Chapter published in:
Intermediate Language Varieties: Koinai and regional standards in Europe
Edited by Massimo Cerruti and Stavroula Tsiplakou
[Studies in Language Variation 24] 2020
► pp. 55–78

Surviving Limburg and Hollandic dialect features and what they have in common

| Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam | Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Two studies of processes of dialect levelling are presented. The first one concerns a divergent local Limburg dialect of Dutch. The second study concerns 15 local Hollandic dialects, spoken in the northwestern corner of the country. Whereas the Limburg study is based on data from the author’s fieldwork recordings, the Hollandic investigation is based on questionnaire data from two huge (equally fieldwork-based) projects. The Limburg study focusses on 20 dialect features (in the phonological, morphological and syntactic modules) and allows for apparent time comparisons, while the Hollandic research permits real time comparisons of the variation in 7 features in the phonological and morphosyntactic components. For both studies the data were elicited from individual speakers. The dialects in both areas appear to arrive at their own unique selection of non-standard features. Despite the many differences and despite the fact that the dialect situations differ in several respects, the findings of both studies converge in the sense that the resistant phenomena share properties pertaining to their relative geographical distribution, their socio-emblematic nature and, internally, to the architecture of language components, the conditioning/regularity of the phenomena as well as their mutual coherence, both structurally and statistically.
Keywords: dialect levelling, diaglossia, intermediate varieties, koine, regional standard variety, resistance to dialect loss, stability, coherence
Published online: 22 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.24.03hin
References

References

Auer, P.
(2005) Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation. Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (pp. 7–42). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakkes, P.
(1996) Variatie en verandering in het Montforts: taalstructurele en sociolinguistische aspecten van een veranderend dorpsdialect. PhD Dissertation, Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Cornips, L.
(1994) Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
De Vink, L.
(2004) Dialect en dialectverandering in Katwijk aan Zee. PhD Dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Frings, T.
(1926) Sprache. In H. Aubin, T. Frings, & J. Müller (Eds.), Kulturströmungen und Kulturprovinzen in den Rheinlanden (pp. 90–185). Bonn: Röhrscheid.Google Scholar
(1957) Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, A.-S.
(2016) From diglossia to diaglossia. In M.-H. Côté, R. Knooihuizen, & J. Nerbonne (Eds.), The future of dialects: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XV (pp. 35–62). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Hinskens, F.
(2016) Linguistic coherence; systems, repertoires and speech communities. In F. Hinskens, & G. R. Guy (Eds.), Coherence, covariation and bricolage: Various approaches to the systematicity of language variation. Special issue of Lingua, 172–173, 1–9.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F.
(1992) Dialect levelling in Limburg. Structural and sociolinguistic aspects. PhD Dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
(2014) Despite or because of intensive contact? Internal, external and extralinguistic aspects of divergence in modern dialects and ethnolects of Dutch. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factors and mechanisms (pp. 109–140). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F., Auer, P., & Kerswill, P.
(2005) The study of dialect convergence and divergence: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens, & P. Kerswill (Eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages (pp. 1–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F., & van Hout, R.
(2013) Language and space in Dutch: Recent developments and new research. In F. Hinskens, & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and space. Dutch (pp. 35–60). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E., & van Koppen, M.
(2013) Holland and Utrecht: Morphology and syntax. In F. Hinskens, & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and space. Dutch (pp. 418–443). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoppenbrouwers, C.
(1983) Het genus in een Brabants regiolect. Tabu 13(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
(1990) Het regiolect: van dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Jacobi, I.
(2009) On variation and change in diphthongs and long vowels of spoken Dutch. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jansen, M.
(2010) Language change on the Dutch Frisian island of Ameland. Linguistic and sociolinguistic findings. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
(1994) Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2010) Principles of linguistic change. Volume 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Münstermann, H.
(1989) Dialect loss in Maastricht: attitudes, functions and structures. In K. Deprez (Ed.), Language and intergroup relations in Flanders and in The Netherlands (pp. 99–128). Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pannekeet, J.
(1991) Het Westfries. Inventarisatie van dialectkenmerken. Wormerveer: Stichting Uitgeverij Noord-Holland.Google Scholar
Rindler Schjerve, R.
(1987) Sprachkontakt auf Sardinien. Soziolinguistische Untersuchungen des Sprachwechsels im ländlichen Bereich. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schirmunsky, V.
(1930) Sprachgeschichte und Siedelungsmundarten. Germanisch-Romanische Monatschrift, 18.I/II, 113–122/171–188.Google Scholar
Stroop, J.
(1998) Poldernederlands, waardoor het ABN verdwijnt. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, J.
(2006) Polarization revisited. In F. Hinskens (Ed.), Language variation. European perspectives. Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), Amsterdam, June 2005 (pp. 233–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thelander, M.
(1982) A qualitative approach to the quantitative data of speech variation. In S. Romaine (Ed.), Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities (pp. 65–83). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Van Bree, C.
(1985) Structuurverlies en structuurbehoud in het dialect van Haaksbergen en Enschede: een onderzoek naar verschillen in resistentie. Leuvense Bijdragen, 74(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F.
(1988) Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandekerckhove, R.
(2000) Structurele en sociale aspecten van dialectverandering. De dynamiek van het Deerlijkse dialect. Gent: KANTL.Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, M.
(2013) Holland and Utrecht: Phonology and phonetics. In F. Hinskens, & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and space. Dutch (pp. 399–418). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Voortman, B.
(1994) Regionale variatie in het taalgebruik van notabelen. Een sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in Middelburg, Roermond en Zutphen. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1954) Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10, 388–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, J.
(1874) Algemeen Nederduitsch en Friesch Dialecticon. Tweede deel. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. CrossrefGoogle Scholar