Netherlandic and Frisian

NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN WILLIAM Z. SHETTER When the editors of the present volume of Current Trends undertook the task of distributing the languages of Western Europe into appropriate chapters, they followed customary usage in the English-speaking world in calling one of them 'Dutch, Flemish, and Frisian'. My request on accepting this assignment that Dutch and Flemish be subsumed under the less well-known label 'Netherlandic' perhaps calls for clarification of necessary terminology. The separation into two distinct if closely related languages implied by 'Dutch and Flemish' is supported neither by linguistic reality nor by accepted usage in The Netherlands and Belgium. The native term Nederlands refers to the ideally identical standard language of The Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium. Although a distinction is commonly made between Nederlands and Vlaams when referring to geographical, folkloristic, or literary distinctions between North and South, for most speakers it makes no better sense to talk about two languages than it does for English speakers to say — tired jokes notwithstanding — that 'English' is spoken over there but 'American' over here. Nederlands is in fact a broader term than 'English' in referring to all areas, e.g. art, in which the two countries have a common cultural heritage. The fact that the official native name of the language happens to be the term also used for what pertains specifically to the North is due to a series of historical circumstances, but it does give rise to some sociological complications which will be taken up again below. The difficulty in matching Nederlands with 'Dutch' is simply that the English word does not normally refer to Belgium at all. Although the problem of the terminology in English seems destined to be debated without end, 'Netherlandic' is probably the best match and is finding increasing acceptance. Peter King's useful annual commentary on Netherlandic linguistic and literary production in The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies was entitled 'Dutch and Flemish Studies' up to 1961, from 1962 'Netherlands Studies' and starting in 1965 'Nether- landic Studies.' It will no doubt be some time, though, before its academic pallor has worn off to the extent that anyone would feel natural saying 'The people next to me were speaking Netherlandic'. NETHERLANDIC The Netherlands and Belgium together have a long and distinguished tradition of 1384 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER work on the languages spoken in that area, and their strategic location has always led to active participation in every intellectual trend and indeed to the initiation of some. The volume and diversity of published material having some connection with Nether- landic in its widest sense has reached such proportions that one might pardonably feel some inadequacy when faced with the task of displaying its range and spirit in one brief chapter. Fortunately this task is immeasurably lightened by the existence of a little book which in just over a hundred pages presents, in English, a lucid and thor- ough survey of precisely the subject to be focused on here. C. B. van Haeringen's Netherlandic language research: Men and works in the study of Dutch (1960) covers the traditional fields of history, lexicology, dialectology, grammar, and onomastics, concentrating on the period since 1920. Its thoroughness and orderliness show the hand of one who has been active in the field during the entire period to be covered here and who for many years has edited De Nieuwe Taalgids. The frequent references to this work henceforth will identify it simply as 'Van Haeringen'. Being in a sense freed from the obligation of providing a detailed commentary on all aspects of all linguistic work during the last fifty years, I propose to complement Van Haeringen's work along several lines, focusing on the unique 'flavor' or style to the Netherlandic research on the standard language in all its ramifications. Specifi- cally Netherlandic currents of interest appear nowhere more clearly than in the some- what less manageable area of linguistic theories, precisely the area treated most sketchily by Van Haeringen. An outlining of the over-all tone of linguistic work will also demonstrate the marked contrast with linguistic work on Frisian, where the very different status of the language in the cultural and historic framework has produced another distinct style. Our period of principal interest — roughly 1920 to the present — suggests a useful means of dividing linguistic work into convenient categories and at the same time leading our interest by logical steps from the great variety of contributory phenomena to the single ideal standard language itself. The period corresponds almost exactly to the scholarly careers of three well-known students of Netherlandic, not necessarily the most important but the ones who most successfully crystallized problems and focused the interest of many others in a distinct realm. G. G. Kloeke concentrated on what we can call the problem of formation, piecing