producing both nom/acc markings (Table 5.12) and dative markings.

In

general, this indicates a beginning disintegration of the NA/D opposition characteristic of
URA, also evidenced in my data for pronouns, as in Table 5.19 (dative feminine
pronoun). As noted above, URA verb tenses have been maintained but a reduction in the
aspects of mood and voice are evident. Only the most fluent speakers still produce
passive and subjunctive forms.
Associated with morphosyntactic reduction is the accompanying inflexibility in
word order as it shifts from synthetic to more analytic structures. The URA (and SG)
sequence of Time-Manner-Place illustrated in Table 5.28 compared with the resampling
of Gilbert’s (1972) data shows a shift of time adverbials to the last position as in English.

7.4 TXALS VERSUS OTHER TXG VARIETIES IN THE WESTERN SETTLEMENTS
Research Question #3:
How does TxAls differ from other varieties of TxG?
To frame linguistic differences between TxAls and other TxG dialects, cultural
differences between the two communities in religion, education, and social networks
were discussed in Chapters One and Two. Linguistic differences were first discussed in
terms of mutual intelligibility in Chapter One, which showed a low level (sometimesseldom-never) of comprehensibility between the two dialects despite prolonged and
intense contact (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic
comparisons were made between the prevalent TxG variety in Gillespie County and
TxAls in Medina County with the help of Gilbert’s data and in some cases, Boas’ (2009a)
data for Comal County.

In general, the differences between TxAls and other TxG

varieties reflect the broader regional donor dialects of the western TxG settlements
277

(central and north-central German dialects) and the TxAls settlements (southern German
dialects). TxAls distinguishes itself in varying degrees lexically, phonologically, and
morphosyntactically from other varieties of TxG, which are near-standard and generally
represent differences between the ALS dialect and SG, respectively.
Interesting lexical differences between TxAls and TxG nouns and verbs were
introduced in Chapter Three, such as those for SG/TxG fallen, ALS/TxAls käija (‘to
fall’) and SG/TxG Pferd ALS/TxAls Ross (‘horse’). Phonological differences, however,
seem to largely account for the relative incomprehensibility between speakers of TxAls
and neighboring communities of TxG. Vocalic differences (which also differentiate
words for the listener in any language) in ALS due to certain developments during the
Middle High German (MHG) period were discussed and compared at length. The three
vocalic features investigated were (1) the ALS retention of MHG long vowels î and û
versus SG diphthongization to ai and au, (2) retention of MHG diphthongs ie and uo
versus SG monophthongs i and o, and (3) the development of a for MHG ë, which was
retained in SG.
Basic morphosyntactic differences also reflected the donor dialects of the
respective varieties. Case-marking patterns provided examples of the most noticeable
differences.

Whereas TxAls models an ALS distinction between the nominative /

accusative and the dative (NA/D), other TxG varieties model the northern dialect
distinction between a nominative and oblique case (N/AD). This case merger for most
dialects is partial, affecting some categories (e.g., determiners, modifiers) while not
affecting others (e.g. pronouns).

278

7.5 GROUP IDENTITY MARKERS OF THE CASTROVILLE ALSATIAN COMMUNITY
Research Question #4:
Which linguistic features and extra-linguistic factors serve as identity markers for
the community of TxAls speakers?
Determining specific linguistic features which serve as identity markers is
difficult considering the extent to which TxAls speakers have maintained lexical,
phonological, and morphosyntactic features of the URA donor dialect(s). I observed, for
example, that the trilled apical /r/ is systematically produced by TxAls speakers.
Considering the presence of fluent speakers who acquired TxAls as a child, it is difficult
to ascertain whether this feature is consciously used to distinguish themselves from TxG
speakers in the community. In some sense, the fact that TxAls speakers still produce the
trilled apical /r/, given the fact that for most, English is their first language, seems to
indicate at some level that they use this /r/ and other distinctive ALS features discussed
above to “mark” their belonging to the group of Castroville Alsatians and separate
themselves from the group of TxG speakers. It is a complex issue, especially in view of
the fact that it is difficult to distinguish between unconscious and conscious “acts of
identity” (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller 1985).
An added dimension of complexity is that external aspects of identity (Breton,
Isajiw, Kalbach, & Reitz 2000) mirror internal aspects and cannot be separated from each
other. For example, language is usually the most visible external symbol of a group, but
its transmission and maintenance stem from internal “behavior” or attitudes, beliefs, and
feelings. I have shown that despite loss of prestige and stigmatization, Alsatian was still
transmitted to the next generation until circa 1940 and continues to be spoken and
maintained within the in-group seventy years later, which demonstrates group solidarity
and obligation.
279

Questions on the Alsatian Questionnaire (AQ) attempted to tap into internal
aspects of attitudes, feelings, and beliefs as to what constitutes “being Alsatian.” For
example, Figure 6.3 summarizes what Texas Alsatians considered the most important
markers (external and internal) of their identity. The results (in order of importance
among the choices given) show that Alsatian lineage, language, work ethics, foods and
recipes, religious affiliation, and lastly, music and songs all play some part in their
concept of the Alsatian ethnic identity. The highest-ranked item, Alsatian lineage, is
perhaps considered the defining marker by participants.

I mentioned the prestige

associated with lineage from the early colonists in Chapter Two. Even the few Alsatians
who have emigrated recently to Castroville are not necessarily considered “full-fledged
members” of the Texas Alsatian community.
The next section addresses further observations on attitudes, dispositions, and
ideologies important to the discussion of linguistic maintenance.

7.6 ATTITUDES, DISPOSITIONS, AND IDEOLOGIES
Research Question #5: Which ideologies and speaker attitudes have contributed
to the linguistic preservation of TxAls?
Given the length of contact with English, which was established as almost
immediate in Chapter Two, and the largely intact structural maintenance of the ancestral
language into the sixth generation, I investigated various attitudes, dispositions, and
ideologies of the group to help account for maintenance. Specifically, I attempted to
establish the strength of association with their ethnic identity in order to show “group
vitality” (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor 1977). Many questions on the Alsatian Questionnaire
were designed to inquire into individual’s opinions and beliefs to gauge group attitudes
280

and ideologies. For example, questions investigated how large a part their ethnicity plays
in their self-image (#30), to what degree they maintain a “separate-ness” from other
ethnic groups, i.e., the Texas Germans (#15, 21), or attitudes toward the out-group in
general, i.e., newcomers (#33, #34). The results of these questions show a still-strong
association with their ethnic heritage separating them from other TxG groups: 46%
(Figure 6.2) identify their ethnicity as a very important/important part of their identity.
40% of the participants consider themselves separate from the TxG community (Figure
6.5) and 60% noted differences in ancestry, language, and traditions separating the TxAls
from the TxG community (Figure 6.6).
Other questions (e.g. #s 6, 25) targeting attitudes toward the perceived prestige of
the ancestral language indicated predominantly positive attitudes. Figure 6.1 shows that
56% consider Alsatian an independent language versus a dialect (38%) and Figure 6.8
reveals that 85% believe that TxAls is worthy of preservation. In stark contrast to these
positive attitudes toward TxAls, however, are fatalistic and negative attitudes toward its
practical value, which will be discussed in the next section. Political and economic
developments presented in Chapter Two also point to strong attitudinal characteristics of
independence, self-reliance, and resistance to change which epitomized group ideologies
and supported ethnic insularity.
This solidarity and obligation to the group is evident externally in such actions as
maintaining the ancestral language and actively participating in activities which support
(and strengthen) the Alsatian heritage and traditions. It is largely external factors such as
migration, intermarriage, and the dominance of English in public sectors (supported by
English-only ideologies and policies) which have affected group number and institutional
support. The next section focuses upon a combination of extra-linguistic factors which
have triggered and accelerated the decline of TxAls.
281

7.7 THE DECLINE OF TXALS
Research Question #6: Which extra-linguistic factors are triggering the rapid
decline of TxAls currently in progress?
The socio-historical events which generally affected TxG dialects were
introduced in §1.5 and elaborated upon in Chapter Two. Several generations of TxG
scholars point to events surrounding the two World Wars with Germany as the enemy as
the turning point in the prestige of German dialects in Texas. German was the language
of the enemy and stigmatized. In the Castroville community, comments made by #202
point to ostracism of its speakers and general loss of its economic and social value. #202
also indicates decisions on the part of parents not to transmit the AL to their children
because “es profitiert sie nitt” (‘it’s of no use to them’). Figure 6.7 shows general
consensus on the failure to transmit the AL as to why TxAls is spoken less today. It is
clear that the prevalent national ideology that associated German-Americans with the
German enemy stigmatized the language in general and minimized its viability in public
domains, but I have also shown that TxAls continued to be spoken and taught in the
home until the early 1940s.
This transmission appears to have been extremely family-dependent, as there are
fluent speakers scattered throughout all four age-groups until 1940. However, it seems
that TxAls was able to sustain local prestige by emphasizing its Alsatian (now “French”)
heritage. Nevertheless, increasing urbanization and migration of younger generations
toward other centers which afforded better economic opportunities weakened the few
instances of family-centered transmission.

The economic, political, and social

dominance of English coupled with the communicative usefulness of Spanish in Texas
(Figure 6.7) as a second-language has left TxAls with little practical value.

282

Currently, the TxAls-speaking community has dwindled in number to only
approximately 100 speakers due factors such as the advanced age of the speaker
population, migration, and marriage with non-speakers of TxAls. In spite of its reduced
number, concerted efforts of key individuals have managed to sustain the ancestral
language and traditions along with the renewal of lateral partnership connections with the
Alsace. However, as in other TxG communities, TxAls appears reluctant to solicit the
support of public institutions, possibly due to their dispositions of fierce independence
and self-reliance alluded to by Ahr (2003), which were conversely instrumental in
sustaining their ethnicity over a period of six generations. In addition, most participants
express negativism and fatalism toward the survival of TxAls, as evidenced by the
response to AQ Question #26, “Do you think TxAls will be preserved?” Forty percent
believe that it will not be preserved and forty percent are “unsure.” Only fifteen percent
responded positively. The figurehead of the TxAls-speaking community, #202, too,
reiterates the general consensus that “the language is lost.” These negative attitudes,
unless somehow reversed, will make statements such as these a self-fulfilling prophecy
within the next few decades.

7.8 IMPLICATIONS FOR VARIOUS RESEARCH AREAS
To provide a preliminary descriptive account of Texas Alsatian and determine the
extent of its preservation by current TxAls speakers, I adopted a three-pronged approach
for studying languages in contact (Weinrich 1953). This type of multi-level approach has
been widely accepted by theoreticians who examine different outcomes in situations of
language contact: maintenance (e.g. Kloss 1965, Campbell 1994), shift (e.g., Batibo
1992, Mattheier 1996) leading to loss (e.g. Dorian 1973, 1978, 1981), endangerment (e.g.
Edwards 1992; Grenoble & Whaley 1998), and death (e.g. Dressler 1988, Lyle &
283

Muntzel 1989, Crystal 2000, Wolfram 2002). Directionality and agentivity of a change
(maintenance vs. loss; internal vs. external) must also be considered.

In a contact

situation, the direction toward either preservation or loss is determined by an “intricate
matrix of variables” (Grenoble & Whaley 1998) unique to the speech community. I
therefore consulted theoretical frameworks based upon multi-level and multi-directional
factors under the premise that an adequate description and satisfactory explanations for
preservation or change cannot be arrived at without incorporating the historical and social
context of a language contact situation. This study has accordingly undertaken the task
of describing the socio-historical context of the TxAls-speaking community in Castroville
and the linguistic subsystems of the dialect (lexicon, phonology, and morphology), as
well as socio-psychological aspects of speaker attitudes and community ideologies, and
sociolinguistic aspects of speaker choice in language use.
Winford (2003: 11) distinguishes between three kinds of contact situations: those
involving (1) language maintenance, (2) language shift, and (3) the creation of new
contact languages.

I have shown that TxAls can be associated most strongly with

language maintenance due to its high degree of linguistic preservation by the speech
community in Castroville. Preservation implies that the language has changed only
minimally due to internal developments or contact with other languages (English and
Texas German), and the phonological, morphological, and core lexicon subsystems have
remained relatively intact (Winford 2003: 12). The high degree of linguistic preservation
suggests strong speaker agentivity which is best addressed by sociolinguistic and sociopsychological approaches such as group vitality (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor 1977),
language choice as a social act (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller 1985, Vassberg 1993), and
theories of accommodation and divergence (e.g. Bourhis & Giles 1977, Myers-Scotton
2006).
284

On the other hand, this last generation of speakers also represents a continuum in
the fluency of its speakers, from fluent to strong and weak semi-speakers (including
formerly-fluent speakers) to rememberers. The semi-speakers in this continuum exhibit
variation and lexical and grammatical attrition. For all of these speakers, English is their
dominant language, which is also representative of contact situations where there has
been a shift to a “pragmatically-dominant language” (Matras 1998). TxAls has not been
transmitted to the next generation due to socio-historical and socio-linguistic factors and
will conceivably disappear within the next two to three decades. In this context, this
study informs research on language shift and its outcomes of loss, endangerment, and
death.
The following subsections address some implications of the findings of this study
within the broader field of language contact (maintenance, shift, death) from different
perspectives (i.e., linguistic, sociolinguistic) of research within different contexts (e.g.,
Texas German dialects, German-speaking enclaves in the U.S. and other countries)
The following discussion connects the findings of this study with its implications
for research on language contact and related phenomena, as well as for broader areas of
research such as processes involved in linguistic change.

