Aan het Nederlands lijkt best wat te knutselen | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 25, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

Weerman (2003) unequivocally rejected the possibility for language to be malleable. At the time, there was little empirical research to challenge or support this claim. Over the last two decades, however, a fairly large body of research has delved into this issue. In light of this, we review some of Weerman’s views, and discuss new findings of the recent literature, both for Dutch and other languages. We show how new methods and insights have led to a re-evaluation of the effects of prescriptivism. We furthermore argue that, rather than categorically dismissing effects of prescriptivism, researchers should focus on case studies with different parameters, including linguistic level, prohibition strength and time period.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.021.VAND
2020-10-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/25/2-3/21_NEDTAA2020.2-3_VAND.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.021.VAND&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anderwald, L.(2014). Measuring the success of prescriptivism: quantitative grammaticography, corpus linguistics and the progressive passive. English Language & Linguistics18(1), 1-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderwald, L.(2019). Empirically charting the success of prescriptivism: Some case studies of nineteenth-century English. In: SuhrC., NevalainenT. & TaavitsainenI. (red.), From Data to Evidence in English Language Research. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 88-108.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, A.(2009). The Subjunctive in the Age of Prescriptivism. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennis, H.(2003). Het Nederlands: een weerbare taal?Nederlandse Taalkunde8(4), 281-284.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennis, H.(2005). Standaardtaal als mensenwerk. In: van HoutR. & SwanenbergJ. (red.). Geluid waar spraak uit ontstond; Kru(i/j)sen door de dialecten. Nijmegen: RU Nijmegen, 19-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Geeraerts, D., GrondelaersS. & SpeelmanD.(1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Haugen, E.(1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist68, 922-935.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hendrickx, E.(2013). Het effect van lexicale taaladvisering op het Belgisch-Nederlandse taalgebruik. Een diachroon corpusonderzoek naar factoren van invloed. Dissertatie. Leuven: KULeuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hinrichs, L., SzmrecsanyiB. & BohmannA.(2015). Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language91(4), 806-836.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hubers, F. & de HoopH.(2013). The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch. In: AalberseS. & AuerA. (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 89-101.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hubers, F., TrompenaarsT., CollinS., de SchepperK. & de HoopH.(2019). Hypercorrection as a By-product of Education. Applied Linguistics amz001. <https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz001>
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Krogull, A.(2018). Policy versus Practice. Language variation and change in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Dutch. Dissertatie. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KrogullA., RuttenG.J. & van der WalM.J.(2017). Relativisation in Dutch diaries, private letters and newspapers (1770-1840). A genre-specific national language? In: SäilyT., NurmiA., Palander-CollinM. & AuerA. (red.), Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 157-186.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Meulen, M. van der(2019). Een hele interessante zaak: flectie bij het intensiverende bijwoord in het Nederlands. Presentatie gegeven op Grote Taaldag 2019, Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Milroy, J. & MilroyL.(1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 3th edition 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. NobelsJ. & RuttenG.(2014), Language norms and language use in seventeenth-century Dutch: Negation and the genitive. In: RuttenG., VostersR. & VandenbusscheW. (red.), Norms and usage in language history, 1600-1900. A sociolinguistic and comparative perspective. Advances in Historical Sociolinguisticsno. 3Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Oostendorp, Marc van & Nicolinevan der Sijs(2019). ‘Een mooie mengelmoes’. Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw. Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Poplack, S. & DionN.(2009). Prescription vs. praxis. The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language58(3), 557-587.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Rooij, J.J. de(1990). Over hun en hen, en hun. Taal en Tongval42(2), 107-147.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Rutten, G. & VostersR. (geaccepteerd). Language standardization ‘from above.’ In: Ayres-BennettW. & BellamyJ. (red.), Handbook of standardization and standard languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sassen, A.(1963). Endogeen en exogeen taalgebruik. De Nieuwe Taalgids56, 10-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sijs, N. van der(2004). Taal als mensenwerk. Het ontstaan van het ABN. Den Haag: Sdu.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Stroop, J.(2011). De lange arm van de grammatici. In: HrnčířováZ., KrolE., MercksK., PekelderJ. & UltzenJ. (red.), Praagse perspectieven 7. Handelingen van het colloquium van de sectie Nederlands van de Karelsuniversiteit te Praag. Praag: Prague University Press, 137-153.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Wal, M.J. van der(1995). De moedertaal centraal. Standaardisatie-aspecten in de Nederlanden omstreeks 1650. Den Haag: SDU
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Weerman, F.(2003). Hoe maakbaar is het Nederlands? In: Nederlandse Taalkunde8(4), 347-354.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Weerman, F.(2006). Het Nederlands is niet maakbaar. In: van der SijsN., StroopJ. & WeermanF. (red.), Wat iedereen van het Nederlands moet weten en waarom. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 33-41.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.021.VAND
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Dutch; language change; language norms; prescriptivism
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error