together the complex picture of the historical and geographical development of modern standard Netherlandic. Kloeke was a pioneer in the field of dialectology, and later in his career turned to the editing of the work of Renaissance grammarians. C. B. van Haeringen represents the problem of variety: within the common standard language at any one time there exist local, social, situational and stylistic differences from casual to poetic. Van Haeringen's long and still active devotion to a semi-pedagogical journal aimed at the upper high- school and university level is probably his best claim to be a focal point. A. W. de Groot points the way toward the third step, the problem of description. Ultimately the study of the language with all its background and in all its variety should lead to insight into — or some stand with relation to — the problem of form and meaning. NETHERLANDS AND FRISIAN 1385 Descriptive systems may be applications of trends already current elsewhere, but they may also be influenced in some subtle way by attitudes toward the language and its function prevalent among its speakers. De Groot widened Netherlands horizons at the very beginning of his career by his contributions to Prague School linguistics, but by the end of it in 1967 he had gone far toward developing a descriptive theory of his own. The first two of the following three main sections will be no more than a brief guided tour through Van Haeringen. Works mentioned specifically will be (a) those singled out for special comment, (b) a few that for one reason or another were not mentioned in Van Haeringen's book, and (c) those which have appeared since the last edition of Netherlandic language research. Our concentration will be on the third section, the subject of which does not fit easily into Van Haeringen's framework. Formation Van Haeringen's chapter 10 outlines the development of dialect research from the late nineteenth century, but goes into detail only for the period since 1920. The im- pulse here was provided, as mentioned, by Kloeke in Leiden, who together with L. Grootaers in Louvain published the Taalatlas van Noord- en Zuid-Nederland and the series Noord- en Zuid-Nederlandsche dialectbibliotheek. Whereas Kloeke and Groot- aers followed a modification of the close-network questionnaire method ultimately going back to Wenker, the Gillieron approach using detailed interviews from rela- tively few localities was used by E. Blancquaert in Gent for his Reeks Nederlandse dialectatlassen, which is still in progress. A fourth dialectological center, founded by Van Ginneken in Nijmegen and now being energetically continued by A. Weijnen, concentrates mainly on the province of Zuid-Brabant and adjacent territory. The fifth and newest center, that of K. Heeroma in Groningen, takes as its field the entire northeastern area which extends well into northern Germany. The most truly classic work to come out of all this activity was certainly Kloeke's study of the geographical picture of the diphthongization of older i and u, De Hol- landsche expansie in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw en haar weerspiegeling in de hedendaagsche Nederlandsche dialecten (Kloeke 1927). The former became the diphthong spelled ij in standard orthography; the history of the latter is complicated by the fact that Gmc. u first underwent fronting and extended over much of the territory before the subsequent diphthong (standard spelling ui) came in an overlapping wave. Kloeke interpreted the geographical picture as an instance of expansion of prestige pronunciations current in the West, notably Amsterdam, which in turn were probably brought to the North by cultured speakers in the massive immigration of the late sixteenth century. The establishment of prestige pronunciations in the western- based standard language has been the subject of considerable discussion. In fact, a reading of Van Haeringen's detailed summary of dialect research of all types strongly 1386 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER suggests that the contributions the dialects have made to the cultured standard language are never far from the writer's horizon. This impression is only strengthened by general surveys of dialectology in the Netherlandic area such as Van Ginneken (1943), Grootaers (1950), and Weijnen (1958,1962). The reasons for what can fairly be called an unusual degree of interest in the elements making up the modern standard language will become increasingly apparent as we proceed. The geographical picture being in a real sense a recapitulation of the historical one, the two cannot readily be given separate discussion if the effect on the standard language of changes that took place at various points in the area is of prime interest. Discussion of the historical literature occupies chapters 2 through 7 of Van Haeringen. By far the most interesting of the historical periods is the very one explored most thoroughly by Kloeke and other 'expansionists' and their opponents: the beginning of the political and religious separation of North and South in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

Load more