7.8.1

Implications for linguistic research on language maintenance

To ascertain the extent of linguistic (lexical, phonological, morphological)
preservation of TxAls by current speakers by comparing it (1) to descriptive phonological
and grammatical accounts of Upper Rhine Alsatian (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1989,
Troxler-Lasseaux et al. 2003) and (2) to phonological and grammatical data collected by
Gilbert (1972) in Medina County in the 1960s. As summarized in the preceding sections
on my research questions, the lexical, phonological, and morphological subsystems of the
285

donor dialect have been preserved to a high degree. In particular, the phonology has
remained remarkably intact, as in the case of the apical trill and rising diphthongs, both of
which are marked features as compared with SG or the majority of TxG dialects. This
has implications for markedness theories such as those discussed by Campbell & Muntzel
(1989), as well as for language mixing or the creation of new contact languages (Trudgill
2004).

This preservation of linguistic subsystems is pertinent to past research on

German-American dialects as found in Pennsylvania German speech communities (e.g.
Molleken 1983, Huffines 1989, 1990, Louden 1992, Van Ness 1996) and also opens
avenues for future comparison, given certain features shared by Alsatian and Franconian.
This study also has implications for research on Texas German dialects (Gilbert 1965a,
Salmons 1983, Boas 2009a, 2009b), specifically with regard to the morphosyntactic
preservation of dative case-markings. Some morphological variability and indications of
loss were identified in the speech of formerly-fluent and semi-speakers and are discussed
within implications for research on language death in §7.8.3.
To account for this high degree of linguistic preservation, however,
sociolinguistic approaches offer the most pertinent explanatory frameworks, specifically
those which address speaker agentivity in terms of language as acts of identity (e.g., Le
Page & Tabouret-Keller 1985, Vassberg 1993, Myers-Scotton 1993a, etc.) in situations
where language choice is predicated.

7.8.2

Implications for sociolinguistic research on language maintenance

The disruption of bilingual stability between 1920 and 1940 resulting in shift was
discussed within the sociolinguistic context of language choice, where a dominant
majority language is adopted over a regressive minority language in an unstable bilingual
or multilingual speech community (Dressler 1988: 184). I showed that socio-historical
286

events stigmatizing the German language and its dialects coupled with a strong national
English-only ideology and laws essentially forcing a shift to English in public domains
situated English as the only alternative because of its overwhelming practical value (see
Boas 2009a for Texas German, also Nettle & Romaine 2000 for dying languages, etc.).
This study examined contact-induced phenomena such as diglossia, borrowing,
and code-switching which inform the sociolinguistics of language choice.

It was

established that a stable diglossia (Fishman 1965) between English and Alsatian must
have been quickly established during the early years of settlement, with each language
taking on mutually exclusive functions in complementary domains, much like classic
diglossia (Ferguson 1959) in Switzerland, where different varieties of a language are
allocated to specific domains. The multilingual make-up of the Castroville community
necessitated a lingua franca for the different groups of dialect and language speakers, and
a relatively stable bilingualism with diglossia (Fishman 1967) was established, with
English used in public domains and Alsatian (and other dialects) used mainly in private
domains. Although this stability was disrupted by socio-historical events between 1920
and 1940 which generated social and linguistic stigmatization of German dialects, many
continued to use TxAls in domains of home and friends. This has implications for
research on speaker motivations (identity, accommodation, symbolic power) for making
certain language choices.
The patterns of borrowing in TxAls, however, support linguistic preservation in
that most loanwords seem to be cultural borrowings (Myers-Scotton 2006) that became
established in the lexicon and are still used in the community today. These loanwords
have also been phonologically and grammatically integrated, suggesting that they are
established loanwords (Poplack 1980, Poplack, Sankoff, & Miller 1988, Clyne 2003). In
general, I established that borrowed vocabulary played only a small role in the
287

community (Poplack, Sankoff, & Miller 1988). The presence of puristic efforts by a few
fluent speakers to limit “nonce borrowings” has also supported linguistic maintenance to
some extent, but only within a limited scope.
The examination of instances of code-switching held against theoretical
frameworks such as those proposed by Myers-Scotton (1993a), Muysken (2000), and
Clyne (2003) suggests that fluency and frequency of use of the AL are crucial
prerequisites for social explanations motivating alternation. For most of the participants,
code-switching was mainly motivated by a lack of fluency (referential, Appel &
Muysken 1987) rather than with intent to negotiate any social advantage or as a “skilled
performance with communicative intent” (Myers-Scotton 1993a: 6). Given the small
number of fluent speakers, any extended study on code-switching would be difficult,
which suggests that there are definite boundaries regarding bilingual fluency for
analyzing code-switching in endangered languages.

7.8.3

Implications for research on linguistic change related to language
death

Scholarly discussions of categorizations and causes leading to language death and
its structural “signs” (e.g., functional loss, grammatical attrition) vary greatly (see
Dressler 1988, Campbell and Munzel 1989, McMahon 1994, Crystal 2000, Wolfram
2000, etc.). However, most agree that in cases of gradual death (as exemplified by
TxAls), where one language gradually replaces another, certain linguistic changes take
place. Dressler (1988) was one of the first to address these changes typologically in
terms of “language decay” and examined structural and functional changes (attrition) that
seem to lead to language death. McMahon (1994) succinctly denotes language death as
involving “‘normal’ linguistic changes, but occurring at an accelerated rate for particular
288

sociolinguistic reasons.” This again emphasizes the necessity for sociolinguistic analysis
and simultaneously points to the importance of examining synchronic processes of
linguistic change studies to inform our understanding of diachronic change.
This study identified linguistic changes in the morphosyntactic structure of TxAls,
such as epenthesis or the reduction to and regularization of a “default” article, d’ (‘the’).
Generally, pinpointing the motivation for a change such as the latter as internally or
externally-motivated is often difficult. For example, the Alsatian donor dialect itself
shows reduction in definite article forms compared with SG, indicating that this reduction
in TxAls could be an internal tendency of simplification. However, the contact language,
English, with its one definite article form the, could also be motivating the reduction to
one article observed in the speech of several TxAls speakers.307 This could also be
considered an example of structural attrition marking the breakdown of a dying language
in its last stages.308 As such, structural changes discussed in this study inform not only
research on language death, but also research on synchronic and diachronic change
within German-speaking enclaves (e.g., Damke 1997 in Brazil; Clyne 2003 in Australia;
Berend 2003 in the USA and Russia, etc.) and language change in general (paradigm
reduction, regularization, movement toward analytic structures, borrowing, etc.) These
structural changes also inform research on second-language acquisition (i.e., “imperfect
learning,” Campbell & Muntzel 1989: 189) pertinent to theoretical issues of learning
(saliency, models, etc.) in situations of language shift and death.

307

Cf. also Clausing (1986) for English influences on American-German.
This specific case of structural reduction and regularization supports the theory of “multiple causation”
proposed by Campbell & Muntzel (1989: 188).
308

289

7.8.4

Implications for sociolinguistic research on language death

One of the earliest landmark studies of social factors involved in language death
was conducted by Gal (1978) of a Hungarian speech island in Austria. In this study, she
identified a stigmatization of the Hungarian dialect within certain groups of the bilingual
community of Oberwart. For example, younger speakers associated Hungarian with
peasant status and therefore as less prestigious, which identified a conscious shift in
attitude of the younger generation towards German. In an extensive study published only
a few years later, Dorian (1981) combined both a study of social factors and
accompanying linguistic changes that characterized the obsolescence of East Sutherland
Gaelic (ESG). This study informs the same body of sociolinguistic research on factors
motivating a community to abandon one language in favor of another. As in other
German-speaking enclaves in Texas (Salmons 1983, Boas 2009a) and other countries
(Clyne 2003 in Australia), I established that social stigmatization resulting from two
World Wars with Germany as the “language of the enemy” motivated families to cease
transmission of their ancestral language, which ultimately resulted in the decline of Texas
Alsatian.

7.9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The sharp decline of TxAls within the past sixty years mirrors several findings of
Boas’ (2009a) study on the decline of New Braunfels TxG in Comal County, for which
he also identifies a combination of socio-historical and attitudinal factors. This would
reinforce the probability that macro-factors of the World Wars and Anglo-based
ideologies were the main catalysts in triggering the rapid decline of TxG dialects.

290

The extent of the structural preservation of marked phonological and morphosyntactic features of the TxAls dialect indicates strong group solidarity and obligation to
the ancestral language. This preservation also argues against the development of a TxG
koiné and provides an example of how attitudinal factors are instrumental to the survival
of a language, especially in a linguistic group as small in number as that of Texas
Alsatian.

At the same time, similar attitudes of self-reliance which enabled the

maintenance of TxAls by insulating it from strong outside influences from English
resulted in ignoring important means to support their culture and language. Instead of
turning to regional and state institutions for support, they have strengthened lateral ties
with the Alsace, which has served to revitalize the current community of speakers, but
has provided no foundation for its continued support locally or initiated interest in the
next generation of potential speakers. Evaluating its overall group vitality today, TxAls
ranks low in status, demography, and institutional support. Furthermore, the negative
attitudes of current TxAls speakers toward preservation and revitalization efforts
contribute to and accelerate its rapid loss. TxAls, like neighboring TxG dialects, will
most likely disappear within the next few decades.
Although prospects for its continued preservation are not encouraging, there is
still opportunity to collect additional data on the dialect for analysis. In addition, there is
still much work to be done to make the data (segmenting, translation, etc.) available
online in order to preserve it for future research. Topics mentioned in this study which
invite further research include developments in word order, dialect-mixing, and the role
of linguistic markedness versus speaker attitudes in language preservation. The overall
question remains, however, whether current efforts will suffice to sustain this unique
dialect brought to Texas in 1842 by the immigrants Henri Castro recruited, or whether
these speakers are truly the last Alsatian cowboys.
291

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Participant Profiles
TEXAS ALSATIAN SPEAKERS W/ GILBERT TASKS

TGDP #

Data

Ancestral
village(s)

Birthyear
Place

Age

Religion

Education

Occupation

When did
you learn
Alsatian?

Oderen

1939

69

Catholic

H.S.
diploma

farmer/rancher
meat processor

0-5

What
generatio
n are
you?
6th

Oberentzen,
Niederentzen

1979
Castroville

29

Catholic

A.A.

EMT,
firefighter,
farmer/rancher
loan officer

13-20

6th

only a
little bit

0-5

-

pretty
well

I speak:

1.

202
(F)

2.

233
(W)

AQ,
Eikel,
Gilbert
AQ,
Gilbert

3.

234
(F)

AQ,
Gilbert

Niederentzen

1932
LaCoste

76

Catholic

H.S.
diploma

4.

235
(F)
236
(W)

AQ,
Gilbert
AQ,
Gilbert

Irish ancestry

1913
Poteet
1936
Castroville

95

Catholic

elementary

cook

13-20

n/a

fluently

72

Catholic

H.S.

US Army civil
service:
computer
programmer

6-12

4th

fair

6.

237
(F)

AQ,
Gilbert

1939
Hondo

69

Catholic

H.S.

self-employed

0-5

5th

pretty
well

7.

238
(F)
239
(F)

AQ,
Gilbert
AQ,
Gilbert

Unknown

1940

68

Catholic

farmer/rancher

0-5

5th

fluently

Bretten

1926
LaCoste

82

Catholic

H.S.
diploma
elementary

homemaker

0-5

-

fluently

5.

8.

OberentzenNieder-entzen,
Oderen,
Ransbach,
Mitzbach,
Falkwiller,
Oberentzen

292

fluently

240
(S)

AQ,
Gilbert

Soppe-le-Haut;
Wittelsheim

1933
Castroville

75

Catholic

H.S.

restaurant
owner, rancher

0-5

4th

pretty
well

10. 241
(S)

Wittelsheim,
Bretten

Catholic

M.A.

educator

0-5

5th

fluently

81

Catholic

H.S.

homemaker

0-5

4th

fair

12. 243
(R)

AQ,
Gilbert

1925
San
Antonio
1927
San
Antonio
1933
Castroville

84

11. 242
(W)

AQ,
Gilbert,
Eikel
AQ,
Gilbert

75

Catholic

H.S.
diploma

carpenter

6-12

4th

only a
little bit

13. 247
(F)

AQ,
Gilbert

Epfig

1928
Castroville

80

Catholic

H.S.
diploma

electrician

6-12

3rd

pretty
well

14. 248
(S)
15. 249a
(W)

AQ,
Gilbert
AQ,
Gilbert

Sewen

1922
Idlewild

86

Catholic

civil service

0-5

4th

fluently

1936
D’Hanis

72

Catholic

A.A.

social worker

0-5

4th

only a
little bit

16. 249b
(W)
17. 249c
(W)

TGDP,
Gilbert
TGDP,
Gilbert

1932
D’Hanis
1927
D’Hanis

78

Catholic

4th

a little bit

Catholic

company
employee
telephone
operator;
insurance co.

0-5

81

H.S.
diploma
H.S.
diploma

0-5

4th

a little bit

18. 249d
(F)
19. 250
(W)

TGDP,
Gilbert
AQ,
Gilbert

same as 249a

2008
D’Hanis
1930
Castroville

85

Catholic

0-5

4th

well

78

Catholic

farmer/rancher

0-5

3rd

only a
little bit

20. 251
(F)
21. 252a
(S)

AQ,
Gilbert
AQ,
Gilbert

Soppe-le-Haut

1933
Hondo
1931
San
Antonio

75

Catholic

6-12

5th

fluently

77

Catholic

construction
foreman
water works
employee

6-12
21-35

-

fair

9.

