Language Planning as Nation Building

Rutten, Gijsbert

doi:10.1075/ahs.9

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the basis of this study, we can add that appeals to consistency within the language, to beauty, to conformation to grammatical rules, and to its reflection of frequent use or the language use of certain authorities were also characteristic of the language ideology on grammar of this time period. In these linguistic values, we see the roots of the standard language ideology that came into existence in the decades around 1800 (Rutten 2016(Rutten , 2019; more precisely, the part of that ideology that connects 'language' with 'norm' (i.e., Hüning et al 2012's 'correctness ideology') and that bestows value on the language's regularity. This was the focus of the shaping of Standard Dutch in its initiating phase.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grondelaers & Van Hout, for example, (re)define the standard language ideology as 'a normative ideology imposed and sustained by institutions such as (formal) education and the media, but maintained by (silent) agreement between the language users' (Grondelaers and van Hout 2011, p. 114). Since, in the Dutch-speaking language area, language only became connected to nation-building and consequent institutionalisation and language policy-making around 1800, Rutten (2016Rutten ( , 2019 convincingly argues that this period marks the emergence of the Dutch standard language ideology. This raises the question whether the preceding early modern period, which did show the emergence of Standard Dutch, had a language ideology to speak of and, if so, how it can be characterised, if not as a standard language ideology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9, 22). They oppose this 'language and norm' type of ideology with the later 'language and nation' ideology, which marks the 'instrumentalization of 'correct languages' as vehicles of identity politics and politics of democratization in the 18th/19th century' (Hüning et al 2012, p. 22), i.e., the standard language ideology as understood by Rutten (2016Rutten ( , 2019. Rutten, too, acknowledges the existence of what he calls, following Watts (2011), 'language myths' in the Dutch language area before 1800 and focusses on the 'myth of neutrality' (Rutten 2016(Rutten , 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They oppose this 'language and norm' type of ideology with the later 'language and nation' ideology, which marks the 'instrumentalization of 'correct languages' as vehicles of identity politics and politics of democratization in the 18th/19th century' (Hüning et al 2012, p. 22), i.e., the standard language ideology as understood by Rutten (2016Rutten ( , 2019. Rutten, too, acknowledges the existence of what he calls, following Watts (2011), 'language myths' in the Dutch language area before 1800 and focusses on the 'myth of neutrality' (Rutten 2016(Rutten , 2019. Although this 'myth' and the 'correctness ideology' from Hüning et al (2012) were not institutionalised and therefore did not constitute a standard language ideology, these early modern ideals do constitute a language ideology in the broader definition from Silverstein (1979) cited above, i.e., a set of beliefs about language that serves as rationalisation or justification of its structure and use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In Between Description and Prescription: Analysing Metalanguage in Normative Works on Dutch 1550–1650

Vos

2022

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is the first to perform a systematic quantitative analysis of the arguments used to motivate selections in grammatical entries from normative works on Standard Dutch written between ca. 1550 and 1650. Thus, it aims to obtain insight into what language ideologies were characteristic of this early modern period, what these reveal about how Standard Dutch took shape in its initiating phase, and what the differences are between the codification of Dutch in the early modern period (16th/17th century) and the (post)modern period (20th/21st century; analysed in earlier studies). Although certain issues within the annotation method need to be addressed in future research, the results indicate that the following principles were particularly characteristic of the early modern period: for Dutch to be a good language in terms of its grammar, it ought to differentiate, display consistency, mirror Latin and Greek, and reflect the use of certain authorities. These linguistic principles form the roots of the part of the Dutch standard language ideology (SLI; which, as previous research has shown, came into existence in the decades around 1800) that connects ‘language’ with ‘norm’ and that bestows value on the language’s regularity. However, the additional connection to social identity, that forms a second and crucial part of the SLI, played no major part in the arguments used in this time period yet. Moreover, two important differences between the early modern period and the (post)modern period were found: (1) the latter period showed a higher degree of consensus and therefore of canonisation of the normative discourse than the former period; (2) the nature of the metalanguage used in normative publications was explicitly prescriptive in the later period but mostly ostensibly descriptive/implicitly prescriptive in the earlier period. This indicates that, in terms of the metalanguage used, the normative discourse in the formative period of Standard Dutch was in between description and prescription.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In Between Description and Prescription: Analysing Metalanguage in Normative Works on Dutch 1550–1650

Vos

2022

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the history of Dutch, such debates intensified in the course of the eighteenth century, when contemporary cultural nationalism increasingly acquired a political touch. This resulted in an official Dutch language policy in the early nineteenth century, leading to the official codification of the spelling and grammar of Dutch (Rutten, 2019).…”

Section: Historical Prescriptivism: Institutionalization and Embeddingmentioning

confidence: 99%