{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02639524108450662, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007652527426538726, 'mean_word_length': 5.427281460134486, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Language Maintenance among the Hutterites

The Hutterites, like the Amish and Mennonites, are an Anabaptist religious group. Although they have existed as a separate group since the sixteenth century, very little work has been done on their linguistic repertoire. This study encourages a 21st century conversation about Hutterite language behavior. The article begins with a brief sociohistorical background, contextualizing the religious traditions of the Hutterites and their European beginnings. The verticalization model adopted for the analysis of Hutterite language maintenance is described in the second section, following a brief review of literature in language maintenance and shift. The current study, presenting the results of a language use questionnaire, is analyzed in section 3. The article ends with a discussion of the results, their implications, and areas for future research.


Introduction
The Hutterites, like the Amish and Mennonites, are an Anabaptist religious group. Although they have existed as a separate group since the sixteenth century, very little work has been done on their linguistic repertoire. This study encourages a 21st century conversation about Hutterite language behavior. The article begins with a brief sociohistorical background, contextualizing the religious traditions of the Hutterites and their European beginnings. The verticalization model adopted for the analysis of Hutterite language maintenance is described in the second section, following a brief review of literature in language maintenance and shift. The current study, presenting the results of a language use questionnaire, is analyzed in section 3. The article ends with a discussion of the results, their implications, and areas for future research.

Sociohistorical background
Today there are around 50,000 Hutterites located on 500 communal colonies in North America. Approximately one-third live on rural and isolated communal colonies in the United States (the Dakotas, Montana, Washington, and Minnesota); the rest inhabit the Prairie Provinces of Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba). The Hutterites originated in the Anabaptist movement in sixteenth century Switzerland. As a reaction to the mainstream Protestant Reformation, the Anabaptists sought the institution of adult baptism, separation from the world, pacifism, and separation of church and state. Due to persecutions in Switzerland, a group of Anabaptists escaped eastward into Austria, Bohemia, and Moravia. Upon reaching Moravia, they focused on a Biblical verse from the Book of Acts, in which the believers share their goods. 1 As a result, the Hutterites differ from other Anabaptist groups in that they promote a communal lifestyle. Aside from "gender-segregated religious orders," e.g., monks, they are the oldest communal Christian group in the world (Janzen and Stanton 2010:3). Due to continued religious persecution until the 1870s, the Hutterites fled or were forced eastward into Transylvania, Wallachia, and Ukraine. Beginning in 1874, a large group of Hutterites, under threat of military conscription, left Eastern Europe and settled the Dakota Territory in the United States. Although all Hutterites share the same confession of faith, main tenets of Anabaptism, and dedication to communal lifestyle, there are three affiliations of Hutterites, which do not generally intermarry nor commune together: Lehrerleut, Dariusleut, and Schmiedeleut (in order of decreasing conservatism).
All Anabaptists strive to achieve separation from the world's non-believers in varying ways. Kraybill, Johnson-Weiner, and Nolt (2013:405) call this process of negotiating distance from mainstream society as a "bargain with modernity." Although mainstream society often imagines the most conservative, or Old Order, Anabaptists to be unchanging and monolithic, they bargain with aspects of modernity and weigh its acceptance against traditional values in order to survive pressures from mainstream society. When confronted with new technologies or changes to their traditional systems, Anabaptists may reject modern influences, make concessions to allow modern influences, or find a middle ground in the adaptation of their lifestyles to accommodate parts of modern influences. Unlike other Anabaptists, Hutterites depend upon their rural communal colonies to maintain a strong physical boundary between themselves and "the world." As such, their technological acceptance, particularly in farming, computer use, and automobile use, is markedly more progressive than other Old Order Anabaptists, e.g., Old Order Amish and Team Mennonites. Hutterian bargains with modernity are thus often less strict, since their physical and social isolation on rural communal colonies enable them to circumvent many mainstream pressures.