Grosne, France
Mulhouse,
Alsace
Rixheim,
Alsace

St. Amarin,
Blodelsheim,Tha
nn, Wittelsheim,
Hesteren,
Falkwiller
same as 249a
same as 249a

Berrwiller,
Alsace

293

H.S.
diploma
H.S.
diploma
H.S.
diploma
H.S.

Oberentzen,
Rixheim,
Wittelsheim,
Falkwiller +
Oberentzen,
Gundelsheim

1934
LaCoste

74

Catholic

H.S.
diploma

city employee

0-5

5th

pretty
well

1914
Devine

94

Catholic

elementary
school

plasterer

0-5

4th

fluently

Soppe-le-Haut;
Wittelsheim

1939
LaCoste

69

Catholic

B.A.

school
administrator

0-5

5th

pretty
well

TGDP,
Gilbert

Gundelsheim

87

Catholic

-

a little bit

OberentzenNiederentzen

72

Catholic

H.S.
diploma
(1938)
H.S.

0-5

AQ,
Gilbert

† 19212008,
LaCoste
1936

6-12

5th

pretty
well

22. 252b
(F)

AQ,
Gilbert

23. 254
(F)
24. 255
(S)

AQ,
Gilbert,
Eikel
AQ,
Gilbert

25. 256
(S)
26. 257
S)

entrepreneur,
Phillip’s Oil;
farmer

OTHER PARTICIPANTS:

I.D.

Data sets

1.

B.C.
(R)

2.

B.D.
(N)

3.

B.E.
(R)

4.

D.E.
(W)

5.

E.B.
(R)

When did
you learn
Alsatian?
6-12

5th

only a
little bit

computer
specialist

n/a

4th

does not
speak’

elementary

homemaker

0-5

3rd

only a
little bit

Catholic

H.S.
diploma

waitress,
homemaker

0-5

4th

Catholic

M.A.

research &
development

6-12

5th

only a
little bit
–no
interview
only a
little bit

Ancestral
Villages
Soppe-le-Haut,
La Chapelle,
Wittelsheim
Falkwiller

Birth year,
Place
1930
Castroville

Age

Religion

Education

Occupation

78

Catholic

H.S.

retired;
town historian

1942
Castroville

66

Catholic

B.S.

interview in
English;
AQ
AQ, TGDP

unknown

1917
LaCoste

91

Catholic

same as #4

1924
LaCoste

84

interview in
English; AQ

Bretten

1946

62

interview in
English;
AQ
AQ

294

I speak…

Bretten, Bischwihr,
Ober/Niederentzen, Heiteren,
Etimbes, Blodelsheim, Geiss-wasser,
Ungersheim
Oberentzen, Niederentzen

1934
Del
Rio

74

Catholic

1938

70

Catholic

interview in
English only;
AQ;
Gilbert

as above + Bourbach-le-Bas, Soppele-Haut, Berrwiller

1939
Hondo

69

T.C.
(W)
10. T.R.
(N)

AQ

Epfig

1959

AQ

Milly, Meuse

11. T.A.
(W)

AQ

1931
Del
Rio
1934

12. W.M.
(W)

AQ

Oberentzen

13. Z.V.
(N)

AQ

Niederentzen

6.

F.C.
(N)

AQ

7.

H.P.
(W)

AQ
no interview

8.

K.R.
(R)

9.

teacher, retail
sales

n/a

4th

doesn’t
speak

H.S.

executive
secretary

6-12

5th

fair

Catholic

H.S.

secretary,
bookkeeper,
homemaker

2135

5th

only a
little bit

49

Catholic

H.S.

Catholic

H.S.

3650
n/a

4th

77

a little
bit
does not
speak

74

Catholic

H.S.

teaching
assistant
title company &
insurance
employee
-

1320

5th

pretty
well

1948

60

Catholic

B.S.

electrical
engineer

6-12

5th

only a
little bit

1926
Devine

82

Catholic

teacher

n/a

4th

doesn’t
speak

Questionnaire total:
36 Alsatian Questionnaires (including 4 non-speakers)
4 tgdp questionnaires
40 questionnaires
33 interviews in Alsatian or English

295

4th

Appendix B: Alsatian Questionnaire
ALSATIAN QUESTIONNAIRE
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous as per the conditions
provided in the interview consent form.

Name:_________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
Birthdate & Place: _______________________________________________
Ancestral Village(s) in Alsace: _____________________________________
Occupation: (before retirement) ____________________________________
Religious affiliation: □ Catholic □ Protestant □ other______________ □ no affiliation
Highest educational degree: ________________________________________
1. What generation of Alsatian ancestry are you? □1st □2nd □3rd □4th □5th □6th+
2. Do you speak Alsatian?

□ Yes

□ No

(if ‘no’, proceed to Question 10)

3. If yes, when did you learn it? □ 0-5 □ 6-12 □ 13-20 □ 21-35 □ 36-50 □ 50+
4. From whom did you learn it? (Please check all that apply)
□ great-grandparents □ grandparents □ parents (+in-laws)
□ spouse □ other_____________________
5. I speak . . . □ fluently
6. Alsatian is . . .

□ pretty well

□ its own language

□ fair

□ siblings

□ only a little bit

□ a German dialect

□ a French dialect

7. a. With whom do you speak Alsatian now and how often?
□ grandparents____ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ parents (+in-law) □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ siblings _______ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ spouse________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ children________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ grandchildren___ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
296

□ friends_________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ colleagues ______□ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
□ Alsatian visitors

□ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a

□ others _________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
(please specify)_____________________________________
b.
□
□
□
□
□
□

Where do you speak Alsatian?
home__________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never
church_________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
social gatherings □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never
restaurants, shops □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never
work___________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
other__________ □ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never
(please specify)___________________________________________

8. a. When you were a child (~ 6-12 yrs), how often did you speak Alsatian?
□ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
b. With whom did you speak it? (please check all that apply)
□grandparents □ parents □ siblings □ friends □ teachers
□ other ________________
c. Where did you speak it? (please check all that apply)
□ home □ school □ church □ social gatherings □ shops

□ shop-owners

□ other _______

9. a. When you were a young adult (~ 16-28), how often did you speak Alsatian?
□ always □ often □ sometimes □ seldom □ never □ n/a
b. With whom did you speak it? (please check all that apply)
□ grandparents □ parents □ siblings □ spouse □ friends □ colleagues
□ shopowners
□ other ____________________
c. Where did you speak it? (please check all that apply)
□ home □ church □ social gatherings □ work □ shops □ other __________
10. Languages spoken other than English or Alsatian: □Texas German □German
□Spanish □French □other______________ □ none
11. Which languages did your parents speak other than English?
Mother: □ Alsatian □Texas German □ German □Spanish □French □other
Father: □ Alsatian □Texas German □ German □Spanish □French □other
12. “Knowing languages other than English is important.”
297

□ strongly agree □ agree

□ neutral

□ disagree

□ strongly disagree

13. Should a second language be taught in schools?
□Yes
If YES, at which level should instruction start?
□ elementary □ middle school □ high school

□ No
□ college

14. Should Alsatian language and/or history be included as part of the curriculum in
Medina County?
□Yes
□ No
Comments:
15. Do you consider yourself a part of the larger Texas-German community?
□Yes
□ No
16. How is the Texas-German community different? (please check all that apply)
____ no difference
____ language
____ church affiliation
____ traditions
____ ancestry
____ education
____ professions
____ organizations
____ other practices (please list) __________________________
17. Can you understand Texas German? (‘Hochdietsch’ or ‘Plattdietsch’)
□ Always □ Often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never
18. Can Texas Germans understand you when you speak Alsatian?
□ Always □ Often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never
19. In what form did your parents pass on Alsatian heritage to you? (please check all
that apply)
____ genealogy--family trees, etc
____ Alsatian language
____ stories and sayings
____ religious traditions
____ music, songs
____ work ethic and practices
____ food preparation; recipes
____ other (please list) ___________________________
____ n/a
20. Of the above, what have you passed on to the next generation? (please check all
that apply)
____ genealogy
298

____ Alsatian language
____ stories and sayings
____ religious traditions
____ music, songs
____ work ethic and practices
____ food preparation; recipes
____ other (please list)___________________
____ n/a
21. How do you stay connected with your Alsatian heritage? (please check all that
apply, also PAST activities you have participated in!)
____ n/a
____ neighbors and friends
____ language lessons
____ newspaper or newsletters
____ city government
____ church community
____ library programs
____ contact with Alsatians from Europe
____ genealogical research
____ heritage organizations
____ special-interest clubs: (singing, gun, cards, sports, etc.)
____ other (please list):___________________________
Comments:
22. How does the church community play a role in maintaining Alsatian heritage?
Please check all that apply.
____ no role
____ teaches religious Alsatian traditions
____ promotes Alsatian community identity
____ provides opportunities to speak Alsatian
____ other (please list) ______________________________________________
23. What defines your Alsatian heritage? Please RANK the following from 1-6 in
importance (1 being the highest):
____ ancestral history
____ language (what and how you speak)
____ church affiliation
____ Alsatian music, songs
____ Alsatian food & recipes
____ work ethic and values
____ other (please specify) ___________________________________________
24. What do you believe is the most effective way to preserve the Alsatian heritage?
299

(Please choose 3 items from the list and RANK them 1, 2, & 3)
____ private Alsatian language instruction
____ church programs
____ heritage organizations
____ city-sponsored programs
____ school programs
____ media (television, newspaper, internet)
____ other (please list)________________________
25. Do you think Alsatian should be preserved?

□ Yes □ No □ Unsure

26. Do you think Alsatian will be preserved?

□ Yes

□ No □ Unsure

Comments:
27. “I can play an important part now in preserving Alsatian.”
□ strongly agree □ agree □ neutral □ disagree □ strongly disagree
28. “The sister city exchange with the French Alsace plays an important role in
preserving Alsatian.”
□ strongly agree □ agree □ neutral □ disagree □ strongly disagree
29. Why do you think Alsatian is spoken less these days? (multiple answers ok)
a. Alsatian is not useful
b. Alsatian is not passed on to younger generations
c. Alsatian has no future
d. Alsatian speakers would rather speak English
e. Spanish is more helpful as a second language
30. Which statement best describes you:
a. Alsatian is a very important part of my identity
b. Alsatian is an important part of my identity
c. Alsatian is a part of my identity
d. Alsatian is not a part of my identity

300

31. What do you think tourists consider “Alsatian” about your community?
(please RANK 1-3)
____ cuisine
____ architecture
____ names
____ religious traditions
____ language
____ shops
____ people
____ other:_____________________
32. “New residents are welcomed in our community.”
□ agree strongly □ agree □ neutral □ disagree

□ strongly disagree

Comments:
33. What positive influences have new residents had?

34. Are there any negative influences you associate with the influx of new residents?

35. How do you view changing Castroville and surroundings? (check all that apply)
□ very positive

□ good

□ necessary

□ alarming

□ sad

□ terrible

□ other (please explain) _____________________________________________
Additional comments:__________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time!
Karen Roesch, Department of Germanic Studies C3300
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
karoesch@mail.utexas.edu

301

Appendix C: TGDP Questionnaire
Questionnaire – Texas German Dialect Project
In case a question does not apply to you, please skip it. All answers are kept strictly
confidential. In case you feel like you would like to add information, please use sections
labeled “additional comments.” Thank you very much for your help. We greatly
appreciate it!
Name ___________________________________
Year of Birth ________________
Place of Birth: _____________________
Current place of residence: ____________________________________
Previous places of residence: ______________________________________________
Religious affiliation: _________________________
Which town or region did your ancestors come from in Europe?
1) Which language(s) did you learn first at home?
2) When you started school, which language(s) could you speak?
3) How old were you when you learned your second language?
4) Where and from whom did you learn your second language?
5) When you were a kid how often did you speak (a) German, (b) English, with_______?
PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER(S). Please make sure to include information on
your use of German AND English for each point. For example, if you circle “always” for
German, then you are likely to circle “never” or “sometimes” for English.”
Parents:

(German)Always
(English) Always

Often regularly
Often regularly

sometimes
sometimes

never
never

(German) Always
(English) Always
(German) Always
(English) Always
(German) Always
(English) Always
(German) Always
(English) Always
(German) Always
(English) Always

Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often

sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes
sometimes

never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never

Grandparents:
Teacher:
Friends:
Siblings:
Neighbors:

302

regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly
regularly

Still when you were a kid- how often did you speak (a) German, (b) English, at_______?
Church:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
School:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Home:
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Shops:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
ometimes
never
Large Family Gatherings:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Other: (boy scouts, etc.)
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
6) When you were older in the 1960s and 1970s, how often did you speak
(a) German, (b) English, with_______? PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER(S).
Please make sure to include information on your use of German AND English for each
point.
Parents:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(if) Grandparents:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Co-workers:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Friends:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Siblings:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Spouse:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Children:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Neighbors:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
never
Still in the 1960s and 1970s, how often did you speak (a) German, (b) English,
at_______?
Church:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Home:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
303

never
never
never
never

Shops:

(German) Always
(English) Always
Large Family Gatherings:
(German) Always
(English) Always

Often regularly
Often regularly

sometimes
sometimes

never
never

Often regularly
Often regularly

sometimes
sometimes

never
never

7) These days, how often do you speak (a) German, (b) English, with_______?
Often regularly sometimes never
(if) Parents: (German) Always
(English) Always
Often regularly sometimes never
(if) Co-workers:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Friends:
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Siblings:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Spouse:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Children:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Neighbors:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
These days, how often do you speak (a) German, (b) English, at_______?
Church:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Home:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Shops:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Large Family Gatherings:
(German) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
(English) Always
Often regularly
sometimes
Additional Comments:
8) Do you belong to any local shooting or singing club (Verein)?
(a) Which ones?
(b) Do people speak German or English there? (Please circle)
(German) Always
(English) Always
Additional Comments:

Often regularly
Often regularly

304

sometimes
sometimes

never
never

never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never
never

9) Is there any other area of your public or private life where you speak German with
people today?
Additional Comments:
10) Was German spoken at school when you were a kid? By whom?
Additional Comments:
11)

(a) Was German taught at school?
(b) What about German grammar?

