Perceptie van tussentaal in het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen

Abstract

In this paper, the results of a salience experiment in Flanders are reported. 80 informants were subjected to a qualitative interview in which they were asked to evaluate seven audio recordings, spoken in several regional versions of tussentaal (literally ‘in-between-language’) or in Standard Dutch. The informants had to judge which language variety was spoken in the recordings and they had to motivate on which features they based their judgment of the language used. This paper aims to show that research on salience has almost exclusively focused on whether a linguistic item is salient or not and that not enough attention has been paid to interpersonal variation in salience.

The Discursive Construction of Teacher Identities: Flemish Teachers' Perceptions of Standard Dutch

“…Research by Lybaert (2014a, 2015) on the reported perceptions and attitudes of Flemings toward supraregional language variation in Flanders shows comparable results. While Standard Dutch is still considered the superior variety, a large number of the informants do not think this variety should be spoken in many situations.…”

“…The standard language ideology has led to specific perceptions of and attitudes toward Standard Dutch and toward speakers of Standard Dutch in Flanders. Standard Dutch is evaluated as correct, superior, and civilized (see Lybaert 2014a), and speakers typically score highly for status- and prestige-related characteristics, with “power”, “superiority”, and “influence” as key concepts (for example, Deprez 1981, Vandekerckhove 2000, Van Bezooijen 2004, Impe & Speelman 2007, Ghyselen 2010, Grondelaers & Van Hout 2010). Standard Dutch is perceived as the most appropriate variety for (very) formal and prestigious situations (Lybaert 2014a), as a symbol of intelligence and schooling, and as a variety that must be taught and requires an amount of effort (Geerts et al 1980, Impe & Speelman 2007, Ghyselen 2010, Lybaert 2014a, 2015).…”

“…Instead, nonstandard language variation is considered appropriate for more informal situations; in formal and public situations, speakers' attempts to use less dialect and more standard features are valued highly. Lybaert (2014a:157) has called this an “ideology of situational diglossia”: In more formal and/or public situations, speakers need to “make an effort” by using (intended) Standard Dutch, whereas they can “talk like they are used to” in informal and/or private situations.…”

Seeking Systematicity in Variation: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations on the “Variety” Concept

“…Cornips et al, 2015 ; Jaspers and Mercelis, 2015 ), or by means of sociolinguistic interviews (cf. Léglise and Migge, 2006 ; Lybaert, 2014a ; Jaspers and Mercelis, 2015 ).…”

“… 3 In fact “tussentaal” was coined as a term to discredit the particular intermediate varieties as an imperfectly acquired standard variety (Taeldeman, 1992 ), which, in line with naming practice in second language acquisition research, would translate as “interlanguage.” The term seems to be increasingly adopted by laypeople unfamiliar with this rather negative connotation, who in many settings consider the variety an attractive alternative to both the standard variety, which is deemed overly serious or stiff, and the dialects, which are considered rude or old-fashioned (Lybaert, 2014a ). …”