Chapter published in:
Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Acquisition across the Lifespan
Edited by Anna Ghimenton, Aurélie Nardy and Jean-Pierre Chevrot
[Studies in Language Variation 26] 2021
► pp. 52–80

The alternation between standard and vernacular pronouns by Belgian Dutch parents in child-oriented control acts

| KU Leuven
| KU Leuven
This paper studies the social meaning of standard and vernacular pronouns of address in Dutch by zooming in on the position they hold in parents’ control acts to their children. Linking the hyperstandardized linguistic situation in Flanders with the Western-European ideal of democratic parenting, we expect to find that the standard forms are more typically connected to more indirect, softer control acts. This hypothesis is tested through a mixed method approach, where quantitative and qualitative analyses are used to chart the choices of ten Belgian Dutch parents when issuing directives to their children. Studying 452 pronouns we identify a clear link between the choice of variety and parameters such as type of control act, repetition, mitigation and boosting and type of pronoun, with ‘irritation’ as mediating factor.
Keywords: control acts, vernacular, standard language, child-directed speech, hyperstandardization, Dutch, mixed methods
Published online: 16 August 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.26.03zen
References

References

Antaki, Charles
2002 An Introductory Tutorial in Conversation Analysis. Available online at: http://​ca​-tutorials​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/intro1​.htm
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1990 “You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 259–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. Mahwah, New Jerset: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness, Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brumark, Åsa
2006a “Non-observance of Gricean maxims in family dinner table conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1206–1238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006b “Regulatory Talk and Politeness at the Family Dinner Table”. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association 16 (2–3): 171–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Behaviour regulation at the family dinner table. The use of and response to direct and indirect behaviour regulation in ten Swedish families”. Journal of Child Language 37: 1065–1088. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard
2001 “Therapeutic humor in retelling the clients’ tellings”. Text 21 (3): 303–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, Jean-Pierre, Laurence Beaud, and Renata Varga
2000 “Developmental data on a French sociolinguistic variable: Post-consonantal word-final /R/”. Language Variation and Change 12: 295–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action”. Discourse Studies 12(4): 419–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2016 “Agency and autonomy in indirection”. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 21, Murcia, Spain.
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2): 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Debrabandere, Frans
2005 “Het echec van de ABN-actie in Vlaanderen”. Nederlands van nu 53 (1): 27–31.Google Scholar
De Houwer, Annick
2003 “Language variation and local elements in family discourse”. Language Variation and Change 15: 329–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther
2008 De Nederlandse en Friese subjectsmarkeerders: geografie, typologie en diachronie. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, G., & Toye, J.
(2017) Acquiring attitudes towards varieties of Dutch: A quantitative perspective. In G. De Vogelaer & M. Katerbow (Eds.), Acquiring sociolinguistic variation (pp. 117–154). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1976 “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society 5 (1): 25–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, Gerard Docherty, and Dominic Watt
2005 “Phonological variation in child-directed speech”. Language 81 (1): 177–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hans Van de Velde
2013 Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch. In Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, ed. By Frans Hinskens, and Johan Taeldeman. Volume 3: Dutch. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie
2015 “ ‘Stabilisering’ van tussentaal?” Taal & Tongval 67 (1): 43–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie, and Gunther De Vogelaer
2013 “The impact of dialect loss on the acceptance of tussentaal: the special case of West-Flanders in Belgium”. In Language (de)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: experimental studies, edited by Torre Kristiansen, and Stefan Grondelaers, 153–170. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
2006 “Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences”. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies 26: 515–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, and Roeland Van Hout
2011 “The standard language situation in the Low Countries: Top-down and bottom-up variations on a diaglossic theme”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23 (3): 199–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Destandardization is not destandardization”. Taal & Tongval 68 (2): 119–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra, and Bernadette Vine
2011 Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, Jürgen, and Sarah Van Hoof
2013 “Hyperstandardisation in Flanders. Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath”. Pragmatics 23 (2): 331–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction”. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, Jennifer Andrus, and Andrew E. Danielson
2006 “Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of ‘Pittsburghese’.” Journal of English Linguistics 32 (4): 77–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra
2012 “Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 711–730. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lybaert, Chloé
2014 “Perceptie van tussentaal in het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen. Een experimentele benadering van saillantie”. Nederlandse Taalkunde 19 (2): 185–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
2000 The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, and Schieffelin, Bambi B.
1984 “Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories.” In Culture theory: Mind, self, and emotion, edited by Richard Shweder and Robert LeVine, 276–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor and Shohet, Merav
2006 “The Cultural Structuring of Mealtime Socialization.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 111: 35–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pećnik, Nina
2007 “Towards a vision of parenting in the best interest of the child”. In Parenting in Contemporary Europe: a Positive Approach, edited by Mary Daly, 15–36. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publications.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen
2008 Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis
2013 “The influence of regard on language variation and change”. Journal of Pragmatics 52: 93–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2017 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Rossi, Giovanni, and Jorg Zinken
2016 “Grammar and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements.” Language 92 (4): e296–e325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samara, Anna, Kenny Smith, Helen Brown, and Elizabeth Wonnacott
2017 Acquiring variation in an artificial language: Children and adults are sensitive to socially conditioned linguistic variation. Cognitive Psychology 94: 85–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, H. Rudolph
1996 Social Development. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi B., and Elinor Ochs
1986 “Language socialization.” Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 163–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John
1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneidman, Laura, and Amanda L. Woodward
2015 “Are child-directed interactions the cradle of social learning?” Psychological Bulletin 142 (1): 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
2012 “Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Benedikt Heller, and Melanie Röthlisberger
2016 Around the world in three alternations Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37 (2): 109–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and Harald Baayen
2012 “Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice”. Language Variation and Change 24: 135–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild
2004 “Waar zijn je, jij en jou(w) gebleven? Pronominale aanspreekvorm in het gesproken Nederlands van Vlamingen”. In Taeldeman, man van de taal, schatbewaarder van de taal, edited by Johan De Caluwe, Georges De Schutter, Magda Devos, and Jacques Van Keymeulen, 981–995. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Van De Mieroop, Dorien, Eline Zenner, and Stefania Marzo
2016 “Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of address: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions”. Folia Linguistica 50 (1): 31–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, Eline, Dirk Geeraerts, and Dirk Speelman
2009 “Expeditie Tussentaal: leeftijd, identiteit en context in ‘Expeditie Robinson’”. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14: 26–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, Eline, Gitte Kristiansen, and Dirk Geeraerts
2016 Individual differences and in situ identity marking: Colloquial Belgian Dutch in the reality TV show “Expeditie Robinson”. In Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and cross-linguistic perspectives, edited by Manuela Romano, and M. Dolores Porto, 39–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar