of Kiezdeutsch are part of normal language development and variation, not a bastardization through foreign influence, but this position has caused great consternation for many readers, who do not want to accept that a new dialect is possible (see Wiese 2014 for an analysis of this discourse).
Who speaks Kiezdeutsch is also represented in the literature in different ways. There is agreement that its speakers generally live in multiethnic neighborhoods, and it is referred to as a youth language, but whether it is indeed limited to young speakers has not been conclusively demonstrated. Auer (2013) discusses the speakers of Kiezdeutsch as socially marginalized youths of immigrant background, while among Wiese’s research participants are speakers with German backgrounds who are monolingual German speakers (as well as speakers of other ethnic or national backgrounds who are monolingual German speakers). More recent attitudinal research (Bunk and Pohle 2019) shows that while non‐Kiezdeutsch speakers may associate the variety with ethnicity, the speakers themselves recognize their way of speaking as indexing educational failure, economic disadvantage, and a ‘gangster image’ (2019, 98). Significantly, these speakers also identify this way of speaking as just one code in their repertoires, reporting that while they use Kiezdeutsch among friends, they speak Standard German in more formal contexts.
Finally, the process of the development of this variety is controversial. It is often assumed to be the result of language contact, meaning that the features are borrowed from other languages, especially Turkish (e.g., Auer 2013). Wiese (2010, 2012) argues for a somewhat different scenario: that this situation of language contact has created a fertile environment for internally motivated language change (see chapters 5 and 9 for discussions of contact variety development and language change more broadly).
What is clear is that Kiezdeutsch is a variety which has developed as an ingroup language; the development and use of Kiezdeutsch is intertwined with the identities of the speakers. As will be discussed for ethnic dialects, the identification with a group is a key element in the development of a social dialect.
Ethnic dialects
So‐called ethnic dialects do not arise because members of particular ethnic groups are somehow destined to speak in certain ways; like all other social dialects, ethnic dialects are learned by exposure and anyone, regardless of their ethnic identification or racial categorization, might speak in ways identified as ‘African American Vernacular English’ or ‘Latinx English.’ The connection between race/ethnicity/nationality and linguistic variety is one that is entirely socially constructed, thus these varieties would perhaps best be described as ‘ethnicized.’
The processes that create ethnic dialects are not well understood, and much research remains to be done into how and why they develop. However, we do know that ethnic dialects are not simply foreign accents of the majority language; many of their speakers may well be monolingual in the majority language. Latinx English, for example, is not English with a Spanish accent and grammatical transfer, as many of its speakers are English monolinguals. Ethnic dialects are ingroup ways of speaking the majority language.
One study which gives us insights into the motivations for the development of an ethnic dialect was done by Kopp (1999) on Pennsylvania German English, that is, the English spoken among speakers of what is commonly called ‘Pennsylvania Dutch,’ which is a German dialect which developed in certain regions of Pennsylvania. Kopp analyzes a variety of features associated with speakers of Pennsylvania German in both sectarian (i.e., Amish and Mennonite) and nonsectarian communities. He discovers what at first seems to be a paradoxical pattern: although the sectarians are more isolated from mainstream society, and they continue to speak Pennsylvania German, their English has fewer phonological features that identify them as Pennsylvania German speakers than the nonsectarians, who are integrated into the English mainstream and less likely to be speakers of Pennsylvania German. So the nonsectarians, who are in many cases English monolinguals, exhibit more phonological features reminiscent of a Pennsylvania German accent in their spoken English than the sectarians! As Kopp explains, this makes perfect sense when we think of language as providing a way to construct identity. The sectarians speak Pennsylvania German, and thus can use that language to create group boundaries; the nonsectarians, who increasingly do not speak Pennsylvania German, have only their variety of English to use to construct themselves as members of a particular ethnic group.
Although Pennsylvania German English developed largely in rural areas, many ethnic dialects are urban phenomena. Cities are much more difficult to characterize linguistically than are rural hamlets; variation in language and patterns of change are much more obvious in cities, for example, in family structures, employment, and opportunities for social advancement or decline. Migration, both in and out of cities, is also usually a potent linguistic factor. Recent research on superdiversity focuses on this aspect of language contact and development and will be discussed further in chapter 10.
In research which examines the complexities of urban speech, Jaspers (2008) also addresses some of the ideological issues at stake in the study of ethnic dialects. He addresses the practice of naming particular ways of speaking as ethnolects, pointing out that it is indicative of the ideological positions of the sociolinguists doing the research themselves. Labeling and describing a particular way of speaking as an ethnic dialect implies a certain homogeneity about the variety and its speakers, and it inevitably also places the dialect and the group who speaks it outside the mainstream. Further, such labeled varieties are not always linguistically distinct, despite the perception of speakers. Jaspers writes (2008, 100):
The point is not that code‐establishment and naming as such should be frowned upon, but that they limit our understanding of inner‐city social and linguistic practices, and that they have ideological consequences sociolinguists should take into account. As an alternative, I have advocated that ethnolect be regarded as a useful term for speakers’ perceptions of particular ways of speaking (and of course, some scholars of ethnolects are already attending to perceptions of this kind), with the understanding that speakers’ perceptions, and the names they develop for them, do not necessarily correspond to systematic linguistic differences (and vice versa).
The following discussion of African American Vernacular English attempts to incorporate these disparate perspectives. In doing so, we seek to describe a fascinating linguistic phenomenon, the development and spread of a linguistic variety that is linked to a particular ethnic or racial group without contributing to essentialist ideas about social groups or making simplistic descriptions of languages.
African American Vernacular English
Interest in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) grew in part out of the observation that the speech of many Black residents of the northern United States, in New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago, resembles the speech of Blacks in southern states in many respects, yet differs from the speech of Whites in their respective regions. To some extent, this similarity is the result of the relatively recent migrations of Blacks out of the south, but it is also a reflection of long‐standing patterns of racial segregation. Linguists have referred to this variety of speech as Black English, Black Vernacular English, and African or Afro‐American English. Today, probably the most‐used term is African American Vernacular English, and we will use this term (abbreviated as AAVE), although in our discussions of research by particular authors we will use whatever term they used. (The term Ebonics – a blend of Ebony and phonics – has also recently achieved a certain currency in popular speech, but it is not a term we will use in discussion of sociolinguistic research.) It should be also noted that variation in AAVE according to region (e.g., Hinton and Pollock 2000; Jones 2015; Wolfram and Thomas 2008), age (e.g.,
