2004
Volume 72 Number 1
  • ISSN: 0039-8691
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1214

Abstract

Abstract

The present paper discusses gender marking, i.e. the morphological marking of masculine, feminine and neuter lexical gender in the adnominal domain, in Brabantish dialects spoken in the southern Dutch province North-Brabant. Gender markers belong to the most salient features of North-Brabantish, but with a process of dialect levelling well on its way for at least fifty years, knowledge of lexical gender is fading away. This study delves into these variation patterns. The results of a quantitative analysis of written questionnaires (mainly filled out by elderly dialect speakers, N=700) triggered us to conduct a small in-depth study of speech data from adolescents in the Eindhoven region (N=15). Based on these data, we argue that there is a high level of heterogeneity when it comes to adnominal gender marking.

In this paper, we aim at describing and categorizing the various types of variation. The data includes omissions of the traditional Brabantish masculine gender marking, indicating that speakers are converging towards Standard Dutch. However, the data also reveals that in 30% of all utterances speakers apply gender marking in multiple ways. We find three types of variation: 
1) masculine gender marking is only partly applied in comparison to the traditional rules of dialect grammar (compromise-constructions), 2) masculine gender markers appear in noun groups where they should not appear according to the dialect grammar (e.g. feminine, neuter, plural), so-called hyperdialectisms, and 3) speakers use innovative gender marking constructions: accumulate forms with two masculine suffixes, so-called hypermarkings. Based on previous research, we argue that typical dialect features, such as gender markers, are part of a regional speech style and play an important role in identity formation. As shibboleths of such a speech style, gender markers are over-generalized by speakers who want to profile themselves as ‘genuinely’ Brabantish. Also, individual patterns of gender marking indicate that salience in non-canonical sentence structures (e.g. focus) might be an important factor when it comes to emphasizing a deviation from the standard language, in line with (regional) identity construction through the use of shibboleths. Future research is necessary to validate these initial findings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TET2020.1.DORE
2021-01-01
2021-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00398691/72/1/05_TET2020_1_DORE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TET2020.1.DORE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Agha, A.(2003). The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication, 23(3-4), 231-273.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Agha, A.(2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 38-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Agha, A.(2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Audring, J.(2006). Pronominal gender in spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18(2), 85-116.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, P.(2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In: N.Delbecque, J.van der Auwera & D.Geeraerts (red.), Perspectives on variation, 7-42. Berlijn: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Auer, P.(2011). Dialect vs. standard: a typology of scenarios in Europe. In: B.Kortmann & J.Van der Auwera (red.), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A comprehensive guide, 485-500. Berlijn: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Auer, P., F.Hinskens & P.Kerswill(2005). Dialect Change. Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Billig, M.(1995). Banal Nationalism. Londen: Sage.
  9. Birner, B. & G.Ward(1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  10. Birner, B. & G.Ward(2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(4), 1167-1187.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blommaert, J.(2006). Ethnography as counter-hegemony: Remarks on epistemology and method. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, 34.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blommaert, J.(2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Britain, D.(2009). One foot in the grave? Dialect death, dialect contact, and dialect birth in England. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 196/197, 121-155.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bont, A.P. de(1962). Dialect van Kempenland; meer in het bijzonder D’Oerse taol. Deel I: Klank- en vormleer en enige syntaktische bijzonderheden. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cornips, L. & A.Hulk(2008). Factors of success and failure in the acquisition of grammatical gender in Dutch. Second Language Research, 24(3), 267-295.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cornips, L., S.Marzo & J.Swanenberg(2018). Processen van place-making door talige praktijken in Tilburg, Heerlen en Genk. Taal en Tongval, 70(2), 149-177.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cornips, L., V.de Rooij & I.Stengs(2012). Carnavalesk taalgebruik en de constructie van lokale identiteiten: een pleidooi voor taalcultuur als onderzoeksveld. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 15-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cornips, L. & G.de Vogelaer(2009). Variatie en verandering in het Nederlandse genus: een multidisciplinair perspectief. Taal en Tongval, 61(1), 1-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Doreleijers, K.(2017). ‘Unne kuukske’? Een onderzoek naar variatie in geslachtsmarkering door (jonge) Brabantse dialect/-regiolectsprekers in regio Eindhoven. Master thesis Neerlandistiek, Universiteit Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eckert, P.(2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453-476.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Eckert, P.(2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87-100.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eckert, P.(2019). The limits of meaning: social indexicality, variation, and the cline of interiority. Language, 95(4), 751-776.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Geeraerts, D(1992). Pronominale masculiniseringsparameters in Vlaanderen. In: H.Bennis & J.de Vries (red.), De binnenbouw van het Nederlands: een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper, 73-84. Dordrecht: ICG Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grondelaers, S., P.van Gent & R.van Hout(2015). Is Moroccan-flavoured Standard Dutch standard or not? On the use of perceptual criteria to determine the limits of standard languages. In: 