Additional Comments:
12) (a) Do you have a high school degree?
(b) Did you study German formally in high school?
13) (a) Do you have a college degree?
(b) Did you study German formally in college?
Additional Comments:
14) I speak ………….. (Please check one answer)
Fluently Well O.K. A little bit Not at all
English
German
Other lang.
15) I understand ………….. (Please check one answer)
Very well Well O.K. A little bit Not at all
English
German
Other lang.

Additional Comments: 16) Can you read German? Please circle your answer.
Very well
quite well
Not very well
Can’t read any
17) Can you write German? Please circle your answer.
Very well
quite well
Not very well
18) Do you listen to German radio or watch German TV?

305

Can’t write any

(such as in the community or on the internet…) Please circle your answer.
always
often
sometimes
rarely
never
19) Is it important to you that the type of German you learned to speak is passed on to
younger generations, or is it just important that the German language in general is spoken
by younger generations in Texas?
Additional Comments:
20) Do you wish your children spoke …. (Please circle your answer)
a) German:
YES NO
Don’t know
b) Texas German:
YES NO
Don’t know
Additional Comments:
21) Do you wish your grandchildren spoke … (Please circle your answer)
a) German:
YES NO
Don’t know
b) Texas German:
YES NO
Don’t know
Additional Comments:
22) Do you think that Texas German should be preserved?
YES NO
Don’t know
23) Do you think that Texas German will be preserved?
YES NO
Don’t know
Additional Comments:
24) Is it important to you that the Texas German dialect be included on the primary
school curriculum?
YES NO
Don’t know
25) Should the study of –
a) German be compulsory at school?
Compulsory Optional
Don’t Know
b) Texas German be compulsory at school?
Compulsory Optional
Don’t Know
Additional Comments:
26) Should there be any regular radio program in Texas German?
YES NO
Don’t know
27) Should there be any regular TV program in Texas German?
YES NO
Don’t know
Additional Comments:

306

28) Should Texas German be featured on all central Texas road signs?
YES NO
Don’t know
29) How do you primarily identify yourself? Please circle and rank your answers.
German?
American?
Texan?
American-German?
Texas-German?
As a resident of this city or county?
30) Why do you think Texas German is spoken less these days?
(Please circle appropriate answer. You may circle more than one answer)
a) Texas German is not modern
b) Texas German is not passed on to younger generations
c) Texas German is not helpful on the job
d) Texas German speakers have it harder in school
e) Texas German is not a real language
f) Texas German speakers rather speak English
g) Texas German speaker rather speak Spanish
Additional comments:
31) I am proud to be a speaker of Texas German (Please circle one answer)
a) I strongly agree
b) I agree
c) I don’t know
d) I disagree
e) I strongly disagree
Additional comments:
32) Which of the following applies to you? (Please circle one answer)
a) Texas German is an important part of my identity
b) Texas German is a part of my identity
c) Texas German is not important for my identity
Additional comments:
33) I am proud to be a speaker of English. (Please circle one answer)
a) I strongly agree
b) I agree
c) I don’t know
d) I disagree
e) I strongly disagree

307

Additional comments:
34) A world without Texas German would be ………..
(Please check one answer each)
I strongly
I
agree
agree
sad
a possibility
richer
more modern
impossible
lacking something

I don’t
know

backwards
something good
more practical
a lonely place

Additional comments:

308

I don’t
agree

I strongly
disagree

35) Please tell us how strongly you associate the following domains and terms with
speaking English. (Please check the words that are most important to you)
Very strongly Strongly Somewhat A little bit Not at all
Home
Official
Friendly
Cozy
Foreign
Religion
Arrogant
Rural
Future
Identity
Urban
Love
Hate
Family
Additional Comments:

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

309

Appendix D: Gilbert (1972) Sentences, Sample

Gilbert (1963) Sentences

#202

#234

a hairbrush

ɑ hořbu:ʃt

ɑ ho:ř...kam

He's running now.

ař dyɛt jɛts řɛ:nɑ

ɑřɛnt

two goats

tsvai ga:isa

tswai gaɪsɑ

one apple

ai ɛpfl

ai ɛpfł

icicles

i:stsapfɑ

aisɪkl

the cooking pot

dř koxhɔ:fɑ

a ko:xpfɔn

my head

mi: kɔpf

mi kɔpf

the door

dɛř

dɛ:r

The table is broken.

d dɪʃ ɪʃ fɛřbřoxɑ.

d' dɪʃ ɪʃ fəke:t.

The animal died out in the

s di:ř ɪʃ fɛřɛkt y:s ɪm vɔlt.

kʏ:a ɪʃ fərɛkt ɪm pastijɽ.

It is too dry this year.

dɔs jɔ:ř ɪʃ tsy třokɑ

ɛs ɪʃ tsy ḍrukɑ dɔs jo:r

water faucet

vɔsřhɔ:n

skipped.

Thursday

du:nʃɪk

dʊ:nʃtɪk

He took the most sausage.

ɑř hɔt d mɑɪʃt fu d vuřʃt

ar hɑt tsy fi:l vurʃt

gnu:mɑ.

gnʊmɑ.

a hairbrush

ɑ hořbu:ʃt

skipped.

the door

ɑ tɛř

skipped.

two daughters

tsvai do:xdɛřɑ

tsvai ma:idlɑ

sweet potatoes

bɑtha:təs

pɑthatə...siǝsɑ kɑtɔfl…no,

pasture.

that doesn't make sense...
two cooking pots

tsvai koxhɔ:fɑ

skipped.

a hairbrush

ho:řbu:ʃt

skipped.

This chicken has long

di:ǝ hy:ǝn hɔt lɔ:ŋi fɔdřɑ.

dija hy:n hɑt lɑŋi fɑ:dɑrə.

ɛs lɛ:kt do:u ʊfm bo:udɑ.

ɛs le:kt ʊfm bo:dɑ

feathers.
It's lying down there on the
floor.

310

Gilbert (1963) Sentences

#202

#234

the red ants that sting

řoudi ɔ:mɑisɑ vʊ ʃtɑxɑ

d ro:ti o:maɪza …what is

di:ǝn.

the word for sting?

my head

mi ko:pf

milk

mɪlɑx

mɪlx

We went with her.

mř sɪn mɪtəřǝ gɔŋɑ.

mir sɪn mɪtm gɔŋɑ.

Who did we see?

vɛř hɔn mɛř ksɔ:nɑ.

vɛř ɪʃ das ksei?

He came with me.

ɑř ɪʃ mɪt miř ku:mɑ.

ɑř ɪʃ mɪt mɛř kʊmɑ.

He's helping me now.

ɑř dyɛt mɛř ɛts hɔ:lfɑ.

əř hɪlft mɪř jɛts.

The little children see her.

d klaini kɪnř sɔ:ǝn si.

d klaɪni kɪntř sa:ən si.

Give her two pieces!

gɪpǝřɑ tsvai ʃtyk.

si kã tswai ʃtɪkɽ hɔn.

We went with her.
The picture belongs to them.

miř sɪn gɔŋɑ mɪt ɛpəř.
s bɪlt kɛ:řt ɑ e:nɑ.

s bɪlt, sal bɪlt kɛ:at tsy
saləm.

Who did we see?

vɛř hɔn mɛř ksɔ:.

vɛř hɔn mɛř gsɑ:nə?

There's the man who I want

dɛt ɪʃ tř mɔ:n vʊ ɛx gɔřn

dɛt ɪʃ dr mɔn vʊ ɛx vɪł

to see.

dɛ:t zɔ:nɑ.

sa:nɑ.

There are the children who I

dɑ: sɪn d kɪndř vʊ ɛx s

dɛt sɪn tkɪnḍř vʊ ɛx hɔn d

gave the candy to.

buŋbuŋ gɔ: hɑ:n.

kændi ga:

This is my chair.

dɑs ɪʃ mi: ʃtyǝl.

das ɪʃ main ʃty:əl.

It is too dry this year.

sɪʃ tsy: třukɑ dɔs jo:ř.

The dog bit that bad man.

d hu:nt hɔt sɔ:lɑ be:s mɔn

sal hʊnt hɑt salɑ mɔn

gbɪsɑ.

gbɪsɑ.

The dog bit the bad man.

d hu:nt hɔt sɔ:lɑ be:s mɔn
gbɪsɑ.

The little children see her.

dia kɪndř ly:əgɑ, no, sɑ:n
sali fřɔɪ.

the red ants that sting

di řo:di o:maɪzɑ bi:sɑ.

There is something in your

ɛs ɪʃ ɛbɪs ɪn di:m li:nkɑ

left eye.

oik.

Boil that egg in hot water.

mɔx sal aɪ ɪn haɪsɑ vɔsř.

311

Gilbert (1963) Sentences

#202

#234

a bad dream

ɑ ʃlɑxtǝ třɔim odř ɑ vi:ǝʃtǝ

ɛx hɑn třɔɪmt…A: beez

třɔim
Hang the picture over the

haŋs bɪlt o:va m bɛt

hɔŋ bɪlt iwəř mi bɛt

s bɪlt hɔŋt o:va m bɛt

s bɪlt hɔŋt bi mim bɛt.

bed!
The picture hangs over the
bed.
He is putting the chair under

ɑř myɛs də ʃty:əl ʊntř də

the tree.

bɔim mɔxɑ.

He's sitting under the tree.

ɑř hɔkt ʊndəřəm bɔim.

He's putting the chair beside

ɑř mɔxt d ʃty:əl bim bɔim.

the tree.
He's sitting over there beside

ɑř sɪtst dɑ da:nɑ ʊnəřəm

ɑř sɛtst dɛt a:nɑ bim

the tree.

bɔim.

bɔim.

Put it on the floor!

mɔxs ʊf d boudɑ.

mɔxs ɑn d boʊdɑ.

It's lying down there on the

ɑs li:kt dɛt ʊf əm boʊda.

ɑs lɛ:kt ɔm boʊdɑ…dř

floor.

hʊnt.

He goes into the room.

ɑř ge:t yo ɪns tsɪmř.

ɑř ge:t ɪn sal tsɪmř.

He is already in the room.

ɑř ɪʃ ʃo ɪm tsɪmř.

ɑř ɪʃ ʃo: ɪm tsɪmř.

two windows

tswai fɔ:nʃtř

tsvai fɔ:nʃtr

two rooms

tswai tsɪmř

tsvai tsɪmr

two plates

tswai plɔ:thɑ

tsvai tɔ:lr

two wagons

tswai vɑ:gɑ

tsvai wɔ:gɑ

two boys

tswai bi:əwəlɑ

tsvai by:əbə

two goats

tswai gaɪzɑ

tsvai ga:isə

This chicken has long

di:a hy:ən hɔt lɔŋi fɔ:dəřɑ.

feathers.
two cows

tswai ki:ja

tsvai ki:jə

two gardens

tswai ga:řthɑ

tsvai gɑ:řtɑ

two daughters

tswai do:xtəř

tsvai maidlə, ʃvɛstəř

Two heads are better than

tswai kɛpf sɪn bɛ:sř as ains.

tsvai kɛpf ɪʃ bɛ:sr as ainə

one.

312

Gilbert (1963) Sentences

#202

#234

the honey

s hu:nɪk

hunɪk

the door

dɛ:ř

His coughing is getting

zi: hy:əʃtɑ viřt ɪmř ʃlɪmř.

ař hy:ʃtɛt me: ʊn me:ř

He's helping me now.

ɑř dyət miŗ jɛts hɑ:lfɑ.

ař hɪlft mir jɛts.

He's sleeping now.

ɑr ʃlo:ft jɛts

ar ʃlo:ft jɛts.

He eats too much.

ɑř ɪst tsy fi:l.

ɑř ɪst zʏ: fɪl.

He's washing his hands.

ɑŗ dyət sini hɔnt vaʃɑ.

ɑř vɔʃt sini hɔ:nt.

Look how that tree is falling

lyəgɑ mol vi: salɑ bɔɪm

ly:egɑ mol, salla boim

down!

saməke:t.

ke:t um; ly:egɑ mol vi d'

worse and worse.

boim umake:t.
He's running now.

əř dy:ɛt jɛts řɛ:nɑ.

You're ruining the food!

das asa ɪʃ křɛni:ɾt.

What was his name anyway?

vɔs ɪʃ sini nɔ:mɑ dɔx gse:

vɔs ɪʃ si nɔ:mɑ?

This month it snowed three

da mʊ:nɑt hɔts dřaimol

da mo:nɑt hɔts gʃnait

times.

gʃnait.

dřaimol.