Hutterites also maintain a linguistic boundary from mainstream society. Hutterisch is the Austro-Bavarian oral language used by the in-group (Obernberger 1979, Sheer 1987, Rein 1994). 2 Although the language most closely resembles the Carinthian dialect, centuries of contact with Eastern European languages have left their marks on the language, e.g., through lexical borrowings like kratsewets (Romanian castraveti 'cucumber') and wakelschan 'tomato' (Russian baklazhan 'eggplant'). No data are available on other contact-induced phenomenon, as no comprehensive studies of Hutterite morphosyntax or phonology exist. Hutterisch is not only the in-group marker used majority of the time on Hutterite colonies, it also transcends the boundaries of the colony as the in-group marker for all Hutterites. In performing religious or social rituals at another colony, i.e., seeking marriage prospects or visiting relatives, Hutterisch is the marker that solidifies in-group identity.
In addition to Hutterisch, Hutterites also use German and English in special ways. Although some elements of modern German appear in the curriculum of progressive colonies, written liturgical texts and language instruction are only in Early New High German. Janzen and Stanton (2010) estimate that 90 percent of all sermons preached daily on Hutterite colonies are those written in Early New High German from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and read aloud verbatim. Only when a non-Hutterite is present during worship in progressive colonies will ministers preach in English. In other colonies, English's role in the worship service is occasionally one of underscoring a point or "keeping people awake" (Janzen and Stanton 2010:80). Some spoken parts are either in Hutterisch or in a higher register of Hutterisch, as an attempt to retain the appearance of Early New High German as the hagiolect. Schools and non-liturgical writing are predominately in English. Schools are located on colony property, but are taught (with the exception of some progressive colonies) by non-Hutterite public school teachers.
2 Heritage language maintenance and shift Rothman (2009:165) defines a heritage language as "a language spoken at home or otherwise readily available to young children, and crucially this language is not a dominant language of the larger (national) society." In language contact situations, where there is a power differential between the heritage language and the language of mainstream society, one must fully assess the ecology of the language situation to understand the reasons for heritage language shift or maintenance (Haugen 1972). Far too often, linguists assemble a list of reasons to explain shift. The resulting typologies are context-specific and therefore not generalizable. Attempts at unifying factors contributing to heritage language shift have created abstractions pertaining to domains of language use, attitudes and behaviors of the speech community, and density of the community's networks. These unifying models have been shown to be not only too abstract and subjective, but also not testable empirically. Frey (2013), elaborating on ideas from Salmons (2005 a,b) and Lucht (2007), developed a generalizable and empirically testable theory of language shift. The verticalization model proposes that changes in community structure drives language shift. Its principles come from the work of sociologist Roland Warren (1978), who argued that local relationships are "horizontal," while those that connect local components to larger society are "vertical". Horizontal communities maintain community-operated institutions, e.g., schools, newspapers, and churches. The consolidation of schools, dissolution of local newspapers, and the affiliation of local churches with national religious institutions would verticalize the community. The verticalization model claims that when community structures verticalize, there is language shift. Dependence on extra-community relationships and institutions brings the dominant language into the heritage language community and changes the role of the heritage language to that of a minority language with limited usage within the community. As a result, the verticalization model has both a testable claim and does not rely on subjective abstractions for generalizing the model for a variety of heritage language contexts (cf. Frey 2013 for a review of the testable claim of verticalization).
Typically, conservative Anabaptists have maintained their languages simply by maintaining predominately horizontal relationships. The social separation required by their religious convictions and engaging in a consistent bargain with modernity have oriented these communities toward locally controlled institutions. For example, each Amish congregation has its own order of discipline (Ordnung) and leadership hierarchy. Although some Amish individuals may engage in extra-community enterprises, e.g., volunteer work or mutual aid, they do not do so systematically nor do they generally participate in those extra-community enterprises beyond the immediately local level. The spoken vernaculars of conservative Anabaptists are maintained by virtue of their role as a symbolic separator and ethnic boundary marker between the ingroup and the out-group. However, the function of the heritage language in communities in which sectarian and non-sectarian communities exist necessitates even deeper differentiation. Baumgarten (1995) and Shaw & Sachdev (2001) observed the "Yiddish Paradox," namely that the communities most invested in the study and creative literary writing of Yiddish are the communities demonstrating the lowest potential at actually maitaining the language. The Hasidim, as regular users of Yiddish and dependent on the language as an ethnic boundary marker, do not engage in writing Yiddish literature to the same extent as non-Hasidic speakers of Yiddish. Similarly, Louden (2003), in his work on Pennsylvania Dutch among sectarian (Old Order Amish and Mennonite) and non-sectarian (those of mostly Lutheran or Reformed descent) communities observed "maintenance by inertia." The groups most successful at language maintenance are the sectarians, who do the least active and overt measures for language maintenance. In both instances, the heritage language survives by virtue of its symbolic nature in providing an ethnic boundary. Conservative religious groups that maintain their vernacular languages, like Yiddish among the Hasidim, Pennsylvania Dutch among the Old Order Amish and Mennonites, and Plattdeutsch among Old Colony Mennonites, have done so without overt efforts aimed at language maintenance. Naturally, implicit efforts, such as hierarchical or historical pressures, do exist in these communities. These pressures do not target language maintenance directly, rather they seek to promote separation of the group and the adherence to a traditional religious identity.
