Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2019
Edited by Janine Berns and Elena Tribushinina
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 36] 2019
► pp. 54–59
Part I: Invited papers on the occasion of the 50th Dutch Annual Linguistics Day

Historical linguistics in the Netherlands

| Meertens Institute | Radboud University
Article outline
  • Historical linguistics in the past
  • Historical linguistics now
  • Historical linguistics in the future
  • Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • 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: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00022.sij
References (27)
References
Bakker, Dirk Miente & Geert Dibbets. 1977. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taalkunde. Den Bosch: Malmberg.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupé, Griet. 2014. Syntactic Extension: The Historical Development of Dutch Verb Clusters. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie. 2008. Motivaties voor volgordevariatie. Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands, PhD Thesis, University of Gent.Google Scholar
Damgaard, Peter de Barros, Rui Martiniano, Jack Kamm, J. Victor Moreno-Mayar, Guus Kroonen e.a. 2018. “The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia”. Science Magazine 3601.1422 ([URL]).
Elspaß, S. 2005. Sprachgeschichte von unten. Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tubingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.). 2007. Germanic Language Histories ‘From Below’(1700–2000). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2005. The Development of Dutch Connectives: Change and Acquisition as Windows on Form-Function Relations. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2013. The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop van der. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: University Press Leuven.Google Scholar
Hüning, Matthias. 1999. Woordensmederij: de geschiedenis van het suffix – erij. Den Haag: Hilland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Jenset, Gard B. & Barbara McGillivray. 2017. Quantitative Historical Linguistics. A Corpus Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic Complexity. The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Roberts, Seán & James Winters. 2012. “Social structure and language structure: the new nomothetic approach”. Psychology of Language and Communication vol. 161, 21, 89–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert & Marijke Van der Wal. 2014. Letters as Loot. A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert, Rik Vosters & Wim Vandenbussche (eds). 2014. Norms and Usage in Language History 1600–1900. A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schoonenboom, Judith. 2000. Analyse, norm en gebruik als factoren van taalverandering in het Nederlands onzijdig relativum. Dissertatie, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sijs, Nicoline van der. 2004. Taal als mensenwerk: Het ontstaan van het ABN. Den Haag: SDU.Google Scholar
. To appear. “Historische taalkunde en digital humanities: naar een mooie toekomst”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2012. Sociolinguistic Typology. Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. De nominale constituent, PhD thesis, Leuven.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Understanding grammar at the community level requires a diachronic perspective. Evidence from four case studies”. Nederlandse Taalkunde 22:1.47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. (ed.). 2018. Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar