Cover not available
Part of
Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms
Edited by Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder and Karoline Kühl
[Studies in Language Variation 16] 2014
► pp. 109–140

Despite or because of intensive contact?

Internal, external and extralinguistic aspects of divergence in modern dialects and ethnolects of Dutch

The paper opens with a discussion of some key notions; in this connection a proposal is made to distinguish two different types of hyperdialectism. Subsequently, a two-pronged hypothesis and a methodological consideration are presented. Attention will then be paid to four different studies of nonstandard varieties of present-day Dutch. Three of these concern endogenous dialects, the fourth one deals with two modern ethnolects; in the presentation of the dialect studies, the geographical perspective will gradually widen. In all four studies, attention will focus on instances of variation and change in the sound components which can be analyzed as divergence. Finally, the findings from the cases studied will be discussed against the background of the hypothesis. Special attention will be paid to the role the two types of hyperdialectisms may have played and to a recent proposal by Labov.

Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.16.06hin
References
Andersen, H
1973 Abductive and deductive change. Language 49(4): 765–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aubin, H., Frings, Th. & Müller, J
1926 Kulturströmungen und Kulturprovinzen in den Rheinlanden. Geschichte, Sprache, Volkskunde. Bonn: Röhrscheid.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Hinskens, F
1996 The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area. In The Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in a Changing Europe = Sociolinguistica 10, P. Auer, F. Hinskens & K. Mattheier (eds), 1–30. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bell, A
1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2): 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellmann, G
1996 Between base dialect and standard language. InP. Auer (ed.), Dialect Levelling and the Standard Varieties in Europe = Folia Linguistica 32(1–2): 23–34.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. & Hinskens, F
. Goed of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 19 (2): 131–184.
Bybee, J
2001 Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J
1992 Dialect acquisition. Language 68: 673–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M
(ed.) 1992 Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Vink, L
2004 Dialect en dialectverandering in Katwijk aan Zee. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Dressler, W
1986 Explanation in natural morphology, illustrated with comparative and agent-noun formation. Linguistics 24: 519–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Ch
1959 Diglossia. Word 15: 325–240.Google Scholar
Frings, Th
1957 Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer. 3. erweiterte Auflage.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & van de Velde, H
2013 Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch. In Language and Space: Dutch, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 532–556. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Giesbers, Ch
2008 Dialecten op de grens van twee talen: een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied. Ph.D. thesis, Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W
2013 Belgian Dutch. In Language and Space: Dutch, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 700–721. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Harnisch, R
2010 Divergence of linguistic varieties in a variety space. In Language and Space: Theories and Methods, P. Auer & J.E. Schmidt (eds), 275–295. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heeringa, W. & Hinskens, F
2015 (to appear) Visualizing dialect change as such: Factoring out the role of the standard language. Journal of Linguistic Geography.
Hinskens, F
1992 Dialect Levelling in Limburg. Structural and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nijmegen.An abridged and revised version was published under the same title by Niemeyer, Tübingen (1996).Google Scholar
1998 Variation studies in dialectology and three types of sound change. In Linguistics of Variation = Sociolinguistica 12, U. Ammon (ed.), 155–193.Google Scholar
2006 Dialectgrenzen, taalgrenzen en staatsgrenzen. Taal en tongval, 57, 3–25.Google Scholar
2007 New types of non-standard Dutch. In Standard, Variation and Language Change in Germanic Languages, C. Fandrych & R. Salverda (ed.), 281–300. Mannheim & Tübingen: IDS & Narr, Francke, Attempto.Google Scholar
2011a Koineization in the present-day Dutch dialect landscape: Postvocalic /r/ and more. In Talige en buitentalige factoren bij regiolectvorming, G. de Vogelaer & W. Heeringa (eds), 99–126. Special issue of Taal en tongval .Google Scholar
2011b Emerging Moroccan and Turkish varieties of Dutch: Ethnolects or ethnic styles? In Ethnic Styles of Speaking in European Metropolitan Areas, F. Kern & M. Selting (ed.), 103–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, F., Auer, P. & Kerswill, P
