Читать книгу Bilingual Couples in Conversation - Silja Ang-Tschachtli - Страница 14

All of the Swiss who were interviewed originate from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. In this area, around thirty mostly Alemannic dialectsdialectdialectregional of German are spoken, which are mutually intelligible (Watts 2001: 301). The linguistic makeup of this part of the country is somewhat unusual because of its diglossia. In diglossic situations, regional dialects (traditionally called the L varietyL variety by researchers) co-exist with a more standardized variety of the same language (H varietyH variety) — in this case Swiss German (L) and Standard German (H).5 Referring to Switzerland among other countries, Charles Ferguson proposed the following classic definition of diglossia:

DIGLOSSIA is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language […], there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, […] which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation. (1959: 244–245, emphasis in original)

According to Ferguson, the varieties differ not only in the contexts in which they are used, but also in the prestigeprestige attributed to each. He states that the H variety is regarded as superior to the L variety in a number of respects, and is often viewed as “more beautiful, more expressive, more logical” (1959: 248).

However, this does not seem to be the case for the two varieties in Switzerland nowadays, and a number of researchers have remarked on the high prestige which Swiss German carries for German-speaking Swiss. Watts believes that the fact that the local dialects are valued more highly than Standard German in Switzerland these days is the result of an “ideology of dialect” which has developed over the last century (1999: 71). In such a situation, “the symbolic value of the dialects in the majority of linguistic marketplaces in which they are in competition with the standard is not only believed to be much higher than that of the standard but is also deliberately promoted as having a higher value” (Watts 1999: 69). Thus, Swiss German is attributed positive characteristics by contrast with Standard German, and many Swiss find the former “more down-to-earth, more honest, more communicative, more direct, and, in general, more Swiss than standard German” (Watts 1999: 75).

The ideology of dialect is continually promoted by the Swiss media and educational system (Watts 1999: 89), as well as by the German-speaking Swiss themselves. As an example, Gonçalves found that the native speakers of Swiss German as well as English in her study repeatedly reproduced the ideology of dialect in their discourse. Most of the native speakers of English she interviewed value Swiss German more highly than Standard German, as they “position and align themselves with Swiss German native speakers and their respective language ideologieslanguage ideologies” (2013: 151). The rise of the ideology of dialect may also have contributed to a shift in the domains in which the two varieties are used. Swiss German is now used far more frequently on the radio and on television, as well as in informal writing, such as text messaging. Consequently, the situation in Switzerland can be seen as a case of “leaky diglossia”, as “one variety ‘leaks’ into the functions formerly reserved for the other” (Fasold 1984: 41).

Not only does Swiss German have a high symbolic value in Switzerland, many Alemannic Swiss also perceive it as central to their identityidentitynational. As Watts points out, “for the German-speaking Swiss, the dialect functions […] as a badge of Swissness, an emblem of ‘belonging’ to Switzerland, which is more powerful than any other emblem” (1999: 75). Hence, the local dialect “serves as one of the most powerful markers if not the most powerful marker, of local, rather than national identity” (Watts 1999: 69, emphasis in original). Consequently, most Alemannic Swiss consider their dialect of Swiss German — rather than Standard German — to be their mother tongue (Watts 1999: 72) and may even classify Standard German as a ‘foreign language’ (Watts 1988: 328). In fact, many German-speaking Swiss do not enjoy speaking Standard German and, given the choice, “would far rather communicate in English to a foreigner than in standard German” (Watts 1999: 75).6

Since dialects are so central to the Swiss identity, they are an essential part of integration in Swiss society. As Lüdi points out, Swiss German is constitutive of “the personal and group identity of Alemannic Swiss. The use of dialect is one of the strongest in-group signals. As a consequence, dialect knowledge takes on a kind of test function in the evaluation, by the host community, of the […] migrant’s will and ability to integrate” (1996: 111). Hence, a working knowledge of Swiss German, probably even more so than Standard German, is essential for immigrants if they want to integrate into Swiss society. This is supported by Gonçalves’ study on bilingual couples in Switzerland (see section 3.3.2, “Bilingual couples”), for whom the “cultural capital” is felt to be represented by the local dialect rather than by Standard German (2013: 142). Gonçalves remarks that, while the Federal Office of Migration lists knowledge of a national language as an important criterion for immigrants who intend to stay for an extended period of time, immigrants actually need to learn a local dialect in order to integrate:

According to the Federal Office of Migration, learning a national language is a key factor for ‘successful’ integration. My data, however, indicates that learning standard German does not give foreign nationals a sense of being integrated, but perpetuates the feeling of ‘difference’ and ‘foreignness’. In fact, understanding and speaking the local dialect rather than standard German contributed to individuals’ sense of belonging and integration. (2013: 163)

Gonçalves concludes that, because Swiss German dialects are used in social interaction, speaking Standard German is not enough to guarantee successful integration (2013: 196). Instead, for the Anglophone immigrants in her study, “‘successful’ integration meant being competent in the local Bernese dialect rather than standard German. In fact, all of the participants who attempted to learn standard German were met with frustration […]” (2010a: 258). Thus, the local variety of Swiss German takes precedence over Standard German in Switzerland in terms of integrative potential as well as communicative effectiveness and cultural prestige.