Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Contact Linguistics: In honour of Pieter Muysken
Edited by Norval Smith, Tonjes Veenstra and Enoch O. Aboh
[Contact Language Library 57] 2020
► pp. 341–364

Sociolinguistic enregisterment through languagecultural practices

ORCID logo | Humanities Cluster (KNAW) & Maastricht University
| University of Amsterdam
This chapter will explore the effects of the sociolinguistic enregisterment of Heerlen Dutch in the carnivalesque summer song Naar Talië/Naar Talia ‘To (I)taly’, performed and uploaded onto YouTube by a band called the Getske Boys. The Getske Boys is a group of three male performers who, by selecting a particular set of linguistic forms from dialect, Dutch, in-betweens, Italian and English, work to enregister these as local to Heerlen-Noord and the speech of the coal miners who once lived there. Their selection of specific co-occurring forms is based on perceived past patterns of co-occurrences: an experiential knowledge, accumulated over the years, of the indexical ties between linguistic forms, specific (groups of) people and a specific place.
Keywords: coal mining, enregisterment, Heerlen Dutch, indexicality, languageculture, parodic language use, place-based identities, place-making, stereotyping
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The sociolinguistic context
  • 3.The peripherality of Limburg
  • 4.The Getske Boys and their audiences
  • 5.The Getske Boys, social type and place-making on Facebook: Heerle-Noord Ouwhoer
  • 6.The lyrics of Naar Talia/Talië (2010)
  • 7.The linguistic forms
    • 7.1Parodying how they write in Heerlen-Noord
    • 7.2Parodying how they speak by Naar Talia
    • 7.3Co-occurrence of unexpected forms and repetition
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.57.11cor
References (53)
References
Agar, M. 1994. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York NY: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
Agha, A. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(1): 38–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. 2004. Non-standard evidence in syntactic typology: Methodological remarks on the use of dialect data vs. spoken language data. In Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, B. Kortmann (ed.), 69–92. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Antonsich, M. 2010. Searching for belonging – An analytical framework. Geography Compass 4(6): 644–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. 2006. Multilingualism, diaspora, and the internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(4): 520–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. 1984 [1968]. Rabelais and his World. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., van der Auwera, J., Bennis, H. J., Boef, E., De Vogelaer, G. & van der Ham, M. 2008. Syntactische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten Deel II (Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects Vol. II). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beal, J. 2009. “You’re Not from New York City, You’re from Rotherham” Dialect and identity in British Indie music. Journal of English Linguistics 37(3): 223–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, A.-D. 2009. Belonging and unbelonging from an intersectional perspective. Gender, Technology and Development 13(21): 21–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L. 1994. De Syntactische Variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2013. Recent developments in the Limburg dialect region. In Language and Space – Dutch: An International Handbook, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 378–399. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L. & de Rooij, V. 2015. Belonging through languagecultural practices in the periphery: The politics of carnival in the Dutch province of Limburg. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 24(1): 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Katanga Swahili and Heerlen Dutch: A sociohistorical and linguistic comparison of contact varieties in mining regions. International Journal for the Sociology of Language 258: 35–70.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L., de Rooij, V. & Smakman, D. 2017. The Randstad area in The Netherlands. Emergent and fluid identity-locality production through language in use. In Urban Sociolinguistics: The City as a Linguistic Process and Experience, D. Smakman & P. Heine (eds), 162–180. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L., de Rooij, V., & Stengs, I. 2017. Carnivalesque language use and the construction of local identities: A plea for languageculture as a field of research. Jahrbuch für Europäische Ethnologie/Yearbook of European Ethnology 12: 61–89.Google Scholar
Cornips, L., de Rooij, V., Stengs, I., & Thissen, L. 2016. Dialect and local media: Reproducing the multi-dialectal hierarchical space in Limburg (the Netherlands). In Style, Media and Language Ideologies, J. Thøgersen, N. Coupland & J. Mortensen (eds), 189–216. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. & Knotter, A. 2017. Inventing Limburg (The Netherlands): Territory, history, language, and identity. In Räume, Grenzen, Übergänge, Akten des 5. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD) [ZDL. Beihefte. 170], H. Christen, P. Gilles & C. Purschke (eds), 71–91. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Driessen, G. 2006. Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995–2003. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 75: 103–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. 2011. Fractals all the way down. Lecture at NIAS symposium ‘Constructie van lokale identiteit door taal en cultuur’, Wassenaar, 1 December.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Extra, G. 2004. Taal en identiteit. De vitaliteit van minderheidstalen in vergelijkend perspectief. Taal en Tongval 56(17): 109–134.Google Scholar
