Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp. 231–246

The colour of Dutch

Some limits and opportunities of identifying Dutch ethnolects

| Université Libre de Bruxelles

Many studies in recent years identify and discuss Dutch ethnolects. Generally this work takes linguistic phenomena as directly reflective of speakers’ ethnic identity. But if ethnicity is an inherent speaker feature, the absence of white ethnolect descriptions is difficult to explain. In this paper, therefore, I wish to judge the appeal of the notion of ethnolect against its usefulness for explaining language use. I argue that ethnolect can usefully label everyday ethnicisations of language, but that such evaluations generally compress a more complex reality in which so-called ethnolectal features are recruited for other purposes than (un)marking one’s ascribed ethnicity. Crucial to unpacking this reality is the distinction of an intermediary step, the construction of interactional stance, between the use of linguistic features and their association with common-sense identity categories.

Keywords: ethnolect, ethnicity, ethnicisation, stance, Moroccan Dutch, Antwerp dialect
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perceiving ‘Moroccan’ ways of speaking
  • 3.Identifying Dutch ethnolects
  • 4.Problems with ethnolects
  • 5.Multidimensional indexicality and stance
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 30 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.17002.jas
References
Agha, A.
(2004) Registers of language. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 23–45). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brubaker, R.
(2002) Ethnicity without groups. European Journal of Sociology, 431, 163–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F.
(2000) Beyond “identity”. Theory and Society, 291, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K.
(2004) Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–394). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D.
(2003) Language and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M.
(2000) Lingua Franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica, 141, 83–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L., & De Rooij, V. (2013) Selfing and othering through categories of race, place, and language among minority youths in Rotterdamn, the Netherlands. In P. Siemund, I. Gogolin, M. E. Schulz, & J. Davydova (Eds.), Multilingualism and language diversity in urban areas (pp. 129–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N.
(2010) Language, ideology, media and social change. In K. Junod, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Performing the self (pp. 127–151). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Eckert, P.
(2008a) Where do ethnolects stop? International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(1–2), 25–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F., & Hambye, P.
(2014) Contact and ethnicity in ‘youth language’ description: In search of specificity. In R. Nicolaï (Ed.), Questioning language contact. Limits of contact, contact at its limits (pp. 183–216). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1972) The ecology of language. Essays by Einar Haugen. (Selected and introduced by A. S. Dil). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F.
(2011) Emerging Moroccan and Turkish varieties of Dutch: Ethnolects or ethnic styles? In F. Kern, & M. Selting (Eds.), Ethnic styles of speaking in European metropolitan areas (pp. 101–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Wijdvertakte wortels. Over etnolectisch Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press – Meertens Instituut (KNAW).Google Scholar
Jaffe, A.
(2009) Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, J.
(2005) Linguistic sabotage in a context of monolingualism and standardization. Language and Communication, 25(3), 279–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Problematizing ethnolects. Naming linguistic practices in an Antwerp secondary school. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(1–2), 85–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Strange bedfellows. Appropriations of a tainted urban dialect. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(4), 493–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P.
(2013) Ethnolects of Dutch. In F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and Space: Dutch (pp. 739–761). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nortier, J.
(2008) Introduction. Ethnolects? The emergence of new varieties among adolescents. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(1–2), 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nortier, J., & Dorleijn, M.
(2008) A Moroccan accent in Dutch: A socio-cultural style restricted to the Moroccan community? International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(1–2), 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
(1992) Indexing gender. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortner, P.
(1998) The hidden life of class. Journal of Anthropological Research, 54(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, A.
(2010) What’s wrong with essentialism? Distinktion. Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 11(1), 47–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rampton, B.
(2006) Language in late modernity. Interaction at an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruette, T., & Van de Velde, F.
(2013) Moroccorp: tien miljoen woorden uit twee Marokkaans-Nederlandse chatkanalen. Lexicos, 231, 456–475.Google Scholar
Snell, J. (2010) From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(5), 630–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Aelst, T.
(writer & director) (2013) Wat als iedereen sprak als een Marokkaan? In Shelter (producer), Wat als? Vilvoorde: Vlaamse TelevisieMaatschappij (VTM).Google Scholar
Van der Sijs, N.
(2014) Systematisch onderzoek naar Nederlandse contactvariëteiten. Taal & Tongval, 66(2), 117–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Meel, L., Hinskens, F., & Van Hout, R.
(2013) Ethnolectal variation in the realization of /z/ by Dutch youngsters. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 80(3), 297–325.Google Scholar
(2014) Variation in the realization of /ɛi/ by Dutch youngsters: From local urban dialect to emerging ethnolects? Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, 22(1), 46–74.Google Scholar
(2016) Co-variation and varieties in modern Dutch ethnolects. Lingua, 172–173, 72–86.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Metroethnicity, Naming and Mocknolect [IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society, 49], Crossref logo
Auer, Peter & Vanessa Siegel
2021. Grammatical Gender in the German Multiethnolect. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 5 ff. Crossref logo
Cornips, Leonie
2020. Dialect acquisition by ‘new speakers’ of Dutch and their linguistic othering. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 january 2023. 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.