I've known that man for

ɪx hɔn salɑ mɔn kɛnt ʃo: fɛř

ɛx hɔn salɑɾ kɛnt ʃo: lɔŋ.

many years.

fi:l jo:řə

What did they name the

vɔs hɔn si skɪnt khaisɑ?

child?

vɔs ɪʃ sainəm kɪnt si
nɔ:mɑ…?

Give her two pieces!
Take fifty-five dollars!

nɪm fɛmfʊnfɪmtsɪk dɔlʊ:ř.

They're taking it away.

zi nɔmɑs ja no avɑk.

zi hɑns fʊřtgnɔmɑ.

She caught a cold.

si hɔt ɑ fəřkɛltʊŋ bəkʊmɑ.

ɑs ɪʃ fɛ:kɛltɑ.

He told us that.

ja, ɑř hɔts mɪř ksait.

ɑř hɔt ʊns ksait.

Look how that tree is falling

lyəgɑ mol vi: salɑ bɔɪm

down!

saməke:t.

They're taking it away.

si namas jo navak.

You were both here

iř sɪn yo baidi do kse:

mɪř sɪn baidi do: kse:

yesterday.

gɛʃtərt.

gɛʃəřt.

313

Gilbert (1963) Sentences

#202

#234

He arrived yesterday.

ɑř ɪʃ ãkʊmǝ gɛʃtǝrt.

ɑř ɪʃ do: kse: gɛʃəřt.

We went home.

miř sɪn haɪm.

mɪř sɪn haim gɔ:ŋɑ.

You were both here

iř sɪn yo beidi do kse:

yesterday.

gɛʃtərt.

There are the children who I
gave the candy to.

two daughters

tswai maidla

He pinches me.

ɑř hɔt mɛx pfatst.

cabbage

kŗy:t

gřyt

a horse

ɑ ŗɔs

ɑ řo:s

314

Appendix E: Eikel (1954) Sentences, Sample
TGDP ♫18-202-3-a.eaf
WORKSHEET 1:
1. Güete Morge.
2. Gütn Àve.
3. Salu.
4. Sie geht garn in d’Schüel.
5. Ar kummt e:mer ture z’Àve.
6. Mir han z’Àve g’aasse un dann sin mir
ab.
7. A klein Kind hat mi àdroufe.
8. Biecher ufm Tisch sin mi:.
9. A Ràtt isch gre:isser as a Müs.
10. A Glàs frisch Wàsser

English sentence:
Good morning.
Good evening.
Goodbye.
She likes to go to school.
He always comes by in the evening.
We ate supper in the evening and left.

WORKSHEET 2:
1. Ich tün das nitte eķinnere.
2. ‚S kert ihm Racht.
3. Sie hat Blümle in d’Hand kà.
4. Er hat mir nur a klei bizzele ga’a.
5. Ich wunder wo du jetz hergesch.
6. Das hat mer fufzig Do:ulor koschte
7. Da Gummireife hat mir zwölf Dollür
koschte.*
8. Bena:nes koschte fufzig [cents]
s’Pfund.
9. Won’r siebezeh Jahr g’se: isch, isch er
ab vu heim.
10. Ich war nitt z’fred wenn ich n ...wenn
ich nur elfi het.

English sentence:
I don’t remember that anymore.
That serves him right.
She had the flowers in her hand.
He gave me only a little bit.
I wonder where you are going.
That cost me fifty dollars.
This tire sells for twelve dollars.

A little child met him.
The books on the table are mine.
A rat is larger than a mouse.
A glass of fresh water

The bananas are fifteen cents a pound.
When he was seventeen years old he left
home.
I wouldn’t be satisfied with only eleven.

WORKSHEET 3:
1. Er hat immer Problem mit si:ne Ohre.
2. Ich han Angscht er verliert alle si Gald.
3. ‚S Holz isch im Fiehr.
4. Dreih d’r Hahn ab, d’r Eimr isch vo:ul.
5. S komme si an was sie kauft han im
Schrank.
6. Sin zwei Quilte wo ufm Bett le:ge.

English sentence:
He always has trouble with his ear.
I am afraid that he will lose his money.
The wood is in the fire.
Turn off the faucet; the bucket is running
over.
The groceries are in the pantry.
There are two quilts lying on the bed.

315

Appendix F: Interview Transcriptions
TGDP #239
D: Well, they say I talk different, I don’t know…
I: You talk different?
D: Well, I don’t know.
I: Like your Alsatian is different?
D: Yeah, well, it’s an Alsa…it’s more…but I couldn’t talk a word of English when I
started school. I did not know English and so, you know it was so hard for me. But in
what, about a month, I caught on pretty well.
And then I got to be valedictorian of my class in my school, and my sister, she didn’t, she
was five years younger, and she didn’t talk English either, you know, and when she went
to school…well, she learned it, I tried to teach her then before…when I went to school.
So one day I took her to school, they said you could bring your siblings along and I took
her along…she was talking Elsess so she says, “I want, wu isch mi Kittl? And I said.
Lord, I got so embarrassed and I said, “Don’t say that, say ‘coat.’ You shouldn’t talk like
that.
I: She just was talking what she knew.
D: Well, she wanted her coat, you know. And I got embarrassed and I said, “Don’t talk
like that.” And then she come home and she told Mama, “Oh, boy, she really did give it
to me, because I said I wanted mi Kittel, vell, Mama, sie hat gsàgt, Darlene hat gsaijt,
Nei, dü sollsch nitt so reeda.”
I:
D: sie hat gsaijt, well, das isch, dü brüchsch nitt worry, well lass nur geh, das, dü lehrtsch
so genuch. And she learned it.
I: Wann bisch du geboore?
D: Ix bin gboora am drisigschte Dezember in ninzihundertsechsunzwanzik an dr
drisigscht Tag.
I: Gratuliere.
D: What?
I: Gratuliere.
D: Joo. Ix han das Johr was mir gfallt, awr nitt ganz.
I: Und wo bis du gboore?
D: In LaCoste, uf dr Farm, mir han, mir sin gwoohnt drei Mile vu LaCoste, s’Stedtle vu
LaCoste.
I: un die Schuel?
D: mir sin in d’Schuel ganga in LaCoste, siewe Joohr, und dann sin mir in Castroville
ganga, in das, in d’ katholisch Schüel und dett bin ix fertig, dett han ix fertig gmacht.
I: Un was hasch dü do: glehrt? Mathematik, Lesa, Schreibe...
D: oh, ja. Alles, ziemlik guet...d’Schwester sin ziemlik guet gsei. Die han uns guet
gleehrt.
I: Habt ihr Franzees glehrt?
D: well, i...nei nun uh.
316

I: Nur Anglisch?
D: on... Spanisch, awr sall isch nitt..salle Spanisch hat uns nitt kholfa jetz. Sall isch nur
mit Mexikaner wella reeda düen.
I: Un, redsch dü jetz Spanisch?
D: Nitt viel. No.
I: Abr a bizzl.
D: Oh, ix kann versteh, awr da isch alles.
Ix kann versteh wenn sie reeda wàga mer.
I: Ja, das isch guet. Das isch wichtig. Un Dietsch?
D: a bizzele Dietsch, mini Grossmuettr isch kumma vu Austria, Switzerland...sie isch a
Schwiezer gsei. Sie hàt mee...uh sie hàt nitt guet Alsatian kenna reeda. Un sie hat nia
lehrt fir, sie hat nia in d’Schuel kenna geh, sie isch..sie hat nia kenna, sie hat kenna ihra
Nàma schriewa, awr das isch alles, was sie hat kenna schriewa. Awr sie hat, sie isch, sie
hat alles gegürt d’ Froi hat alles kenna alles so hert schàffa un alles, awr sie hat nitt kenna
schriewa und so Dengs. Un das isch real, es isch so hert ksei, beca..ihra Mann isch
gstorwa, wos die jungscht gkei ist . . . sei jungest Kousin. Das klei, das letschta Kind,
isch nur sechs Johr alt ksei un dono hat sie fienf Kindr kaa un mi Vàtr isch dr zweit ksei
un dr hat au müesse halfa fer d’ Famila raise. Ja, weisch, wia han müessa geh, sie han
nitt kenna alles macha.
I: Natürlich.
D: die han ziemlik herta uh, d’Ding kaa und d’r kumma un sie hat dr, salli Zit isch niks
gsei, weisch, wo du hasch kenna verwietscha. Sie han a Familia kaa, un han Kieha kaa
un han Hienr weisch kaa un han Eir vrkäuft un milla un so dengs un han a bizzela... sie
han Korn und so dengs gsetzt a bizzela, weisch, und han a ...ix weis nitt, ix bin alt. Ix
kann nitt alles san un weis nitt alles, awr, drno, wenn ix uf d’Walt kumma bin, drno sin
mir in namliga Hüs gsei, wu mini Muetr isch da, dett g’labt, wu sie kierotet hat , sin sie in
dett gewohna mit minr Grossmuettr. Un da sin di ganza Lawa, solanga d’Grossmuettr
gsei isch, sin sie mit der gwohnt. Un drno...
I:
D: un sie isch einunachzig gsei, glaub ix, wu sie g’storwa ist.
I: Un hast du als Kind dann viel g’holfa? Oder viel helfe müsse?
D: Well, ziemlik viel, o ja. Mir han muessa. Un dr, mi Vatr hat Àsthma kaa so schlimm
un hat emmr vun d’Pneumo:nia verwitscht un some ham muessn mir,.. well mini
Schweschtr hat nitt, sie isch vier Johr gsei, awr mir han muen alles macha. Ix han muesse
malka morga vor mir in d’Schuel, mir sin glaufa, weisch, in d’Schuel nàch LaCoste, sin
mir am seveni furtganga un sin mir in d Kira gànga un sin in dr Mass ganga un sin futt.
Mir sin dert gsei um acht Ü:hr. Un widdr z’Ove han mir widdr heim muessa kumma un
halfa weddr un z’nacht han mir no kenna mer unsr dengas macha fir d’Schuel awr mir
han kei electricity un niks odr so kaa un han muessa un mir han Lamps kaa, weisch, un so
dengas un s’wassr isch drus gsei un, es isch nitt im Hus gsei...
I: so ne quelle.
D: Ja, es isch uf dr laundery gsei. un drof isch a Holzoofa gsei un han mir muessa s’Holz
inne tràga.
I: Das war hert..
317

D: Ja, da isch a hertr Tag gsei. Un das isch dr einzigscht...weil hammir Holz, Mama,
Muettr hat alles, weisch, gtràga und un alles gbacha, weisch, in dam Oofa.
I: Brot,...
D: Un als sie, uh, immr im Wintr han mir, weisch, Schwein odr so Säu sei, weisch,
g’schlacht, un das isch unsr Leib, was hammir...
TGDP #202: 18-202-1-2-a.wav
I: Also, nochmals, Sie sind wo geboren?
J.J.: Nitt do:u in Castorville, ich bin in uf dr Ranch geboore, un das isch halbwags vu
Castroville zü San Antonio, hat mierer Grossvatr à Rànch kàa un dett bin ich uf dr Welt
g’kumme. . . een Marz, der zweiunzwanzigschst niinzihundertunniinundriisig.
18-202-1-3-a.wav:
J.J.: A pàr Johr z’rőck.
I: Und wann Sind Sie nach Castroville gezogen?
J.J.: Wu ich kierotte han, sin mir… han mir das Hős gebäue un sin do:u… haam… mir
g’wohn do:u schtaes sitr denn zweiunsachzig bis jetz
I: Und Sie gehen jetzt jeden Tag zurück auf die Ranch?
J.J.: Ja. Datt Ranch isch salle Wag gege Hundo:u, es isch nitt gege San Antonio… es isch
glei dett fir dett…wu es heisst Quihi.
I: A ja, Quihi…
J.J.: Sall hat der Castro oi inschtalliert det, abr sin drno zwanzig Iiwohner noch… un a
Tànzplàtz.
I: Das ist schön.
J.J. Jà.
I: Und haben sie noch Tiere…auf der Ranch?
J.J.: Ja, ja…nimmr so viel wege, well es isch zu trukke g’sei das Johr i han un fir un paar
Tag verkaüft, es isch schrecklich trukke g’see das Johr.
I: Und jetzt mit dem Eissturm. Haben sie hier unten Eis gehabt?
J.J.: Ja, ja. Me:ir dëtt es do:u. Dett geschtert noch, s’isch mehr i:s uf d’r Baimäschtr
g’see.
I: Un viel Eis?
J.J.: Ja, ja. Kà Schnee, grad nur I:s. Weisch, was i han…I han uh, ich bin amàl im Elsass
g’see un han a Reh kà: un wo es vorüwer g’seh isch, han i , han i g’seiht, mir wisse alli
318

wia unseri Nescht wàchse, abr es meint meihr wenn mir weisst wu de Wuuzl harkummt.
Gal, wennma ka Wüzl hat, hat ma nix.
I: So ist das. Das ist sehr wichtig, oder? Finde ich gut,…ah, das sind ja schön, diese
Sprőche auch.
Ja.
18-202-1-4-a.
I: Ja, und, uh, ihre Eltern jetzt nochmals, sind sie auch auf der Ranch geboren, oder?
J.J. Ja, alli, sall Zit han mir ka Hoschpital kaa, d-d-der Arzt, dr Doktr isch uf d’Ranch
kumme fuer wenn a, wenn a Jung uf d’Walt kumme isch. Primitiv, ...
I: Ja, na ja, halt, so wie es ist...
J.J. abr so isch g’sei uewerall, es isch nitt nur do: gsei, s’isch...
I: Und die Grosseltern auch auf der Ranch, wie...
J.J. uh-huh...
I: oder?
J.J.: JA, auf der Jungmann Sit. All wisse mir d’Familiename von mine Erergrossvatr und
müettr, es isch Jungmann, Ha--Hans, Machler, Tschirhart, Bo:ell, Aether, uhh...da muess
ich noch danke... so da achtzehn g’sei, ja? Arnold, Wernette, ach nitt Wernette, Harvey,
und das sind die der Name isch in d’r ganz Gegend, a Name in unserer Familie
18-202-1-5-a.
J.J.: A Witz. Wenn a Elsassr un sini Maidle hierote tie, und danno: fuer zwei Johr
danach sie verheiro:te sin, tien sie scheide, abr sie sin immr zweet Kousins. (laughter)
I: A ja, so ist das. (laughter)
O ja, ... (laughter)
sind alle total verwandt.
J.J. Ja, sin alle verwandt.
18-202-1-6-a.
I: Ja, ich meine, wir haben ein bisschen davon gesprochen, wie Castroville sich geaendert
hat, nicht wahr, so Castroville ist nicht mehr wie damals.
J.J.: Na, no, es isch, d’Elsassich Sproch isch do: verlo:re, wiel viel von d’r elsassr Maidla
un Büeba dien Amerikaner hiero:te odr Mexikaner, dann isch scho fertig, weil sie koenne
anandr nitt steh--versteh un sie mien Anglisch rede, do isch d’Sproch verlo:re. In ein
Generatiõ isch alles verlo:re. Un das seht man scho.
I: Sie haben auch Geschwister?
319