These communities, which rely not on overt maintenance efforts, rely instead on the symbolic identification that the language provides the in-group. Overt maintenance efforts would necessarily increase extra-community ties formed through efforts to codify, publish, and promote the heritage language. The verticalization model predicts that the horizontal nature of sectarian communities with their dense networks, traditional values, and bargaining with (instead of wholesale adoption of ) extra-community institutions, will maintain their heritage languages. Hutterites have not built up vertical relationships and for the vast majority of Hutterite history, Hutterites maintained Hutterisch "by inertia." It was an unwritten language, co-sanctified with Early New High German as a marker of ethnoreligious identity. However, in 2006 the children's book Lindas glücklicher Tag (L. Maendel 2006) was launched at the Hutterian Brethren Book Centre in Manitoba. The book contains written dialogue in Hutterisch for the first time ever. The success of Lindas glücklicher Tag (L. Maendel 2006) precipitated a series of additional books, written exclusively in Hutterisch: a nursery rhyme book, Es lauft e Meisl (Hofer 2008), two volumes of Bible stories, Hutterischa Bibl Tschichtlen (L. Maendel , 2010, and a CD compilation of oral stories with notes written in Hutterisch (D. . One the one hand, the publication of these books in recent years piques interest, as attempts at codification of an oral language are often the first attempts at reversing language shift to build the ethnolinguistic vitality of the group and strengthen the meaning of the language for group identity (Terrill 2002, Grenoble andWhaley 2006). On the other hand, this move to bestow literary prestige on the heritage language represents an overt investment in the heritage language rather than inertia. What do the publications in the heritage language mean for the heritage language community? Is their increasing number indicative of a more dramatic shift in language behavior among the Hutterites? The publication of these written attempts at the oral ingroup marker for the first time in Hutterite history provided the impetus for this study. naire elicited information aimed at gauging language use at psychological (attitudinal and behavioral information), sociopsychological (network and network density information), and societal (legitimacy and institutional information) levels. The questionnaire loosely follows Dorian (1981) and Holdeman (2002), as they present comprehensive questionnaires incorporating aspects of domain, social network, and attitude, while not relying on any one of them more than another. In all, the questionnaire provides the potential for analyzing the community holistically. The first two sections collect background information including age, residence, migration history, and other general familial information in addition to information of the respondent's perception of their proficiency in the various languages they use and encounter.
The third and fourth sections include a list of statements and questions pertaining to language history and use, where not only the function, but also the frequency is elicited on a Likert scale from "always" to "never." These sections most explicitly seek data on the domains of language use and the characteristics of social networks. A domain is "an abstraction which refers to a sphere of activity representing a combination of specific times, settings and role relationships" and, as such, are socially diagnostic (Romaine 1995:30). A social network, as defined by Milroy and Milroy (1992:5) is a "boundless web of ties that reaches out through the whole society, linking people to one another, however remotely." A social network is a basic exchange relationship, which receives norms, pressures, and form from society at both macroand micro-levels. Relational characteristics describe the form of the social network, i.e., multiplexity, intensity, demands, structure, density, time and space, and durability (Stoessel 1998). A dense and multiplex network (e.g., what the verticalization model would call an exchange network of relatives and close friends) is most likely to maintain language. Weak ties within networks are more likely to encourage innovation and change (Milroy & Milroy 1985). A loose network with vertical ties to extra-community institutions and individuals is most likely to influence language shift as it is the least likely to resist linguistic and societal impositions from the dominant society (Milroy 1987(Milroy , 2001. Additionally, the verticalization of exchange networks has been found to influence language shift in several German American varieties, e.g., Lucht (2007).
