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 (55)
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. 2014. 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 (3)

Cited by three other publications

Doreleijers, Kristel & Jos Swanenberg
2023. Hyperdialectisms revisited. Linguistics in the Netherlands 40 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Doreleijers, Kristel
2022. Better catch them young, but how?. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 DOI logo
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 24 july 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.