A.Prikhodkine & D.R.Preston (red.), Responses to Language Varieties. Variability, processes and outcomes, 191-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haeseryn, W., K.Romijn, G.Geerts, J.de Rooij & M.C.van den Toorn(1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede druk. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.
  26. Hinskens, F.(2014). Despite or because of intensive contact? Internal, external and extralinguistic aspects of divergence in modern dialects and ethnolects of Dutch. Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms, 16, 109-140.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoppenbrouwers, C.(1983). Het genus in een Brabants regiolect. Tabu, 13, 1-25.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoppenbrouwers, C.(1990). Het regiolect: van Dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
  29. Hospers, G.J.(2015). Geografie en gevoel. Wat plekken met ons doen. Derde druk. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
  30. Johnstone, B.(2014). “100% Authentic Pittsburgh”: Sociolinguistic authenticity and the linguistics of particularity. In: V.Lacoste, J.Leimgruber & T.Breyer (red.), Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic perspectives, 97-112. Berlijn: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnstone, B. & S.F.Kiesling(2008). Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/- monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1), 5-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lenz, A.(2004). Hyperforms and Variety Barriers. Language variation in Europe. Uppsala University, 281-293.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Paepe, J. de & G.de Vogelaer(2008). Grammaticaal genus en pronominale verwijzing bij kinderen. Een taalverwervingsperspectief op een eeuwenoud grammaticaal probleem. Neerlandistiek.nl, 08.02.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schutter, G. de(2013). The dialects of Brabant: Grammatical properties. In: F.Hinskens & 
J.Taeldeman (red.), Language and Space, Vol. 3: Dutch,297-318. Berlijn: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Silverstein, M.(2003). Indexical order and the dialects of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3-4), 193-229.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Slaats, I.(2017). We hebben een clubske opgericht. Hyperdialect in Oost-Brabant. Universiteit Utrecht, bachelor eindwerkstuk taalwetenschap.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stroop, J.(1989). Woordgeslacht (‘genus’). De Vierschaer, 7, 4-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Swanenberg, J.(2006). Trots op je taal! Gruts, grootsig, freed op oe(w) dialect. ’s-Hertogenbosch, Stichting het Brabants.
  39. Swanenberg, J.(2014). Vraog & Antwoord: Onderzoek naar dialecten in Noord-Brabant.Brabants, 1(3), 16-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Swanenberg, J.(2016). Dialectologie in de 21e eeuw: de vitaliteit van dialectkenmerken in Noord- Brabant. In: K.Feyaerts, G.Brône, S.Schoonjans & G.Stuyckens (red.), Sprache in Raum und Geschichte, System und Kultur. Festschrift für Luk Draye, Leuvense Bijdragen, 99-100, 302-320.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Swanenberg, J.(2018). Dialect authenticity upside down: Brabantish writing practices of a black comedian on Twitter. In: C.Weth & K.Juffermans (red.), The Tyranny of Writing. Ideologies of the Written Word, 183-196. Londen: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Swanenberg, J.(2019). The Language and Culture of New Kids. Appreciation of and Familiarity with Online Brabantish Identities. In: S.Kroon & J.Swanenberg (red.), Language and Culture on the Margins. Global/Local Interactions, 91-108. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Swanenberg, J.(2020). Does dialect loss give more or less variation? On dialect leveling and language creativity. In: Y.Asahi (red.), Proceedings of Methods XVI. Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 65-74. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Swanenberg, J. & H.Brok(2008). Het Brabants beschreven. Dialect in Noord-Brabant, met een bibliografie van 1776 tot 2007. Alpen aan de Maas: Uitgeverij Veerhuis.
  45. Swanenberg, J. & R.van Hout(2013). Recent Developments in the mid southern Dialects. In: 
F.Hinskens & J.Taeldeman (red.), Language and Space, Vol. 3: Dutch, 319-335. Berlijn/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Taeldeman, J.(1980). Inflectional aspects of adjectives in the dialects of Dutch-speaking Belgium. In: W.Zonneveld e.a. (red.), Studies in Dutch Phonology, 223-246. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tamminga, M.(2013). Phonology and morphology in Dutch indefinite determiner syncretism: Spatial and quantitative perspectives. Journal of Linguistic Geography, 1(2), 115-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Trudgill, P.(1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
  49. Verhoeven, C. (1994). Herinneringen aan mijn moedertaal. Delft: Eburon.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Vogelaer, G. de & G.de Sutter(2011). The geography of gender change: pronominal and adnominal gender in Flemish dialects of Dutch. Language Sciences, 33(1), 192-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vos, L. de(2009). De dynamiek van hersemantisering. Taal & Tongval, 61(1), 82-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wagemakers, S.(2017). Brabant is Here. Making Sense of Regional Identification. Dissertatie, Tilburg University.
  53. Weijnen, A.A.(1971). Schets van de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis. Assen: Koninklijke Drukkerij Van Gorcum & Comp.
  54. Wilting, M., R.van Hout & J.Swanenberg(2014). Regiolect verankerd. Een survey-onderzoek naar dialectgebruik van Eindhovense jongeren. Taal & Tongval, 66(2), 143-171.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wurzel, W.U.(1986). Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 39(1), 76-96.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TET2020.1.DORE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TET2020.1.DORE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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