The fifth section concerns itself with language attitudes. Attitudes are complex in understanding their role in language shift. Although the correlation between positive attitudes toward a language and language maintenance seem obvious, Silva-Corvalán (1994) comments on the disconnect between positive attitudes toward Spanish in the United States and a negative correlation in behavior, i.e., negative language loyalty and failure to maintain despite positive attitudes. Language attitudes may not be able to capture the entire linguistic situation, but placed within a context of the language group, they connect the societal and community questions from sections three and four with individual beliefs and decisions-in effect, they link macro-and microsocial and social psychological aspects of the heritage language situation. Thus, the analysis of the questionnaires and interviews begin with the individual and move increasingly outward to networks of friends and family to Hutterite society and to mainstream society in general. In the following sections, specific elements, which Warren (1978:53) suggested would lead to a more vertical community structure are analyzed using data from the study. Two major components of a shift from horizontal to vertical community structure are changing values and increasing systematic relationships to the larger society. Warren (1978) theorized that changing community values would alter the orientation of the community's structure from horizontal to vertical. The values regarding language use within Hutterite society are most apparent through language attitudes and ideologies. All participants agreed, for example, that Hutterisch is a beautiful language, which they like to hear spoken. All participants report positive attitudes toward Early New High German. They invoked the status of the language as traditional as its most important value for Hutterite society. Participants were more ambivalent toward English. Three participants were neutral on the beauty of English and no respondents stated that they could express themselves better in English. Only one participant agreed that it was a waste of time to maintain Hutterisch and that there is no need to maintain Hutterisch for tradition's sake. 3 Their attitudes toward Hutterisch are overwhelmingly positive, while attitudes toward English are positive and somewhat neutral. For majority of the participants, Hutterisch has important cultural value. In an interview, a participant noted:

Community values
(1) Hutterisch means a lot to me, because it's such a big part of our culture.
This participant crucially linked both the linguistic capital of Hutterisch and its cultural capital. Thus, the intrinsic value of Hutterisch (i.e., meaning "a lot" to the individual) is intimately linked to the integrative value (being a "big part" of Hutterite culture). Another interviewee gave a vivid and palatable, description of the cultural value of Hutterisch: (2) Certain traditions and food such as Schtrankelsuppe and Kuche are much tastier than 'bean soup' and 'doughnuts'.
Here tangible artifacts of the culture, i.e., traditional foods, are more appealing linguistically (and, for this narrator, gastronomically) when simply expressed with Hutterisch words. Hutterisch holds cultural value for the Hutterites as it has done for centuries.
Another participant in an interview shared not only the cultural value of Hutterisch, but also that it holds social value in its transmission from generation to generation: (3) Hutterisch is special to me, because it's the language I first heard and it has cultural values . . . I intend to pass it on to my children and my children's children. If all parents do that, we will continue to have our language forever. Her possession of Hutterisch as "our language" links it to being the language of the home and colony domain. She then reflects positively on its future stability. Importantly, this interview participant highlights the role of transmission in the success of Hutterisch as a stable heritage language. For Hutterisch to remain, obviously, the community requires continuity of the heritage language to younger generations. Her intent is to do so and so the expectation on its transmission is highlighted. The values about Hutterisch remain positive and optimistic. The lack of a change in community values points toward the maintenance of their community structure. Values can only portray part of the situation, however. Extra-community relationships increase and become systematic with a change in community structure. Therefore, maintenance of dense networks within Hutterite society are also necessary to maintain the heritage language.

Relationships to society
The density of the networks within Hutterite society is evident in the transmission of the language from one generation to the next, so that each Hutterite generation speaks Hutterisch. One interviewee switched to Hutterisch to characterize Hutterisch as an intergenerational link: (4) Es is die Schprooch mit wos ich red wonn ich mit Kinder red. Es is die Schprooch wos ich red mit de Enkle in unser Family. 'It is the language that I speak when I speak with children. It is the language that I speak with grandchildren in our family.' The continuity and existence of Hutterisch have important cultural and social value for Hutterites. Grandparents speak the language with grandchildren and thus link together the family, providing dense, multiplex networks of large extended families. These families often exist beyond a single colony and the dense familial networks are solidified through their shared language. One interviewee stated that the language provides cohesion within the family and within the church, which she also sees as a "family": (5) I think it's also a tie that binds my family and also my church family together.