J.J.: Ich kumm nitt nach.
I: Sie haben Geschwister, also Brüder und Schwestern?
J.J.: Ich? Ja, abr sie rede ka Elsassisch. I han zwei Brüedr un a Schwester jiengr as ich
und es isch wage m zweiten Waltkrieg, wiel wenn wir uewer in San Antonio gange sin,
sin sie nitt serviert worde, will dia was gschafft kaa han, die Amerikanr, die han gemeint,
die rede Elsassisch, ich mein Dietsch, g’meint, das sin Schwo:ve, mit den sie nitt
serviere, drno: sin sie wiedr heimkumme, dia was gange sin fir iekäu--kaufe und haan
g’sait zuanander, mir rede nimmr Elsass mit d’r Kindr, das profitiert sie nitt, es wart bessr
wennma nur Anglisch rede mitinne, un s’isch gottsalle Kranz... war ganz weit Weltkrieg
as d’elsassisch sproch nimm grad wit, mit d’Liet wuu--wie ich—ich bin siebeunsachzig
und die jiengere, s, siebe un--ach ich sag zweiunsachzig, sie rede kei elsassisch mehr, sie
verstehens abr sie re—sie rede es nitt.
18-202-1-7-a
I: Das war auch in den Schulen, haben Sie gesagt, das war auch der Unterschied ne also
Englisch und Elsasssisch...
J.J.: Du meinsch, in d’r Schüel, wenn es isch verbo:te g’sei, wenn d’Schwester uns han
hör Elsassisch rede, han sie uns—s’isch a Strouf g’sei, da angels han uns d’Finger
verschlag odr a, odr a Ohrefieg, a Batsch uf d’Ohre, oh es isch, ja ich sag [das
Elsassisch]...
I: Das durfte man überhaupt nicht. Und draussen dann, in der Pause, in der Schulpause,
haben Sie dann Elsassisch gesprochen? Oder? ...
J.J.: umm,...
I: In der Schule, aber in der Pause, ...
J.J.: i-i-in…
I: in de—in recess—
J.J.: Recess, ja . . . in d’Speelzit hasch dü nitt dürfe Elsassisch rede, dü hasch müesch
Anglisch rede. Noch a Ding, was o:i komisch isch, d’Scheschter han sie doheig’schickt
fir uns lehre eh uh Schüellehrer, un dia han bis--das isch nitt mini Zit g’sei, abr in miner
Vatr sini Zit—un dia sin üssm Lothringer kumme, en achzinjohrhunertsechsunsiebezig
han sie d’Schwester dahei g’schickt abr sie han uns—nitt mich--mi Vatr un Elter han in
Hochdietsch han immr d’Büchle, d’Massbüchle un d’ Katechismus un alles isch
Hochdietsch g’sei.
Und woher kamen die Schwester?
320

Üssm Lothringer. Lorraine, Dabo. Weischdu wo Dabo isch?
Ja, ja, natürlich.
Wo d’Papscht Leon d’r Nint uf d’Walt kumme isch.
Ja, ja...
Hasch dü das g’wisst?
Ja., ja, ... nee, nee, das wusste ich nicht.
JA! Der Papscht. Der Nint. Loui—Leon. Das isch da wo’s, wo s’Gesetz g’macht i--han
in d’r katholisch Kirch, as Vatr kenne nitt hiero:te. Das isch anander G’schicht, das isch
ganz interessant...
I: Und also die Schwestern sind hierhergeschickt worden, für was, vier, vier Jahre oder
so, oder für, für ...
J.J.: Sie sin noch immr do:
I: Aa, sie sind da…
J.J.: Our Lady of the Lake University. . .
I: aja.
J.J.: Sall sin d’Schwester von Divin Providans.
I: [ok]
J.J.: Das Kloischter do: in Castrville uf d’r Achtsit , sall han sie erscht g’beuje. Gald han
se g’schickt un Schwester, un han sall dreistöckig Kloischter--jetz heisst’s Moye, Moye
Center. Abr sin nur noch a paar Schwester do:, uh ... fir a Retraite so Dinges.
18-202-1-8-a
I: Und gab es nur die katholische Schule?
J.J.: Ja, abr nur, nur uh sechs Johr, drumin sie zu d’r gewehnlik Schule geh.
I: Und das war dann eine öffentliche Schule?
J.J.: Umh? Kümm?
I: Die öffentliche Schule dann nach diesen er....nach sechs Jahren?
J.J.: umhum, un dann drumin sie zu Medina. Normal, ja. Püblik.
I: aja.
J.J.: Medina Valley Independent School District und das isch d’ Ludwigesschüel, San
Louis Schüel. Dett bin ich in d’Schüel zwölf Johr. Dann han sie es ganz züeg’macht,
dann han sie’s langsam z’rückg’brocht. Jetz meine sie wann man mal bis àcht Johr geh in
im nächscht odr mans Johr Jordan.
18-202-1-9-a (Vater Unser)
Noch a Ding, was ich garne verzahle. Ich bin jetz im Elsass scho zehn Màl g’sei und han
nie a nitt ei Mensch g’funde, was d’r Vatr Unser kànn sage in elsassisch Dietsch. Un ich
kànn. Mini Ergrossmüetr hat’s mir’s g’lehrt . . .un das geiht:
Vatr Unsr, wer isch im Himml,
Heilig isch Di Name,
Dini Keinigracht kummt,
Di Will bassiert uf dar Walt as wie im Himml.
Gebb uns hë:t unsr taglik Brot—eh, jetz müess ich wiedr danke—
Gebb uns hë:t unsr taglik Brot und vergib uns unsre Schulde
321

Wie mir dia vergabe wu es schuldig sin gege uns.
Fier uns nitt in Versüechtung un frei uns von alles Beises.
Un es isch noch nia, noch nia ei Mensch ànderufe...sie kenne es in Franzeis, sie kenne es
in Hochdietsch, abr nitt in Elsassisch.
I: Das ist ja phantastisch.
J.J.: Un das, das Databasis jetz in der Archive in [Strassburg University] Linguist
Departement.
I: Schön.
J.J.: Ja.
I: und wer das mein das epper das gelehrt in Elsassisch, abr ich han noch nia ei andero:fe,
was kann sage.
18-202-1-10-a
I: Kinderlieder oder so Sprueche
J.J.: Unh-unh
I: Von Ihrer Grossmutter
Ja, das isch das einzigschte Gebat, was ich kann erinnere. Sie hat mir mehr gelehrt, abr
das isch mir im Kopf gebliewe . . . Vater Unser.
I: Kennen Sie zufaellig Schibi, schibi, schibo? Klingt das irgendwie aehnlich? Nein? Ja.,
dann lassen wir das. Aber auch Kinderlieder wissen Sie nicht mehr, so
J.J.: Kinderlieder.
I: Lieder...zum Singen.
J.J.: Oooooo.
I: Zum Singen.
J.J.: Ich kann nitt so guet singe, aber ich, aber s ahhh, Poem, Vers,
I: Uhuh.
J.J.: Riem, a Riem, gel?
J.J. Saekele, Glaekele, Haenele, Haar,
hat a Faedele wie ne Bar...
I: Schoen.
J.J.:
Wia luschtig sin die Mannela
Mit ihri volli Kannela
Wia voller as d’Kannela sin
Wi mee luschtig as die Mannela sin.
Wia luschtig sin d’ Wiebela
Mit ihri siessi Triebela
Wia siesser as die Triebela sin,
Wia mee luschtig as die Wiebela sin.
322

Wia luschtig sin d’Kindela
Mit ihri volli Windela
Wia voller as die Windela sin,
Wia mee luschtig as die Kindela sin.
Es geht an un an un an... (laughter)
I: Das sind ja schoene Sachen.
Also, Geschwister koennen kein Elsassisch
11-a
I: und Ihre Frau auch nicht, oder? Ja...
Also, mini Freu isch...e:hri Liet sin alli ues d’r Gegen Beifurt g’sei. Beifurt in d’
achtzehnt Jahrhundert isch zum Elsass gehert, abr sie han nur es isch a Sprochgranz. Sie
hat Franzesch gelehrt un hat uh... uh... Elsassisch gelehrt. Jetz isch sie Salfert
Department...Beifurt. Kennscht due s’Elsass a wenigle?
I: ein wenig, ja.
J.J.: Weisch due wo Rougemont isch?
I: Ja.
J.J.: Okay. . . that’s in Cheil, Sitr, Boubel, Frei, un Moullei un Pijot. Das sin alli in mini
Freu, ehri, ehr, ehr Grossfamil g’sei. Un grad ueber d’Granz isch wu Tschirharts
g’kumme sin. Soppe le haut, Soppe le Bas... und dett han sie nur Elsassich g’reddt un es
isch nix, es isch nur Luft d’zwische, es isch ...abr salli uf d’Befur Sit-Belfurt isch uf d’r
Landkart-b-e-l-f-o-r-t—abr in, in elsassisch sage sie Beifurt. Um-huh... Soppe-le-Haut
isch in Elsassisch Sulzbach...Soppe-le-Haut, das isch Franzeisch, Soppe-le-Haut, Soppele-Bas, un ich bin scho dett g’sei, in soppe-e-Haut un in Beifurt in Rougement, uh,...

323

References
Adolf, Paul. 1996. Dictionnaire Alsacien – Anglais. Alsace: Université Populaire
d’Obernai.
--. 2006. Dictionnaire comparatif multilingue. Strasbourg: Éditions Midgard.
Ahr, Wayne. 2003. Henri Castro and Castroville: Alsatian History and Heritage. The
French in Texas: History, migration, culture, edited by Francois Lagarde. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices.
(Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
--. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Robert M. Dixon (eds.). 2006. Grammars in contact: A crosslinguistic typology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Appel, René, & Pieter Muysken. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London:
Edward Arnold.
Arnt, Karl, & May Olson. 1961. German-American newspapers and periodicals 17321955: History and bibliography. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.
Auer, Peter. 1995. The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential approach. One
Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching,
edited by Leslie Milroy & Pieter Muysken, 115-35. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Baker, Colin. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Barbour, Stephen, & Patrick Stevenson. 1998. Variation im Deutschen: Soziolinguistische Perspektiven, trans. by Konstanze Gebel. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Barðdal, Johanna & Leonid Kulikov. 2007. Case in decline. The handbook of case,
edited by Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, 470-8. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Batibo, Herman. 1992. The fate of ethnic languages in Tanzania. Language death:
Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, edited
by Matthias Brenzinger, 85-98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
324

Berend, Nina. 2003. Zur Vergleichbarkeit von Sprachkontakten: Erfahrungen aus
wolgadeutschen Sprachinseln in den USA und Russland. German language
varieties worldwide: Internal and external perspectives, edited by William Keel
& Klaus Mattheier, 239-68. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Berend, Nina, and Klaus Mattheier (eds.). 1994. Sprachinselforschung: Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Beyer, Ernest & Raymond Matzen.
Strasbourg.

1970.

Characteristiques de parlers alsaciens.

