9 Diaglossia, individual variation and the limits of standardization: Evidence from Dutch

Abstract

While the present-day situation of European dialect/standard constellations is often described in terms of diaglossia, it is also argued that this stage of diaglossia only recently developed from a previous period of diglossia. This paper argues that historical sociolinguistic research shows that the supposed historical development from diglossia to diaglossia cannot be found in western European languages such as Dutch, English and German. Instead, the sociolinguistic situation in the Early and Late Modern period should already be considered as diaglossic. The empirical data provided by historical sociolinguistic studies challenge the empirical validity of earlier descriptions of language history, as well as the related theories of standardization. I will substantiate these claims by an analysis of individual variation in the expression of negation in a corpus of Dutch private letters from the Early Modern period. I will argue that standardization is essentially a metalinguistic phenomenon datable to the late eighteenth century, and not an appropriate descriptive label for ongoing processes of norm convergence in the late-and post-medieval period, for which supralocalization is a better term.

Historical Diaglossia and the Selection of Multiple Norms:MijandMijnas 1st Person Singular Object Pronouns in 17th- and 18th-Century Dutch

“…Based on these results, Rutten (2016b) argues that one should avoid talking about the 17th-century Dutch in terms of standardization. Rutten (2016c) discusses the case of negation in the context of diaglossia, standardization, and individual variation. Single negation was supposedly selected for the standard in the first half of the 17th century, but usage data from private letters from the second half of the century still show 35% bipartite negation, which raises the question to what extent the supposedly selected form, namely single negation, constituted a norm for letter writers.…”

“…Hooft (1581-1647) and J. van den Vondel (1587-1679) consciously switched to single negation around 1640, and the issue was also commented upon in metalinguistic discourse so that the change from bipartite to single negation has become one of the typical examples in histories of the standardization of Dutch (van der Sijs 2004:534-537, van der Wal & van Bree 2008. The evidence presented by Nobels (2013) and Rutten (2016c), however, suggests that there was no clear norm for negation in the wider language community. The sociolinguistic situation in the Netherlands in the 17th century should instead be analyzed as diaglossic (Rutten 2016c).…”

“…The evidence presented by Nobels (2013) and Rutten (2016c), however, suggests that there was no clear norm for negation in the wider language community. The sociolinguistic situation in the Netherlands in the 17th century should instead be analyzed as diaglossic (Rutten 2016c). The real standardization of Dutch occurred only around 1800, when the standard language ideology had come into being and strongly influenced social and cultural policies at the national level, including language planning and language-in-education planning (Rutten 2019).…”

XIX sajandi eesti kirjakeel – vahekeelest sulandkeeleks

“…Ühelt poolt kasutati Eestis saksa ja eesti keelt, teiselt poolt aga eristusid eesti keele variandid. Mitteeestlastest ülemkihi alates XVII sajandist järjekindlalt välja arendatud kirjakeel oli ühiskonnas kõrge staatusega keelevariant (H-variant), samal ajal kui eestlaste endi L1 kui suuline talurahvakeel oli madala staatusega (L-variant) (vt Rutten 2016). See tõi kaasa olukorra, kus järgimisväärne tava sisaldas algusest peale tõlkijate keelevõõraid L2 jooni, sest varasem omakeelne tava puudus.…”

“…Nordlund 2007). Both German and Estonian were in use, and there were different varieties of Estonian, standard written Estonian and spoken vernacular Estonian -the former bearing high status (H-variety), the latter lower status (L-variety) (see Rutten 2016).…”