Indeed only two respondents reported "usually" speaking Hutterisch to parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles; the rest of the respondents reported that they "always" speak Hutterisch with their family members. Hutterites have dense social networks, because of the very fact that they are Hutterites. Their isolation and strict endogamy, as part of the pervasive nature of religion into their lives, fosters dense social networks. These relationships, which encourage horizontal structure and local orientation, contribute significantly to the maintenance of Hutterisch. In his work on Wisconsin German and North Carolina Cherokee communities, Frey (2013:31) makes the direct correlation of dense multiplex networks with Warren's idea of personal relationships and weak uniplex networks with Warren's (1978:60) idea of categorical relationships. Warren (1978) proposes that a change in community structure includes the shift from personal to categorical relationships. Frey (2013) theorizes and shows that this component of verticalization is indicative of language shift. Communities that maintain personal relationships will maintain the heritage language.
If isolation on communal colonies and endogamy are key factors in fostering horizontal relationships in Hutterite society, so too are the self-sufficiency of colonies. The isolation of Hutterite colonies means that they function as relatively self-sufficient micro-societies. Meals and work take place together on the colony. Schools, as mentioned earlier, are on colony property. Churches are located on colony property, usually in the center of the colony. Worship in the colony church is a daily activity and therefore binds the community together, dictating the schedule of the day's events. Colony-centric religious institutions, which downplay individuality for the survival of the group, provide strong support for maintenance of ethnic symbols, including language. In religious domains on Hutterite colonies, there is considerable language compartmentalization ensuring that each language in a Hutterite's linguistic repertoire has a definite purpose. For example, there is a clear distinction between the language of the home and the language of church for religious purposes. Most of the prayers offered at home are in Hutterisch, while those in church are primarily not in Hutterisch, but German. Even though the church is located on the colony, even within sight of one's home and visited every day, the different domains keep the languages separate (figure 1).
By keeping the languages separate-Hutterisch as the language of the home and Early New High German as the language of the church-both are ensured survival through their necessity. Additionally, the role of Hutterisch in the lives of Hutterites is clearly delineated. It remains, in spite of recent publications and codification (i.e., the adoption of an orthography) of the language, primarily an oral heritage language. Some respondents to the questionnaire report reading Bible stories in Hutterisch, but the majority, 78 percent, report only doing this sometimes or never (figures 2). The same is true for writing in Hutterisch. The majority, 78 percent, report writing emails, lists, and notes, i.e., informal writing, sometimes or never (figure 3). No participants claimed to write exclusively in Hutterisch, even though this is the dominant language of colony life. The domains closely affiliated with education (writing and reading) employ mostly English-the language of their public school on colony property. The teacher, as a non-Hutterite, clearly separates the education domain from Hutterite society and allies it most closely with extra-community institutions. English is therefore the language of outsiders and outside pursuits.
On the other hand, 72 percent report making telephone calls in Hutterisch always or usually (figure 4). Hutterisch remains strongly an oral language. As the telephone calls are mostly in Hutterisch, they are most definitely with other Hutterites living at other colonies. Hutterisch functions as the binding agent for extended families beyond the colony and maintains dense personal relationships in spite of distance and even in spite of using a technological device from outside society.
In sum, Hutterisch has not gained as large a foothold in the written domain as it holds in the spoken domain. Figure 5 shows the previous three charts compiled together in one as a comparison. Writing and reading in Hutterisch dominate as occurring sometimes or never on the right of the chart, while oral use of Hutterisch dominates on the left of the chart indicating increased usage in daily Hutterite life.
Although home, church, and school domains are located on colony property, each necessitates a different language and therefore the language is made meaningful only in certain contexts. Life on the Hutterite colony is intentionally isolated and communal in rural, agricultural landscapes. Life as a Hutterite is pervasively religious, yet non-evangelical in seeking converts and promoting endogamy. These features create a solid foundation in ensuring a community orientation toward horizontal structure. Hutterisch, English, and Early New High German provide the Hutterites with markers of their ethnic identities and have specific purposes in their lives. Relationships that may be formed with extra-community institutions are relegated to their connections using English and even then, Hutterites monitor those relationships on their own terms, i.e., by employing a public school teacher on colony property. Progressive colonies even take this separation further by employing their own Hutterite teachers in their schools. Networks in Hutterite society  Frey (2013:31) suggests, "personal relationships" in horizontal community structure. Hutterites ensure the maintenance of their languages by maintaining their use in certain domains, which allow reduced necessity for creating extra-community relationships that may endanger heritage language stability.