Gal, S., & Irvine, J. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62(4): 967–1001.Google Scholar
Hagen, A. & Giesbers, H. 1988. Dutch sociolinguistic studies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 73: 29–44.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. 1996. Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F. & Taeldeman, J. 2013. Introduction. In Language and Space: Dutch: An International Handbook, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 1–12. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. 2011a. Language and place. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 203–217. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b. Dialect enregisterment in performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5): 657–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Enregisterment: How linguistic items become linked with ways of speaking. Language and Linguistics Compass 10: 632–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kats, J. 1952. De dialecten van de mijnstreek. In Mijn en spoor in goud. Jubileumuitgave, M. Kemp (ed.), 316–318. Maastricht.Google Scholar
Kessels-van der Heijde, M. 2002. Maastricht, Maestricht, Mestreech [Maaslandse Monografieen 65]. Hilversum: Verloren.Google Scholar
Knotter, A. 2009. Limburg bestaat niet. Paradoxen van een sterke identiteit. In Dit is Limburg! Opstellen over de Limburgse Identiteit, A. Knotter (ed.), 263–277. Maastricht: Sociaal Historisch Centrum voor Limburg & Zwolle: Waanders.Google Scholar
2011. Regional character and regional stereotypes: Some thoughts about their construction in Dutch Limburg. Lecture at NIAS symposium ‘Constructie van lokale identiteit door taal en cultuur’. Wassenaar, 1 December.Google Scholar
Leppänen, S. 2012. Linguistic and generic hybridity in Web writing: The case of fan Fiction. In Language Mixing and Code-switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-language Written Discourse, M. Sebba, S. Mahootian & C. Jonsson (eds), 233–254. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Massey, D. 1993. Power geometry and a progressive sense of place. In Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam & L. Tickner (eds), 59–70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mathijsen, M. 2011. De Limburger als de ander. Echt: Letterkundig Centrum Limburg.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 2001. Language ideology and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5: 530–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Münstermann, H. & Hagen, A. 1986. Functional and structural aspects of dialect loss: A research plan and some first results. In Language Attrition in Progress, B. Weltens, K. de Bot & T. van Els (eds), 75–96. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, S. & Kelly-Holmes, H. 2013. Multilingualism and the periphery. In Multilingualism and the Periphery, S. Pietikäinen & H. Kelly-Holmes (eds), 1–16. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preston, D. R. 2013. Language with an attitude. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J. K. Chambers & N. Schilling (eds), 157–182. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1985. Language and the culture of gender. In Semiotic Mediation, E. Mertz & R. Parmentier (eds), 219–259. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology, D. Brenneis & R. K. S. MacAulay (eds), 284–306. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stuyck, K., Luyten, S., Kesteloot, C., Meert, H. & Peleman, K. 2008. A geography of gender relations role Patterns in the context of different regional industrial development. Regional Studies 42(1): 69–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. n.d. Hip Hop parody as veiled critique. Unpublished paper (to appear in African American Language in Pop Culture). <[URL]> (21 February 2017).
Thissen, L. 2013. The ambiguities of Limburgerness: Language, place, and belonging in Limburg, the Netherlands. Etnofoor 25(2): 119–143.Google Scholar
2018. Talking in and out of Place. Ethnographic Reflections on Language, Place, and (Un)belonging in Limburg, the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, Maastricht University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wang, X., Spotti, M., Juffermans, K., Cornips, L., Kroon, S. & Blommaert, J. 2014. Globalisation in the margins: Toward a re-evalution of language and mobility. Applied Linguistics Review 5(1): 23–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. 2013 [1994]. On the definition of dialect with reference to Yemeni dialects of Arabic. In Arabic Sociolinguistics. Issues and Perspectives, Y. Suleiman (ed.), 237–250. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A. 1967. Sociodialectische onderzoekingen in Limburg. Taalsociologie 32: 16–31.Google Scholar
Wijers, C. 1995. Prinsen & clowns in het Limburgse narrenrijk: Het carnaval in Simpelveld en Roermond 1945–1992. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. 2008. Why dat now? Linguistic-anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 432–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuval-Davis, N. 2006. Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice 40(3): 197–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cornips, Leonie & Louis van den Hengel
2021. Renewing the coal mining past. International Journal of Language and Culture 8:2 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 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.