2004
Volume 76, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0039-8691
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1214

Abstract

Abstract

In this article, we report on an assessment-experiment in which we gauge two aspectual predictors of non-standard -support in Netherlandic Dutch: a habitual context (‘ik doe dan altijd bijles geven’ – I usually provide tutoring then) and a progressive context (‘ik doe nu huiswerk maken’ – I am currently doing my homework). We elicited scaled acceptability-judgments from 99 respondents, as well as free-response-evaluations, consisting of the first three words which came to mind when reacting to -support stimuli. The scaled judgments showed (1) that habitual aspect is a strong predictor of -support, (2) that -support is evaluated lower than standard alternatives, but rejected categorically, and (3) that it is mainly older respondents who prefer -support. The free responses confirm these tendencies, but enrich the picture, because they reflect regional indexicality (“Brabantish”, “South”) and more general / positive categorizations (“Dutch”), but also ideological rejection in variable degrees of aggression (“stupid”, “horrible”, “chav”).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TET2024.2.005.WIER
2024-12-01
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00398691/76/2/TET2024.2.005.WIER.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TET2024.2.005.WIER&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Audacity Team. 2022. Audacity. Versie 3.2.3. www.audacityteam.org
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barbiers, Sjef, HansBennis, GuntherDe Vogelaar, en MagdaDevos. 2006. Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND). Meertens Instituut. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennis, Hans en FransHinskens. 2014. “Goed of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands”. Nederlandse Taalkunde19 (2): 131–184. https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.BENN
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Binnenstebuiten. 2024. Seizoen 11, Aflevering 76, “Aflevering 76”. KRO-NCRV. 16april, 2024, 23:22–23:34. https://binnenstebuiten.kro-ncrv.nl/terugkijken/16-april-2024
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Binnenstebuiten. 2024. Seizoen 11, Aflevering 87, “Aflevering 87”. KRO-NCRV. 1mei, 2024, 06:02–06:05. https://binnenstebuiten.kro-ncrv.nl/terugkijken/1-mei-2024
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Binnenstebuiten. 2024. Seizoen 11, Aflevering 89, “Aflevering 89”. KRO-NCRV. 3mei, 2024, 07:01–07:08. https://binnenstebuiten.kro-ncrv.nl/terugkijken/3-mei-2024
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Binnenstebuiten. 2024. Seizoen 11, Aflevering 95, “Aflevering 95”. KRO-NCRV. 13mei2024, 07:40–07:41. https://binnenstebuiten.kro-ncrv.nl/terugkijken/13-mei-2024
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blom, Elma en Siebede Korte. 2011. “Dummy auxiliaries in child and adult second language acquisition of Dutch”. Lingua121: 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.12.004
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boersma, Paul en DavidWeenink. 2021. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Versie 6.1.51. http://www.praat.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, Virginia en VictoriaClarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cornips, Leonie. 1994. “De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief-constructie.”Forum der Letteren35 (4): 282–294. https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/460126/1994Cornips-habitueeldoen-ForumLetter.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cornips, Leonie. 1998. “Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch.” In Do in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation, geredigeerd door Ingrid Tieken-Boonvan Ostade, Marijkevan der Wal, en Arjanvan Leuvensteijn. Stichting Neerlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen. https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/470022/1998Cornips-HabitualDOsupport-DOEng%3ADu%3AGerm.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Sutter, Gert, DirkSpeelman, en DirkGeeraerts. 2005. “Regionale en stilistische effecten op de woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke eindgroepen”. Nederlandse Taalkunde10 (2): 97–128. https://journal-archive.aup.nl/nederlandse-taalkunde/taalk_2005_nr2.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Duinhoven, Antonius M.1994. “Het hulpwerkwoord doen heeft afgedaan”. Forum der Letteren35 (2): 110–131. https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_for004199401_01/_for004199401_01_0010.php