Conclusion
In analyzing the data from the questionnaires, engaging in participant interviews, and critical ethnographies on several Hutterite colonies in each affiliation, it appears that the publications play a little role in the literary lives of the Hutterites and therefore a limited role in the maintenance of Hutterisch. Less than half (41 percent) of the respondents, mentioned reading books in Hutterisch and since most of the respondents were Schmiedeleut, the very group which began writing the books, it is likely that their affiliation out of the three would be the most familiar with the publications. It follows that while the literacy domain is already filled by English, a market for the written forms of the language (for children and on religious topics) has created an internal movement among the Hutterites to impart a sense of identity for their children (Grenoble andWhaley 2006, Louden 2003). These are integrative and intrinsic efforts to foster Hutterite identity among children, to exhibit the co-sanctification of the language for their identification alongside German as the language of Bible stories, and to promote the perceived benefits and prestige of a literary standard. The writing of Hutterisch seems overwhelmingly to be a creative endeavor that remains, at least for now, relegated to children's literature.
A strong parallel can be drawn between the Hutterites in this study and Frey's (2013) study of Cherokee in North Carolina. Frey (2013) found that although the Cherokee adopted some elements of mainstream and dominant society, it was done so with their own agentivity. The Cherokee were not absorbed into mainstream society, but instead created "gatekeepers," who regulated the amount, nature, and degrees of extra-community relationships. Gatekeepers in Cherokee society functioned as members of the in-group who formed extra-community ties so that the group itself would not engage in those relationships. Frey (2013) correlates this practice as an extension of traditional Cherokee town structure, which screened outsiders and outside influences so as to prevent wholesale absorption into mainstream society. In many ways, Hutterite social structure mirrors Cherokee social structure. The publishers of Hutterisch literature function as gatekeepers-codifying their language, dealing with publishers, marketing their works, seeking legitimacy of the written language, etc.-while the vast majority of Hutterites continue using Hutterisch in their dense networks as an oral language. The single statement that elicited the most variation in the questionnaire was: Hutterisch should be taught in school. Most, fourteen, participants agreed with the statement, though a comparable number, ten, disagreed, while seven participants were neutral toward the statement. Discord among the participants exists regarding the appropriateness of overt Hutterisch instruction and, in effect, overt measures to maintain the language. The disagreement with such a statement is a testament to the high levels of perceived vitality of the language, i.e., there is no need to teach a language, which is spoken and being maintained.
As shown from the data, Hutterites maintain the social and cultural values attached not only to Hutterisch, but also German and English. Hutterite networks are dense and multiplex and, by virtue of religious prescription, are predominately local and horizontal. Hutterite life on communal, rural colonies is necessarily focused on mutual aid, self-sufficiency, and self-reliance. Contacts to the outside are largely with other Hutterite colonies and if extra-community contacts are needed, they are accomplished through gatekeepers (Hutterite teachers, clergy, and business leaders). Hutterisch continues to function as a linguistic identity marker for connecting the family and other church adherents together with extremely high sociocultural capital as a co-sanctified variety for their ethnoreligious identity. In spite of increasing literary works in Hutterisch, Hutterite society has not undergone a shift in community structure and therefore maintains its languages in specific ways. This study has shown that Hutterisch holds important value for Hutterite religious and cultural identities. It continues to be maintained as a marker of the ingroup and, in spite of modernity, the horizontal nature of Hutterite society encourages its maintenance.

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, Wisconsin
1 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common (Acts 2:44, Authorized (King James) Version).
2 Although originating from a dialect of German, I choose to label Hutterisch as a language, given its role in Hutterite history and identity. Linguistic distinctions between a language and dialect are problematic; the distinction is usually social and/or political. 3 The respondent produced conservative responses to the questionnaire on all other items, so it is not completely clear why these statements were rated differently.