Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 79–96

Do we want more or less variation?

The comparative markers als and dan in Dutch prescriptivism since 1900

| Radboud University
The suppression of optional variability is a cornerstone of English prescriptivism. For Dutch, however, it is unknown whether this concept is equally important. The goal of this paper is to investigate which stance towards variation is taken in Dutch prescriptivism, and what arguments are used to support this stance. I address these questions by looking at 236 usage advice items from 73 Dutch prescriptive publications concerning the comparative particles als and dan. This data shows a clear division in the allowance of variation. With the standard comparative (groter als/dan), variation is often allowed, but with equative constructions (even groot als) only one form is ever accepted. Furthermore, the allowance of variation decreases over time. The argumentation that is used shows few patterns, and is frequently completely absent. This indicates the existence of an ipse dixit (‘assertion without proof’) tradition in Dutch prescriptivism since 1900.
Keywords: prescriptivism, Dutch language, comparatives, variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Categorical distribution of usage advice items
    • 3.2Degree of acceptance of variation per category of usage advice item
    • 3.3Diachronic development of level of acceptance of variation
    • 3.4The use of argumentation
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00006.meu
References (23)
References
Albakry, Mohammed. 2007. “Usage Prescription Rules in Newspaper Language.” Southern Journal of Linguistics, 31 (2): 28–56.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter. 1999. “Normatieve taalkunde.” De Nederlandse taalkunde in kaart ed. by W. Smedts and P. C. Paardekooper, 237–248. Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco.Google Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy & Helen de Hoop. 2013. “The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013 ed. by S. Aalberse and A. Auer, 89–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maureau, Hans. 1979. Goed en begrijpelijk schrijven. Een analyse van 40 jaar schrijfadviezen. Muiderberg: Dick Coutinho.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Leslie Milroy. 1999 [1985]. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C. 1950. “Als en dan bij vergelijkingen”. De Nieuwe Taalgids 431: 160–167.Google Scholar
1970. “Groter als.” De Nieuwe Taalgids 631: 329–337.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2006. “English Usage: Prescription and Description.” Handbook of English Linguistics ed. by B. Aarts and A. McMahon, 759–780. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, Pam, & Wendy Young. 1997. “English grammar and the lexicography of usage.” Journal of English Linguistics 25(4): 315–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2006. “Van groter dan naar groter als – structurele oorzaken voor het verval van het comparatieve voegwoord dan .” Nederlandse Taalkunde 111: 2–22.Google Scholar
Reinarz, Lukas, Hugo de Vos & Helen de Hoop. 2016. “Conflicting Constraints in the Comparative Cycle.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28(4): 403–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenetorp, Pontus, Sampo Pyysalo, Goran Topić, Tomoka Ohta, Sophie Ananiadou & Jun’ichi Tsujii. 2012. “ brat: a Web-based Tool for NLP-Assisted Text Annotation.” Proceedings of the Demonstrations Session at EACL 2012.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen, Maria A. 1963. “ Dan en als bij vergelijkingen.” De Nieuwe Taalgids 561: 259–268.Google Scholar
de Rooij, Jaap. 1965. “Als-of-dat.” PhD diss., Radboud Universiteit.Google Scholar
. 1972. “Als of dan.” De Nieuwe taalgids 651: 199–209.Google Scholar
Stroop, Jan. 2011. “De lange arm van de grammatici.” Praagse perspectieven 7. Handelingen van het colloquium van de sectie Nederlands van de Karelsuniversiteit te Praag, op 24 en 25 maart 2011 ed. by Z. Hrnčířová, E. Krol, K. Mercks, J. Pekelder and J. Ultzen, 137–153. Prague: Prague University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. “‘t Ene ‘dan’ is ‘t andere niet.” Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst. ed. by F. Van de Velde, H. Smessaert, F. Van Eynde and S. Verbrugge, 447–457. Leuven: Leuven University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim, Roland Willemyns, Jetje De Groof & Eline Vanhecke. 2005. “Taming thistles and weed amidst the wheat: language gardening in 19th century Flanders.” Linguistic purism in the Germanic languages ed. by W. Davies and N. Langer, 46–61. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Meulen, Marten. Forthcoming. “Language should be pure and grammatical: Values in prescriptivism in the Netherlands 1917–2016.” Values and Multiplicity: Identity and Fluidity in Prescriptivism and Descriptivism ed. by D. Chapman and J. D. Rawlins. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Veering, Jan. 1966. Mogelijkheden en moeilijkheden van taalverzorging. Delft: Van Markens Drukkerij.Google Scholar
van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2004. Taal als mensenwerk. Het ontstaan van het ABN. Den Haag: Sdu.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke & Cor van Bree. 1992. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Spectrum.Google Scholar
van Wingerden, Wouter. 2017. Maar zo heb ik het geleerd! : de waarheid achter 50 taalkwesties. Utrecht: Van Dale.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan
2023. Linguistic judgments in 3D: the aesthetic quality, linguistic acceptability, and surface probability of stigmatized and non-stigmatized variation. Linguistics 61:3 ► pp. 779 ff. DOI logo
de Vos, Machteld
2022. In Between Description and Prescription: Analysing Metalanguage in Normative Works on Dutch 1550–1650. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Suijkerbuijk, Michelle, Theresa Redl & Helen de Hoop
2021. Strange nominative case in topicalized object pronominal relative clauses. Linguistics in the Netherlands 38 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Hubers, Ferdy, Theresa Redl, Hugo de Vos, Lukas Reinarz & Helen de Hoop
2020. Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Hubers, Ferdy, Thijs Trompenaars, Sebastian Collin, Kees De Schepper & Helen De Hoop
2020. Hypercorrection as a By-product of Education. Applied Linguistics 41:4 ► pp. 552 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.