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox, John en SanfordWeisberg. 2019. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Sage. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie, StefanGrondelaers, Sita DoergaMisier-Patadien, en UshaBalesar. 2022. “Surinaams-Nederlands, Nederlands-Nederlands, Engels of liever Sranan? Een attitude-onderzoek in Paramaribo”. Publieksrapport. https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/807950511/Publieksrapport_FINAL.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grondelaers, Stefan en Anne-SophieGhyselen. 2023. The difference between Belgian Standard Dutch and tussentaal is a matter of accent. Evidence from a contextualized speaker evaluation experiment. Presentatie gehouden op de Sociolinguistics Circle, Meertens Instituut Amsterdam, 31maart2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grondelaers, Stefan en DirkSpeelman. 2015. “A quantitative analysis of qualitative free response data. Paradox or new paradigm?”. In Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics, geredigeerd door JocelyneDaems, ElineZenner, KrisHeylen, DirkSpeelman, en HubertCuyckens. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110435597-021
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grondelaers, Stefan, DirkSpeelman, ChloéLybaert, en Paulvan Gent. 2019. “Getting a big data-based grip on ideological change – Evidence from Belgian Dutch”. Journal of Linguistic Geography8 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2020.2
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grondelaers, Stefan, Paulvan Gent, en Roelandvan Hout. 2022. “On the inevitability of social meaning and ideology in accounts of syntactic change. Evidence from pronoun competition in Netherlandic Dutch”. In Explanations in Sociosyntax. Dialogue across paradigms, geredigeerd door TanyaKaroli Christensen en TorbenJuel Jensen, 120–143. John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108674942.006
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grondelaers, Stefan, Roelandvan Hout, Hansvan Halteren, en EstherVeerbeek. 2023. “Why do we say them when we know it should be they? Twitter as a resource for investigating nonstandard syntactic variation in The Netherlands”. Language Variation and Change35(2): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394523000121
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Grondelaers, Stefan en StefaniaMarzo. 2023. “Why does the shtyle spread? Street prestige boosts the diffusion of urban vernacular features”. Language in Society52: 295–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0041
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hofkens, Veerle (@veerle.hofkens). 2024. “Rol to the rescue”. Instagram, 10januari, 2024. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C17TPHmiNsC/?igsh=MWdkeTFobmYyeG1ueQ
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hofkens, Veerle (@veerle.hofkens). 2024. “For ma amandelpasta lovers”. 4april, 2024. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5WHI_tIKcY/?igsh=MWQ4ZG8zbmppY2dsaQ
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jäger, Andreas. 2007. “Grammaticalization paths of periphrastic ‘do’-constructions”. Studies van de Belgische Kring voor Linguïstiek2 (1): 1-18. https://sites.uclouvain.be/bkl-cbl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/jag2007.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kersten, Bart. 2015. “Does doen matter?”. Masterscriptie, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B.Brockhoff, en Rune H. B.Christensen. 2017. “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models”. Journal of Statistical Software82 (113): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nortier, Jacomine en Bente A.Svendsen, red. 2015. Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century: Linguistic Practices across Urban Spaces. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nuijtens, Emile. 1962. De tweetalige mens. Van Gorcum & Comp. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/107105
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Oostdijk, Nelleke. 2003. “Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands: veelzijdig onderzoeksinstrument voor o.a. taalkundig en taal- en spraaktechnologisch onderzoek”. Link, 14 (1): 3-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pauwels, Anita. 1953. De plaats van hulpwerkwoord, verleden deelwoord en infinitief in de Nederlandse bijzin. Symons.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Qualtrics. 2005. Qualtrics. Versie 2023. https://www.qualtrics.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  34. R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org
  35. Sert, Cansel, FerdyHubers, TheresaRedl, en Helende Hoop. 2023. “On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch”. Linguistics in the Netherlands40: 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Stuart-Smith, Jane, GwilymPryce, ClaireTimmins, en BarrieGunter. 2013. “Television can also be a factor in language change: Evidence from an urban dialect”. Language89 (3): 501–536. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24671937
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Bezooijen, Renée. “Stenen des aanstoots. Hoe ergerlijk kan taal zijn?”. Onze Taal2 (3): 36–38. https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_taa014200301_01/_taa014200301_01_0022.php
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Zuckerman, Shalom. 2001. The acquisition of “optional” movement. Dissertatie, Universiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TET2024.2.005.WIER
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TET2024.2.005.WIER
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