Biesele, Rudolf L. 1987. A history of the German settlements in Texas 1831-1861.
Austin, TX: Boeckmann-Jones. Reprint of 1928 diss., University of Texas, by
German-Texan Heritage Society. Austin: Eakin.
Bisch, Yves. 2006. Dr elsassisch Àdvantskàlander. Huningue: Bieler.
Bister-Broosen, Helga. 1996a. Communication in the Alemannic area: language use and
attitudes in Colmar and Freiburg. Language choices: conditions, constraints and
consequences, ed. Martin Pütz, 305-26. Amsterdam and Philadephia: John
Benjamins.
--. 1996b. A contrastive analysis of language use and contact in the Alemannic
area: Colmar and Freiburg. Contrastive sociolinguistics, edited by Marlis
Hellinger & Ulrich Ammon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
--. 1997. Perceptions of language use and linguistic development in Alsace and
in Baden. IJGLSA 2.77-91.
Blom, J. P., & John Gumperz. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structures: codeswitching in Norway. Directions in Sociolinguistics, edited by John Gumperz &
Dell Hymes, 407-34. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Blot, Richard K. 2005. Language and social identity. Westport & London: Praeger.
Boas, Hans C. 2003. Tracing dialect death: the Texas German Dialect Project.
Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited
by Julie Larson & Mary Paster, 387-98. Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.
--. 2005a. A dialect in search of its place: The use of Texas German in the
public domain. Transcontinental Encounters: Central Europe meets the
American Heartland, eds. Craig Cravens & David Zersen, 78-102. Austin:
Concordia University Press.
--. 2005b. The Texas German dialect. Germany and the Americas, edited by T.
Adam, 1029-35. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
325

--. 2006. From the field to the web: Implementing best-practice recommendations in documentary linguistics. Language Resources and Evaluation
40.153-74.
--. 2009a. The life and death of Texas German. Durham: Duke University Press.
--. 2009b. Case loss in Texas German: The influence of semantic and pragmatic
factors. The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of
Case, edited by Johanna Barðdal & S. Chelliah, 347-73. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Boas, Hans C., Marc Pierce, Hunter Weilbacher, Karen Roesch & Guido Halder. Forthcoming. The Texas German Dialect Archive: a multimedia resource for research,
teaching, and outreach. To appear in the Journal of Germanic Linguistics.
Boas, Hans C. and Hunter Weilbacher. 2007. How universal is the pragmatic
detachability scale? Evidence from Texas German discourse markers. The
proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society IX conference: The morphosyntax of
underrepresented languages, edited by Frederick Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Alexandra
Teodorescu, & Jessica White, 33-58. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
--.

2009. The unexpected survival of German discourse markers in Texas
German. CLS 42-1: The Main Session. Papers from the 42nd Annual
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 1-15. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistics Society.

Bohnenberger, Karl. 1953. Die alemannische Mundart. Umgrenzung, Innengliederung
und Kennzeichnung. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Born, Renate. 1994. Michigan German in Frankenmuth: Variation and change in an east
Franconian dialect. Columbia: Camden House.
--. 2003. Regression, convergence, internal development: the loss of the dative
case in German-American dialects. German language varieties
worldwide: internal and external perspectives, edited by William Keel &
Klaus Mattheier, 151-64. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991.
University Press.

Language and Symbolic Power.

Cambridge: Harvard

Bourhis, Richard, & Howard Giles. 1977. The language of intergroup distinctiveness.
Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations, edited by Howard Giles. London,
New York, & San Francisco: Academic Press.

326

Bourhis, Richard, Howard Giles, J. Leyens, & H. Tajfel. 1979. Psycholinguistic
distinctiveness: language divergence in Belgium.
Language and social
psychology, edited by Howard Giles and R. St. Clair, 158-85. Oxford: Blackwell.
Breton, Raymond, Wsevolod Isajiw, Warren Kalbach, & Jeffrey Reitz. 2000. Ethnic
identity and equality: Varieties of experience in a Canadian city. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Brenzinger, Matthias (ed). 1992a. Language death: Factual and theoretical explorations
with special reference to East Africa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
--. 1992b. Lexical retention in language shift: Yaaku/Mukogodo-Maasai and
Elmolo/Elmolo-Samburu. Language death: Factual and theoretical
explorations with special reference to East Africa, edited by Matthias
Brenzinger, 213-54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Broadbridge, Judith. 2000. Alsatian: A living variety? A sociolinguistic study of
Southern Alsace. National varieties of German outside Germany, edited by
Gabriella Hogan-Brun, 221-42. Oxford et al.: Peter Lang.
Callahan, Sr. Mary Generosa. 1955. Generosa, Sr. Mary. The History of the Sisters of
Divine Providence of San Antonio. San Antonio: Catholic Life Publishing.
Campbell, Lyle. 1994. Language death. The encyclopedia of language and linguistics,
vol.4, Int to Lux, edited by R.E. Asher & J.M. Simpson, 1960-68. Oxford:
Pergamon.
--. 1999. Historical linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Campbell, Lyle, & Martha Muntzel. 1989. The structural consequences of language
death. Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death,
edited by Nancy C. Dorian, 181-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Castro, Henri. Henri Castro papers, 1839-1846, 1884. Barker Texas History Center,
University of Texas at Austin.
Castro Colonies Heritage Association, Inc. 1983. The history of Medina County, Texas.
Dallas: National ShareGraphics.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clausing, Stephen. 1986. English influence on American German and American
Icelandic. Frankfurt & New York: Peter Lang.
Clyne, Michael. 2003.
University Press.

Dynamics of language contact.
327

Cambridge: Cambridge

Cole, Roger L. 1975. Divergent and convergent attitudes towards the Alsatian dialect.
Anthropological Linguistics 17.293-304.
Coupland, Nikolas, & Adam Jaworski. 1997. Sociolinguistics: A reader. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Craig, John E. 1984. Scholarship and nation building: The universities of Strasbourg
and Alsatian society, 1870-1939. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crook, Cornelia. 1988. Henry Castro: A study of early colonization in Texas. San
Antonio: St. Mary’s Press.
Crystal, David. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. Competing language ideologies in post-unification
Germany: When East meets West. Relocating Germanness. Discursive Disunity
in Unified Germany, edited by Patrick Stevenson & John Theobald, 248-66. St.
Martin: Macmillan.
Damke, Ciro. 1997. Sprachgebrauch und Sprachkontakt in der deutschen Sprachinsel in
Südbrasilien. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Davis, Justine (ed.). 1990. Let’s celebrate: Holidays and special days as celebrated in
the Castro Colonies of Medina County, Texas. Hondo: Hondo Anvil Herald.
Dil, Anwar S. 1972. Introduction. The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dihov, Ivan, and Dimmendaal, Gerrit (eds.). 1983. Current approaches to African
linguistics, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Foris.
Domenech, Abbé Emmanuel. 1858. Missionary Adventures in Texas and Mexico (trans.
from French). London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts.
Dorian, Nancy C. 1973. Grammatical change in a dying dialect. Language 49.413-38.
--. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death: evidence from
ESG. Language 54.590-609.
--.

1981. Language Death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

--.

1982a. Linguistic models and language death evidence. Exceptional
language and linguistics, edited by Loraine K. Obler, 31-48. New York:
Academic.
328

--. 1982b. Language loss and maintenance in language contact situations. The
loss of language skills, edited by R. Lambert and B. F. Freed. Rowley:
Newbury House.
--. (ed). 1989. Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and
death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--. 1999. Linguistic and ethnographic fieldwork. Handbook of ethnic identity,
edited by Joshua Fishman, 25-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1988. Language death. Language: The socio-cultural context, vol.
IV, edited by Frederick J. Newmeyer, 184-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Duée, Michel. 2002. L’alsacien, deuxième langue régionale de France. Chiffres pour
l’Alsace, no. 12. INSEE.
Edwards, John. 1982. Language attitudes and their implications among English
speakers. Attitudes toward language variation, edited by Ellen B. Ryan &
Howard Giles. London: Edward Arnold.
--. 1985. Language, society, and identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
--. 1992. Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss: towards a
typology of minority language situations. Maintenance and loss of minority
languages, edited by Willem Fase, Loen Jaspaert, & Sjaak Kroon, 37-54.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Eikel, Fred. 1949. The use of cases in New Braunfels German. American Speech
24.278-81.
--. 1954. The New Braunfels German Dialect. Diss., Johns Hopkins University.
--. 1966a. New Braunfels German: Part I. American Speech 41.5-17.
--. 1966b. New Braunfels German: Part II. American Speech 41.254-60.
--. 1967. New Braunfels German: Part III. American Speech 42.83-101.
Elspass, Stefan. 2002. Standard German in the 19th century? (Counter-) evidence from
the private correspondence of ‘ordinary people.’ Standardization: Studies from
the Germanic languages, edited by Andrew Linn & Nicola McLelland, 43-65.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
--. 2005. Language norm and language reality: Effectiveness and limits of
prescriptivism in New High German. Linguistic purism in the German language,
329

edited by Nils Langer & Winifred Davies, 20-46. London & New York: de
Gruyter.
Encyclopedie de l’Alsace, vol. 4. 1985. Dialecte Alsacien, 2329-45. Strasbourg: Éditions
Publitotal.
Epps, Patience. 2006. The Valpés melting pot: Tucanoan influence on Hup. Grammars
in contact: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert
Dixon, 267-89. New York: Oxford University Press.
Erny, Janine. 1999. …et parmi les pionniers du Far West il y avait des Alsaciens.
Aubernas: Le Verger.
--. 2003. Grounds for emigration: Alsace at the time of Henri Castro. The
French in Texas: History, migration, culture, edited by Francois Lagarde.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Fasold, Ralph. 1987. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ferguson, Charles. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15.325-44.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1964. Language maintenance and language shift as a field of
inquiry. Linguistics 9.32-70.
--. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique 2.67-8.
--. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without
bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 32.29-38.
--. 1971. Sociolinguistics: a brief introduction. Rowley: Newbury House.
--. 1972a. The sociology of language. Rowley: Newbury House.
--. 1972b. The sociology of language. Language and social context, edited by
Pier Giglioli, 45-58. London: Penguin Books.
--. 1972c. The link between macro- and micro-sociology in the study of who
speaks what to whom and when. Directions in sociolinguistics, edited by
John Gumperz & Dell Hymes, 435-53. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.
--. (ed.). 1999. Handbook of ethnic identity. New York: Oxford University
Press.
--. 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, a 21st
century perspective. Clevedon: Buffalo Multilingual Matters.
330

Fox, Anthony. 1990. The structure of German. Oxford: Clarendon.
Fuller, Janet M. 2001. The principle of pragmatic detachability in borrowing: Englishorigin discourse markers in Pennsylvania German. Linguistics 39.351-69.
Fuller, Janet, & Glenn Gilbert. 2003. The linguistic atlas of Texas German revisited.
German language varieties worldwide: internal and external perspectives, edited
by William Keel & Klaus Mattheier, 165-76. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Gal, Susan. 1978. Peasant men can’t get wives: Language change and sex roles in a
bilingual community. Language in Society. 7.1-16.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1991. Language selection and switching in Strasbourg.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gilbert, Glenn G. 1963. The German dialect spoken in Kendall and Gillespie counties,
Texas. Diss., Harvard University.
--. 1965a. Dative versus accusative in the German dialects of central Texas.
Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 32.288-96.
--. 1965b. English loanwords in the German of Fredericksburg, Texas.
American Speech 40.102-12.
--. 1972. The linguistic atlas of Texas German. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
--. 1980. The German language in Texas: Some needed research. German culture
in Texas, edited by Glen E. Lich and Dona B. Reeves. Boston:
Twayne.
Giles, Howard, (ed.). 1977. Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London, New
York, & San Francisco: Academic Press.
Giles, Howard, Richard Bourhis, & Donald Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language
in ethnic group relations. Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations, edited by
Howard Giles, 307-48. London, New York, & San Francisco: Academic Press.
Goblirsch, Kurt Gustav. 1994. Consonant strength in Upper German dialects. NOWELE
Supplement Volumes 10. Odense: Odense University Press

Goff, Richard, Walter Moss, Janice Terry, Jui-Hwa Upshur & Michael Schroeder. 2008.
The twentieth century and beyond: A global history, 7th ed. Boston et al.:
McGraw-Hill.
Goldthorp, Audrey G. 1928. Castro's Colony. Thesis, University of Texas.
331

Goss, Emily, & Joseph Salmons. 2000. The evolution of a bilingual discourse marking
system: Modal particles and English markers in German-American dialects.
International Journal of Bilingualism 4:4, 469-84.
Grenoble, Lenore, & Lindsay Whaley. 1998. Toward a typology of language
endangerment. Endangered languages: Language loss and community response,
edited by Lenore Grenoble & Lindsay Whaley, 22-54. Cambridge, et al.:
Cambridge University Press.
Grinevald, Colette. 2001. Linguistics of classifiers. International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes. Elsevier
Sciences Ltd., 1973-1978.
Guion, Susan. 1996. The death of Texas German in Gillespie County. Language
contact across the North Atlantic, edited by P. Sture Ureland & Iain Clarkson,
443-63. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Gumperz, John J. 1964. Hindu-Punjabi code-switching in Delhi. Proceedings of the 9th
International Congress of Linguists, 115-24. Cambridge, MA. The Hague:
Mouton.
--. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, T. Alan. 2000. Phonologie: Eine Einführung. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Holloway, Charles. 1997. Dialect Death: The case of Brule Spanish. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Héran, François, Alexandra Filho, & Christine Deprez. 2002. La dynamique des langues
en France au fil du XXe siècle. Population et sociétes 376. Institut National
d’Études Démographiques (INED).
Herff, Ferdinand Charles von. 1949. The regulated emigration of the German proletariat with special reference to Texas, trans. by Arthur L. Finck. Thesis,
University of Texas.
Hessini, Marguerite. 1981. Language use in culture spaces: Alsatian, a case study.
Diss., University of Kansas.
Hofman, John. 1977. Language Attitudes in Rhodesia. The spread of English, edited by
Joshua Fishman et al., 277-301. Rowley: Newbury House.
332

