Sociolinguistic typology and dialect levelling: a case from Zeeland Dutch

Abstract

Present-day Dutch dialects are often acquired as second languages (e.g., Vousten 1995, De Vink 2004:42, Rys 2007:8-11). Hence, it is to be expected that these dialects will develop features that are generally typical for L2 varieties (as identified most notably by Kortmann & Szmrecsanyi 2004). In this article, the question is addressed to what extent a number of recent changes in the pronominal system of the Zeelandic dialects correlate to the shift of these dialects towards L2 varieties. It is argued that the emergence and the rapid diffusion of 3sg.masc. hem ‘him’ and 3sg.fem. haar ‘her’ as subjects are indeed stimulated by this shift. This shows that, even in times of dialect loss and levelling, it remains possible for the dialects to diverge from Standard Dutch. One condition appears to be that the phenomenon causing divergence must be a simplification in Trudgill’s (1986) sense. 1. Sociolinguistic typology and its linguistic implications While there are many attempts to provide insightful sociolinguistic typologies of different languages and language varieties (e.g., Auer 2005), it is only quite recently that one has begun to look thoroughly into the possible linguistic correlates of these typologies, i.e. into the relationship between a language’s function and its structure (cf. Trudgill 2002). Of course, looking for linguistic consequences of the way a certain language or language variety is used, is not new. For instance, the simplification processes that are observed during Pidgin and Creole genesis are described in any number of textbooks on language contact. Also, it has been pointed out that written languages (or ‘Schriftsprachen’) tend to lack many phenomena that are found in languages or language varieties that are exclusively spoken (see, among others, Koch & Osterreicher 1994, Van Marle 1997, and Kabatek 2003; see also Chambers 2004 on ‘vernacular universals’). But it is fair to say that systematic research is still quite rare. With a number of recent descriptions of, most notably, varieties of English (see especially Kortmann & Schneider 2004) the database for research into the linguistic manifestations of sociolinguistic typologies has been enlarged considerably. Certainly for English, it has been illustrated extensively that the ‘sociolinguistic profile’ of a variety does indeed correlate to a large extent with the linguistic features that are found in that particular variety. 2 For instance, in a discussion of the worldwide varieties of English Kortmann & Szmrecsanyi (2004) conclude that Pidgins and Creoles differ quite systematically from L1 varieties of English on the one hand, and L2 varieties on the other. And indeed, although some features occur in all variety types, there are also many linguistic features appearing predominantly in either L1 varieties, L2 varieties or Pidgins and Creoles, regardless of the area where these varieties are spoken: the use of existential there is with plural subjects, for instance, is found almost exclusively in L1 varieties, whereas invariant non-concord tags (e.g. isn’t it in all sentences regardless of the grammatical person of the subject) typically occur in L2 varieties, and deletion of the copula be typically in Pidgins and Creoles. A number of these 1 We would like to thank Veronique De Tier and Johan Taeldeman for help with the questionnaire and the gathering of the informants. In addition, this publication is possible due to a Postdoctoral Fellowship Grant from the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO Flanders) to Gunther De Vogelaer. 2 This is not to say that there is no research for other languages. See, for instance, Kusters (2003) for a discussion of the linguistic complexity of the languages in the Arabic language area, the Quechua area, the Scandinavian area and the Swahili area, and Trudgill (2004) for a (controversial) case study on the phoneme inventories of the Austronesian languages.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.