Internationale Neerlandistiek - Volume 48, Issue 2, 2010

Dutch discourse, modal and focus particles are frequently considered to be a translator’s nightmare. This article takes translation into Portuguese as a case in point. Although at first sight translation seems to be problematic because of the lack of ready equivalents, a contrastive survey of different ways of expressing modal aspects in Portuguese and a more context-oriented functional approach to translation reveal that modal functions of Dutch particles can be expressed quite adequately in the target language. Can further contrastive research of Germanic and Romance languages help to clarify how particles really work?

Dutch, like German, is characterized by its prolific use of modal particles, a category which is much less present in languages like English and French. This paper reports on the results of an investigation into the differences between original Dutch and Dutch translated from English of French, for which data from two parallel corpora were used. The hypothesis, that translated Dutch has a lower density of modal particles, due to a lack of stimulus from the source text, was not unequivocally borne out.

On the basis of earlier research, it is likely that learners of Dutch as a second language (DSL) will have problems in acquiring modal particles, as these lexical items often have no direct counterparts in other languages. This hypothesis was tested by examining the spontaneous speech of six DSL-speakers with Spanish as their first language, and varied commands of Dutch. The results indicate that the speakers do use modal particles, but not in the same amounts: the higher the proficiency in Dutch, the larger the frequency and inventory of modal particles used. Furthermore, the particles seem to appear in a more or less fixed order.

Particles are a notorious problem for learners of Dutch as a foreign or second language. This paper focuses on the question of how courses for learners of Dutch deal with the Dutch particles (modal and other ones). One course, Help!, is analyzed in more detail. The findings are evaluated with the help of the so called ‘schijf van vijf’ (Westhoff 2008), a checklist which distinguishes five aspects: input, intake, focus on form, production, and strategies in language use. Whereas Help! provides a rich input of particles, the other aspects need closer attention in course development. Further descriptive and didactic research is necessary in order to implement a more effective way of teaching Dutch particles.

This final paper sketches the current state of knowledge with respect to the Dutch particles from an extramural perspective. First, an overview is given of the knowledge we have with respect to particle types, cross-linguistic dif„ferences, and their development over time. In the second part of the paper some of the gaps in our knowledge are identified, paying attention to subjects such as description, history, variation, translation and acquisition of particles. „Finally, it offers some suggestions as to the directions subsequent research might take.