Hudson, David. 1997. D’Hanis Sesquincentennial: 1847-1997. Privately published.
Huffines, Marion Lois. 1989. Convergence and language death: The case of Pennsylvania German. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 64.17-28.
--. 1990. Contact phenomena in language maintenance and shift: the Pennsylvania German infinitive construction. American Journal of Germanic
Linguistics & Literatures 2.95-108.
Iverson, Gregory K. & Joseph Salmons. 1992. The place of structure preservation in
German diminutive formation. Phonology 9.137-43.
--. 1995. Aspiration and Laryngeal Representation in Germanic. Phonology
12.369-96.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2000. Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics. New York & Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jordan, Terry G. 2004. German Seed in Texas Soil: Immigrant Farmers in 19th-century
Texas. 4th ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.
--. 1980. A religious geography of the Hill Country Germans of Texas. Ethnicity
of the Great Plains, edited by Frederick Luebke, 109-28. Lincoln &
London: University of Nebraska Press.
Keel, William. 1994. Reduction and loss of case marking in the noun phrase in GermanAmerican speech islands: internal development or external interference?
Sprachinselforschung. Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig, edited by Nina Berend
& Klaus Mattheier, 93-104. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Keel, William, & Klaus Mattheier (eds.). 2003. German language varieties worldwide:
internal and external perspectives. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Keller, Rudolf E. 1961. Alsatian. German Dialects: Phonology and morphology.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kloss, Heinz. 1966. German-American language maintenance efforts. Language loyalty
in the United States, edited by Joshua A. Fishman, 206-52. The Hague: Mouton.
King, Robert D. & Stephanie Beach. 1998. On the origins of German uvular [R]: the
Yiddish evidence. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures
10.279-90.
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1991. The decline of native languages in Canada. Endangered
languages, edited by Robert Robins & Eugenius Uhlenbeck, 157-76. Oxford:
Berg.
333

Krantzer, Thierry. 1998. Langue, identité et comportement a caratère ritual chez les
Alsaciens du Texas. Mémoire de licence ethnologigue, Université des Sciences
Humaines de Strasbourg.
Krauss, Michael. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68.4-10.
Kyes, Robert. 1989. German vowel lengthening: Causes and conditions. AJGLL 1.2:
153-76.
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.273-307.
--. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society I.97120.
Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics, 5th ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Lagarde, Francois (ed). 2003. The French in Texas: History, migration, culture. Focus
on American History Series. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Langenscheidt New College Dictionary, German-English. 1995. Berlin & Munich:
Langenscheidt KG.
Langford, Mary Diane. 2007. The Tattered Heart. Lincoln: Congregation of Divine
Providence, Inc.
Lawler, Ruth. 1974. The Story of Castroville: Its people, founder and traditions.
Castroville: privately printed.
Laybourn, Norman. 1986. L’Émigration des Alsaciens et des Lorrains du XVIIIe au XXe
siècle, vols. I and II. Strasbourg: Association des Publications près les
Universités de Strasbourg.
Le Page, Robert B. & Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based
approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Louden, Mark L. 1992. Old Order Amish verbal behavior as a reflection of cultural
convergence. Diachronic studies on the languages of the Anabaptists, edited by
Kate Burridge & Werner Enninger, 264-78. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N.
Brockmeyer.
--. 1993. Patterns of sociolinguistic variation in Pennsylvania German. The
German language in America, 1683-1991, edited by Joseph Salmons, 284306. Madison, Wisconsin.

334

--.

1994. Syntactic change in multi-lingual speech islands. Sprachinselforschung: Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig, edited by Nina Berend &
Klaus Mattheier, 333-448. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

--.

2003. An Eighteenth-Century View of Pennsylvania German and its
speakers. German language varieties worldwide: internal and external
perspectives, edited by William Keel & Klaus Mattheier, 69-85.
Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

Matisoff, J. 2001. Genetic vs. contact relationship: Prosodic diffusability in SoutheastAsian languages. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, edited by Alexandra
Aikhenvald & Dixon, 291-397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mattheier, Klaus J. 1996. Methoden der Sprachinselforschung. Kontaktlinguistik: Ein
internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, edited by Hans Goebl,
Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary, & Wolfgang Wölck, 812–19. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
--.

2003.
Sprachinseltod: Uberlegungen zur Entwicklungsdynamik von
Sprachinseln. German language varieties worldwide: internal and
external perspectives, edited by William Keel & Klaus Mattheier, 13-51.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing.
Linguistics 36.281-331.
Matzen, Raymond. 1973. Le domaine dialectal. Folklore et tradition en Alsace, 11-138.
Colmar-Ingersheim: Éditions SAEP.
McConvell, Patrick. 2002. Linking resources, linking communities: An Australian
Indigenous Languages Database Role of Metadata.” Paper presented at the
International LREC Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics, Las
Palmas, Spain, May 26-7.
McMahon, A.M.S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Milroy, Lesley, & M. Gordon. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation.
Malden, Oxford, & Carlton: Blackwell.
Molleken, Wolfgang. 1983. Language maintenance and language shift in Pennsylvania
German: a comparative investigation. Monatshefte 75.172-86.
Moore, Barbara J. R. 1975. A sociolinguistic study of a Texas German bilingual
community. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
335

--. 1980. A sociolinguistic longitudinal (1969-1979) study of a Texas German
Community, including curricular recommendations. Diss., University of
Texas at Austin.
Muysken, Pieter. 1981. Creole tense/mood/aspect systems: the unmarked case?
Generative studies on creole languages, edited by Pieter Muysken, 181-99.
Dordrecht: Foris.
--. 2000. Bilingual Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2003a. Social Motivations for Codeswitching. Evidence from
Africa. Oxford: Clarendon.
--.

2003b. Duelling Languages.
Oxford: Clarendon.

--.

2006. Multiple voices: an introduction to bilingualism.
Blackwell.

Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching.
Oxford: Basil

Nettle, Daniel, & Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the
world’s languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nicolini, Marcus. 2004. Deutsch in Texas. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Nisslé, André. 2008. S’Wärterbueach üss d’r Lehrschtuwa. Mulhouse: Ruge.
Nützel, Daniel. 1998. Language death and morphological decay: the case of Haysville
East Franconian. Diss., Purdue University.
Page, B. Richard. 2006. The synchrony and diachrony of vowel length in English and
Dutch. Diachronica 23: 61-104.
--. 2007. On the irregularity of open syllable lengthening in German. Historical
Linguistics 2005, edited by Joseph Salmons & Shannon Dubenion-Smith,
337-49. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perrichon, J. 1900. Vie de Monseigneur Dubuis, l’apôtre de Texas. Lyons: Librairie
Emmanuel Vitte.
Philipp, Marthe, & Arlette Bothorel-Witz. 1989. Low Alemannic. The dialects of
modern German, edited by Charles Russ, 313-35. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Philipp, Marthe, & Erich Weider. 2002. „Sein“ und „Haben“ im Elsass-Lothringischen
Mundartraum: Ein organisiertes Chaos. ZDL Beihefte, No. 122. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag.
336

Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct: How the mind creates language. William
Morrow & Company.
Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol:
Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 581-618.

Poplack, Shana, David Sankoff, & Christopher Muller. 1988. The Social and Linguistic
Processes of Lexical Borrowing and Assimilation. Linguistics 26: 47-104.
Rankin, Jamie & L. Wells. 2001. Handbuch zur deutschen Grammatik, 3rd ed. Boston
& New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Reis, Marga. 1974. Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der
Dehnungs- und Kürzungsvorgänge im Deutschen. Internationale Bibliothek für
allgemeine Linguistik, 14. Munich: Fink.
Robinson, Orrin W. 2001. Whose German? The ich/ach alternation and related
phenomena in ‘standard; and ‘colloquial.’ Current issues in linguistic theory
series. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rosenberg, Peter. 2003. Comparative speech island research: Some results from studies
in Russia and Brazil. German language varieties worldwide: internal and
external perspectives, edited by William Keel & Klaus Mattheier, 199-238.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Russ, Charles V. J. (ed.). 1989. The dialects of modern German: a linguistic survey.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
--. 1994. The German language today: A linguistic introduction. London &
New York: Routledge.
Salmons, Joseph C. 1983. Issues in Texas German language maintenance and shift.
Monatshefte 75.187-96.
--. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: Codeswitching, borrowing, and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics 28.453-80.
--. 1994. Naturalness and morphological change in Texas German. Sprachinselforschung. Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig, edited by Nina Berend &
Klaus Mattheier, 59-72. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
--. 2005. The role of community and regional structure in language shift.
Regionalism in the age of globalism, vol. 1, Concepts of regionalism,
edited by Lothar Hönnighausen, Marc Frey, James Peacock, & Niklaus
Steiner, 129-38. Madison: Center for the Study of Upper Midwestern
Cultures, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
337

Salmons, Joseph, & Felicia Lucht. 2006. Standard German in Texas. Studies in contact
linguistics: Essays in honor of Glenn G. Gilbert, edited by Linda Thornburg &
Janet Fuller, 165-86. Frankfurt & New York: Peter Lang.
Shrier, Martha. 1965. Case systems in German dialects. Language 41.420-38.
Shaw, Kathleen. 2007. Language policies, attitudes, and the case of Texas German.
Unpublished paper, University of Texas.
Siegel, Jeff. 1985. Koinés and koineization. Language in Society 14.357-78.
Sihler, Andrew. 2000. Language history: An introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Smith, Clifford Neal. 2004. Emigrants from France (Haut-Rhin Department) to
America. Part 1 (1837-1844) and Part 2 (1845-1847). Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing.
Struve, Walter. 1996. Germans and Texans: Commerce, migration, and culture in the
days of the Lone Star Republic. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Texas Historical Commission. 2002. Castroville: Historic Preservation Action Plan.
Austin: Texas Historical Commission.
Tschirhart, Ralph & Annette Droitcourt. 1981. Ellsasser Wordbuch. La Coste: La Coste
Ledger.
Thomason, Sarah. 2001. Multilingualism in nations and individuals. Language contact:
An introduction, 27-58. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Trask, R.L. 2000. The dictionary of historical and comparative linguistics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Troxler-Lasseaux, Sylvie, Catherine Nouvelle, & Evelyne Schmitt-Troxler. 2003.
J’apprends l’Alsacien avec Tommy et Louise. Essey le Nancy: Éditions du
Bastberg.
Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New-dialect formation : The inevitability of colonial Englishes.
Oxford: New York University Press.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2005. Language endangerment and language revitalization. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Van Ness, Silke. 1996. Case syncretism in Pennsylvania German: Internal or external
forces at play? American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 8.117.
338

Vassberg, Liliane M. 1989. Alsatian acts of identity: Language use and language
attitudes in Southern Alsace. Diss., University of Texas at Austin.
--. 1993. Alsatian acts of identity.
Multilingual Matters.

Clevedon, Philadelphia, & Adelaide:

Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics, 5th ed. Malden, Oxford,
& Carlton: Blackwell.
Waterman, John T. 1991. A history of the German language, revised edition. Prospect
Heights: Waveland.
Waugh, Julia. 1934. Castro-ville and Henri Castro empresario. San Antonio: Standard
Printing.
Weaver, Bobby. 1985. Castro’s colony: Empresario development in Texas 1842-1865.
College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Weinrich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York:
Linguistic Circle of New York.
Werlen, Iwar. 1985. Gebrauch und Bedeutung der Modalverben in alemannischen
Dialekten. ZDL Beihefte, No. 49. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Wiese, Richard. 2000. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiesinger, Peter. 1982. Probleme der Dialektgliederung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für
Dialektologie und Linguistik 49.145-68.
Wilkerson, Miranda, & Joseph Salmons. 2008. “Good old immigrants of yesteryear”
who didn’t learn English: Germans in Wisconsin. American Speech 83.3, 259-83.
Winford, Donald. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, Oxford, &
Carlton: Blackwell.
Wolfram, Walter. 2002. Language death and dying. Handbook of language variation
and change, edited by J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, & Natalie Schilling-Estes,
764-87. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wolfram, Walt, & Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1997. Hoi Toide on the Outer Banks. Chapel
Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press.
Wolfson, Nessa. 1997. Speech events and natural speech. Sociolinguistics: A reader,
edited by Nikolas Coupland & Adam Jaworski. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

339

Vita
Karen Ann Roesch was born to Joanne Powell Collins and Bryan D. Collins on
March 3, 1953, in San Antonio, Texas.

At age five, her parents were assigned to

Zweibrücken, Germany, with the U.S. Air Force. This was the beginning of a lasting
relationship with Germany and its language. At age ten, she returned to San Antonio,
Texas, with her parents and siblings, and finished her schooling. She graduated from
Winston Churchill High School in 1971. She attended Trinity University, San Antonio,
Texas, and received a B.A. magna cum laude in German and English in 1974, which
included a year abroad at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität in Freiburg, Germany.
After receiving her B.A., she returned to Germany and taught German, English,
and French at Privatgymnasium Königshofen near Wiesbaden during the day and English
at the Frankfurt Volkshochschule in the evenings. She spent two years in Melbourne,
Australia, during which she taught German at Donvale Christian School before moving to
New York. Here she taught both German and English as a Foreign Language at the
German School in White Plains, New York. In 1990, she again moved with her husband
and family to Tokyo, Japan, where she first taught German at the Goethe Institute, and
then Language Arts at the American School in Japan. During this time, she attended
summer education courses at the Michigan State University campus in Valbonne, France,
and in 2000, received an M.A. summa cum laude in Teaching and Curriculum from
Michigan State University. After returning to Texas in 2000, she decided to pursue a
Ph.D. in German and attended the University of Texas in Austin while teaching German
language and content courses there as an Assistant Instructor. She is currently a German
Lecturer in the Department of Modern Languages at Texas State University.

340

Permanent address: 333 Roesch Ridge, Doss, Texas 78618
This dissertation was typed by Karen Ann Roesch.

341