2004
Volume 30, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Samenvatting

Abstract

The paradigm of forms of address in Dutch was heavily in flux in the 17th century (Vermaas 2002). Until now, these changes have mainly been studied empirically in letter corpora (e.g., Rutten & Van der Wal 2014; Bax 2010; Nobels 2013). The present study adds a new genre to this body of literature by analysing forms of address in 17th-century Dutch newspapers, using the recently published Couranten Corpus (2022). In doing so, we intend to answer the question: how can the use of forms of address in 17th-century Dutch newspapers be characterised, and how do their (sociolinguistic) usage patterns relate to those found in letters?

Using a mixed quantitative and qualitative descriptive approach as well as a random forest (RF) and an example conditional inference tree (CIT), we analyse the approximately 6,000 forms of address in the Couranten Corpus. In terms of how forms of address are used in the newspaper genre, we find that forms of address occur in different contexts within these newspapers: they are found in national and international news items, both in letters quoted in full as well as in direct quotations of either spontaneous or planned speech, and in specific newspaper-related contexts. Moreover, forms of address occur relatively frequently in articles from places in the present-day United Kingdom and Switzerland. Lastly, the social status of the people being addressed is in majority high, no matter what form of address found. Compared with the results from studies on 17th-century letters, the usage patterns of the different forms of address in newspapers are largely the same: ‘you’ occurs often while ‘you’ is still rare in subject position, and archaic ‘thou’ and new ‘you’ barely occur, and mostly pejoratively. The epistolary forms ‘Your Honour/Worship’ and ‘Your Kindness/Love’ or ‘you people’, however, do not appear to follow the pattern predicted by the letter corpora. In newspapers, the form , traditionally considered the later, incoming variant of the two, is more popular up until the 1670s, whereas , considered the outgoing variant, instead gains popularity in the last two decades of the century. We argue that our results do not signify a reversal in diachrony, because and appear to be preferred in specific, non-related contexts. Interestingly, we also find the plural doublings and , a phenomenon which has not been described for Dutch before. This study thus sheds light on the historical development of forms of address in the Dutch language in a previously unexplored genre, and additionally provides new insights into early modern newspaper language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.3.003.DEVO
2025-12-01
2026-04-28

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aalberse, Suzanne (2004). Waer bestu bleven? De verdwijning van het pronomen ‘du’ in een taalvergelijkend perspectief. Nederlandse taalkunde9, 231-252.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aalberse, Suzanne (2009). Inflectional economy and politeness: Morphology-internal and morphology-external factors in the loss of second person marking in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bax, Marcel (2010). Epistolary presentation rituals: Face-work, politeness, and ritual display in early modern Dutch letter-writing. In: J.Culpeper & D. Z.Kádár (eds.), Historical (im)politeness. Lausanne: Peter Lang Verlag, 37-85.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berteloot, Amand (2003). Van du naar ghi: Waarom het pronomen du uit het Nederlands verdween. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde119, 204-217.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Roger, & AlbertGilman (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: T. A.Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 253-276.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brownlees, Nicholas (2012). The beginnings of periodical news (1620-1665). In: R.Facchinetti, N.Brownlees, B.Bös & U.Fries (eds.), News as changing texts: Corpora, methodologies and analysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 5-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Couranten corpus (Version 1.0) (2022). <http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-u9>
  8. Daan, Jo (1982). Solidariteit en distantie in de zeventiende eeuw. De aanspreekpronomina in de brieven. In: P.Van de Craen & R.Willemyns (eds.), Sociolinguïstiek en ideologie. Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 113-134.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. van der Horst, Joop (2008). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hothorn, Torsten, & AchimZeileis (2015). partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. Journal of machine learning research16, 3905-3909.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. van Leuvensteijn, Arjan (2002). Epistolaire aanspreekvormen in de correspondentie van Maria van Reigersberch. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde118, 288-298.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Levshina, Natalia (2020). Conditional inference trees and random forests. In: M.Paquot & S. Th.Gries (eds.), A practical handbook of corpus linguistics. Cham: Springer, 611-643.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Maier, Ingrid. (2006). „Ontsegh-brief van den Turckschen Keyser …“ Ein fiktiver Brief des türkischen Sultans an den König von Polen in russischer Übersetzung (1621). In: P.Ambrosiani & L.Steensland (Eds.), Jako blagopesnivaja ptica: Hyllningsskrift till Lars Steensland. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, 135-146.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. McLaughlin, Mairi (2021). La presse française historique. Histoire d’un genre et histoire de la langue. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Muller, Jacob W. (1926). Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis onzer Nieuwnederlandsche aanspreekvormen. De nieuwe taalgids20, 81-104, 113-128, 161-176.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Nobels, Judith (2013). (Extra)ordinary letters: A view from below on seventeenth-century Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. van Oostendorp, Marc, & Nicolinevan der Sijs (2019). ‘Een mooie mengelmoes’: Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Rutten, Gijsbert & Marijke J.van der Wal (2014). Letters as Loot: A sociolinguistic approach to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. van der Sijs, Nicoline (2021). Taalwetten maken en vinden: Het ontstaan van het Standaardnederlands. Gorredijk: Sterck en de Vreese.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. van den Toorn, Maarten C. (1977). De problematiek van de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen. De nieuwe taalgids70, 520-540.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Vermaas, Hanny A. M. (2002). Veranderingen in de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen: Van de dertiende t/m de twintigste eeuw. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Visser, Frederik Th. (1949). Some causes of verbal obsolescence. Nijmegen & Utrecht: Dekkers & Van de Vegt N.V.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. de Vos, Machteld (2023). Het stijlboek van de weduwe: Ontluikende standaardtaal in 17e-eeuwse kranten? Neerlandia4, 32-35.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. de Vos, Machteld, & FreekVan de Velde (2024, April25). Old news, new tidings: German influence on 17th-century Dutch newspaper language. Heidelberg: Internationale Tagung “Historische Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachkontakt mit Varietäten des Deutschen: Überlieferung, Forschungsstand und Perspektiven”.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Der Weduwen, Arthur (2017). Dutch and Flemish newspapers of the seventeenth century, 1618-1700. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wyffels, Heleen. (2021). Women and Work in Early Modern Printing Houses. Family Firms in Antwerp, Douai and Leuven (1500-1700). PhD Thesis, KU Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.3.003.DEVO
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.3.003.DEVO
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Dit is een verplicht veld
Graag een geldig e-mailadres invoeren
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error