Register Collision in a Partner-School Email Exchange
You teach German 3 at a suburban New York high school with 24 students, five of them heritage speakers (two raised in Germany, three raised in the U.S. by German-speaking parents). Your class has been matched with a Grundkurs Englisch at a Gymnasium in Jena, and the first round of emails is due Friday. You collect drafts on Wednesday. One student opens with 'Hallo Herr Müller, was geht?' and closes with 'Liebe Grüße.' A heritage speaker writes fluent, confident German to her 17-year-old partner but signs off 'Alter' and calls him 'Kumpel.' A third writes to the teacher 'Ich will du sagen, weil ich 16 bin.' A fourth is grammatically shaky - wrong cases, wobbly verb placement - but gets the register right throughout. You have one 45-minute period before the deadline, and your department rubric scores writing on 'accuracy' and 'appropriate use of German.'
1. Sort the four drafts by what is actually going wrong. Which problems are grammatical, which are pragmatic, and which are neither?
Read the worked answer
Draft 1 ('Hallo Herr Müller, was geht?') - no grammar problem at all. The failure is a register collision: an informal greeting formula and a slangy question sit inside an otherwise formal address form ('Herr Müller'). A German reader does not hear bad grammar; they hear a writer who has not decided who they are talking to. Pragmatic.
Draft 2 (heritage speaker, 'Alter,' 'Kumpel') - also not a grammar error, and arguably not an error within her own peer vernacular. It is a failure of audience design: she has transferred a peer-to-peer register onto a first contact with a stranger in an institutional exchange. The fix is not correction but a conversation about who the reader is.
Draft 3 ('Ich will du sagen, weil ich 16 bin') - a genuine conceptual gap, not carelessness. The student believes age alone determines the pronoun. The actual variables are relative age, institutional role, reciprocity, and setting; two 16-year-olds who have never met may still start with Sie.
Draft 4 - the only student whose problem is grammatical, and the only one for whom the rubric's 'accuracy' score is measuring what it claims to measure.
The diagnostic point: three of four problems are pragmatic, so a rubric row called 'appropriate use of German' needs to be written so it can actually catch them, and a grammar-only correction pass would miss the majority of what went wrong.
2. You have one 45-minute period before the deadline. What do you teach, what do you deliberately not teach, and why?
Read the worked answer
Teach: a decision procedure for Sie/du, not a list of phrases. Fifteen minutes on the variables (relative age, institutional role, reciprocity, setting), anchored on two short model emails - one student-to-student, one student-to-teacher - that students annotate for pronouns, greeting, and closing. Then twenty minutes of revision on their own drafts with a three-item checklist: pronoun consistency, greeting matches closing, no slang aimed at an adult recipient. Five minutes to pair-share one sentence they changed.
Do not teach: the fourth student's case morphology, and not because it does not matter. It is a genuine need, but it is not fixable in 45 minutes, it is not what the deadline is testing, and correcting it now would tell the class that the unit was secretly about grammar after all. Handle it in a one-to-one conference next week, and log it as a pattern for the next grammar cycle.
Why: the assessed task is a communicative one with a real audience and a real date. The most efficient intervention is the one that improves the drafts in front of them. Reteaching case endings on Wednesday would consume the whole period and leave the register errors untouched - and those are the errors that would actually cause misreading in Jena.
3. How should the two Germany-raised heritage speakers be assessed on this task, given the existing rubric?
Read the worked answer
They should not be graded on the same construct as the L2 students, because for them du/Sie is already acquired - grading them on it measures nothing and rewards them for a head start they did not earn in your class. But exempting them entirely is also wrong, because the heritage speaker who wrote 'Alter' to a stranger demonstrably has a gap: her productive command outruns her audience awareness.
A workable adjustment is to keep the accuracy row as-is (it will register their real strengths) and replace the generic 'appropriate use' row with two narrower rows:
- Register consistency and audience design - is the variety held steady and matched to the recipient? This is where the heritage speaker should lose points, and where she can improve.
- Range and precision - do they choose vocabulary and sentence structure that a German 16-year-old would actually use, rather than textbook-neutral phrasing?
That second row protects them from the opposite failure mode, which is common in heritage learners: fluent, idiomatic, but thin writing that a rubric built for L2 accuracy rates as perfect.
Document the differentiated rubric before grading, not after a grade is disputed. And tell the students which rows apply to them, so the assessment is transparent rather than a surprise.