2005 The study of dialect convergence and divergence: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In Dialect Change. The Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in Contemporary Societies, P. Auer, F. Hinskens & P. Kerswill (eds), 1–48. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F., Kallen, J. & Taeldeman, J
2000 Merging and drifting apart. Convergence and divergence of dialects across political borders. In Dialect Convergence and Divergence across European Borders (= International Journal of the Sociology of Language 145), J. Kallen, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 1–28.Google Scholar
Hock, H
1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics, Second, corrected and augmented edition. Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoppenbrouwers, C
1983 Het genus in een Brabants regiolect. Tabu 13(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
1990 Het regiolect: van dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg (Coutinho).Google Scholar
Hume, E
1992 Front Vowels, Coronal Consonants and their Interaction in Non-Linear Phonolog. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, G
2010 Non-convergence despite language contact. In Language and Space: Theories and Methods, P. Auer & J.E. Schmidt (eds), 478–493. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kremer, L
1990 Kontinuum oder Bruchstelle? Zur Entwicklung der Grenzdialekte zwischen Niederrhein und Vechtegebiet, 85123. In Grenzdialekte.Studien zur Entwicklung kontinentalwestgermanischer Dialektkontinua (Germanistische Linguistik 101103.), L. Kremer & H. Niebaum (eds). Hildesheim/New York: Olms.Google Scholar
Labov, W
2001 Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Actors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Ash, S. & Boberg, C
2006 Atlas of North American English: Phonology and Phonetics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W
2010 Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen, A
1917 Naboopposition – knot. Maal og Minne 1917: 34–46.Google Scholar
Lenz, A
2003a Struktur und Dynamik des Substandards. Eine Studie zum Westmitteldeutschen (Wittlich/Eifel). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
2003b Hyperforms and variety barriers. In Language Variation in Europe. Papers from the Second International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, ICLaVE 2, Uppsala University, Sweden, June 12–14, 2003, B.-L. Gunnarsson et al. (eds), 281–293.Google Scholar
Lloret, M.R
1997 When does variability become relevant to linguistic theory?In Variation, Change and Phonological Theory, F. Hinskens, R. van Hout & L. Wetzels (eds), 181–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattheier, K.J
1996 Varietätenkonvergenz. Überlegungen zu einem Baustein einer Theorie der Sprachvariation. In Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in Europe (= Sociolinguistica 10), P. Auer, F. Hinskens & K. Mattheier (eds), 31–52. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McClelland, C. III
2008 A Phonology of Tarifit Berber. Muenchen: Lincolm GmbH.Google Scholar
Rys, K., Daelemans, W., de Pauw, G. & Gillis, S
2012 Leermechanismen in tweededialectverwerving. Tabu 40: 59–88.Google Scholar
Sapir, E
1921 Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Schneider, E
2007 Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegel, J
1985 Koines and koineization. Language in Society 14(3): 357–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Koine formation and creole genesis. In Creolization and Contact, N. Smith & T. Veenstra (eds), 175–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobrero, A
1996 Italianization and variation in the repertoire: The Koinai. In Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in Europe (= Sociolinguistica 10), P. Auer, F. Hinskens & K. Mattheier (eds), 105–111.Google Scholar
Swanenberg, J
2009 Van alterande sorte. Brabants tussen dialect en standaardtaal. Tilburg: ­Universiteit van Tilburg.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, J
2006 Polarization revisited. In Language Variation. European Perspectives. Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), Amsterdam, June 2005, F. Hinskens (ed.), 233–248. Amsterdam: John ­Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P
1986 Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988 On the role of dialect contact and interdialect in linguistic change. In Historical Dialectology. Regional and Social, J. Fisiak (ed.), 547–563. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, R
2013 Southwestern Dutch dialects today. In Language and Space: Dutch, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 194–211. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google 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: 297–325.Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, M
2013 Holland and Utrecht: Phonology and phonetics. In Language and Space: Dutch, F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (eds), 399–418. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U
1954 Is a structural dialectology possible? Word 10(2–3): 388–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Opsahl, Toril
2021. Dead, but Won’t Lie Down? Grammatical Gender among Norwegians. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 122 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 march 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.