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 thorough 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 somewhat 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. An analysis of the fusing of northern and southern pronunciations in this period is given by W.Gs. Hellinga (1937). G. Brom's Boekentaal (1955), not mentioned by Van Haeringen, tells the story of the overlaying of the common speech of the North with large numbers of southern vocabulary items treated as elegant upon borrowing, which produced the striking division into spoken and written styles that is only today showing signs of weakening. Of the considerable number of texts relating to this period, possibly the most noteworthy is the remarkable Spreec- konst of Petrus Montanus, first published in 1635 (Caron 1964). This is a grammar in the grand Renaissance manner, with its love of explaining the functioning of the vernacular in terms of hierarchies of causes and its visual displays of literally every- thing in the form of binary diagrams that were made into something of a rage by Petrus Ramus. But at the same time it is a painstaking and ingenious phonetic (and partly phonological) description far ahead of what is normally expected in the first half of the seventeenth century. It is in addition a fascinating sociolinguistic study showing the function of the rapidly growing standard language in the context of an almost unparallelledly self-assured culture. The most used history of the language from a cultural viewpoint is C. G. N. de Vooys' Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal (De Vooys 1952). The inner history of the language is dealt with in Schdnfeld's historische grammatica van het Nederlands (Van Loey 1960). The almost suffocating quantity of detail that has accumulated in successive editions of this work recently led its present editor to publish an introduction to historical phonology (Van Loey 1968).

Variety

The general subject of grammatical, stylistic, regional, and social variation in the modern standard language is dealt with by Van Haeringen in chapter 8. The most useful surveys are probably the collections of reprinted articles by the most influential NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN 1387 scholars, De Yooys (1924-25), Kloeke (1952), Van Haeringen (1962a, 1962b), and Pauwels (1965). Although such variety is hardly surprising, it might be of interest to point out one or two specifically Netherlandic aspects in the realms of (1) vocabulary, (2) phonetics, and (3) grammar. (1) Vocabulary. Lexical discussion has tended strongly to focus interest on the historical-geographical-stylistic matter of Northern vs. Southern items, which reaches so close to the heart of the Netherlandic linguistic consciousness. The already mentioned Boekentaal (Brom 1955) discusses some social and even psychological aspects of the stylistic tradition prescribing the use of an 'elegant', literary and hence southern- origin language in certain well-defined situations such as newspaper and essay writing, reading of a prepared text, and any oral remarks made in a formalized context such as a meeting. A far more widely discussed topic concerns the use of standard Netherlandic in Belgium. The purely synchronic aspect of this question can be summed up crudely by calling it a question of just how much southern variation should be tolerated within a unified standard language. Various facets of this problem are examined by all the authors of the above-mentioned essay collections, most insistently by Pauwels (1965), especially in the essays "In hoever geeft het Noorden de toon aan?" (1965:71-8), "De Zuidnederlandse woorden in de nieuwe Woordenlijst" (1965:194-9), and, in the context of the already mentioned problem of the proper name for the language, "Moeilijkheden met de benaming van onze taal" (1965:15-30). Since a genuinely prestigious literary language never arose on Flemish soil and the basically northern Netherlandic language, in spite of its large-scale absorption of southern elements, had to be 'reimported' in the South, Flemings were left to their own devices to find a viable form and draw the difficult line between strictly local Vlaams and general, international Nederlands speech. The linguistic struggle against French cultural domination in Belgium, now over a century old and continuing unabated, did a great deal to awaken the national consciousness of a common cultured language but left educated Flemings with an understandably more personally involved attitude toward their language than was and is true in the North. This may, in turn, account for a perceptible difference in tone between Dutch and Belgian linguistic work. The latter tends to be slightly antiquarian in its interests and to turn for its inspiration less to the structuralist modes of thought that swept over the North and more to an Idealistic mode traceable to the Romance South. (2) Phonetics. The standard account of Netherlandic phonetics is Eijkman's Phonetiek van het Nederlands (1955), which describes regional and situational variations but attempts to suggest an ideal general pronunciation. B. van den Berg has published a shorter phonetic description (1964). The most ambitious prescriptive work on standard pronunciation is E. Blancquaert's (1957). A short semi-popular guide for public speakers such as that of Linthorst and Leerkamp (1966) summarizes much periodical literature in the attention it gives to the social significance of regional variations, urban western versus provincial eastern as well as, inevitably, 'standard' 1388 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER northern vs. 'standard' southern. The most important literature on the status of standard pronunciations and their social positions in North and South is reviewed by Van Haeringen at the beginning of chapter 8. One of the most delicate and difficult of the current phonetic questions concerns the sociolinguistic value of the vowels spelled ee eu oo, which we will return to in reviewing phonemic description. Some phonetic matters that have called forth a scattering of brief notes in journals such as De Nieuwe Taalgids and Onze Taal are the social and geographical distribution of dental versus uvularfcr, the competition between which is probably reaching its climax at the present time, the quite recent development among younger speakers of a fronted variety of the uvular r which is invariably condemned (e.g. Linthorst and Leerkamp 1966:106), and an apparently increasingly common retraction of the tongue-tip in the pronunciation of s, also regarded as an affectation. None of these have as yet been given thorough discussion. The problem of orthography and orthographic reform has always required the closest cooperation of North and South. Its very complex history is summarized in J. Berits (1964). (3) Grammar. Two or three of the numerous treatments of stylistic or regional variety on the grammatical plane will suffice to identify once again a peculiarly Nether- landic situation. The problem of noun gender raises interesting implications inasmuch as many of the historical gender shifts have resulted in North-South divergence and hence, in some instances, in divergence between spoken and written language. Some influential treatments of the problem are Pauwels, "Substantieven met een dubbel grammatischgeslacht" (1965:1-14), VanHaeringen, "Genusverandering bij stofnamen" (1962b: 96-107), and G. Royen's exhaustive Buigingsverschijnselen in het Nederlands (Royen 1947-54). In a recent study, Mironov (1967) investigated noun morphology in the categories of gender, case, and number from the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries, a crucial period, as we have noted, in the history of the formation of the standard language. From the close of the Middle Ages we watch the South preserve a three- gender system while the North makes the transition to the present two-gender one. Today we have the situation that in the South a consciousness of the 'old' feminine nouns is still present while the North has only a neuter vs. common gender distinction. If it were not for the fact that the use of feminine pronouns in reference to historically feminine nouns is still a mark of written elegance for many speakers, North-South disagreement over whose language should be the standard would be sharper than it is. At one point the tendency to identify feminine gender with elegance has resulted in an interesting shift. For many northern speakers the feminine pronouns zij and haar and the archaic feminine genitive -er have taken on an exclusively elegance function, resulting in a widespread grammatical 'abuse' involving the use of 'feminines' to refer even to neuter nouns. Brom (1955:212-15) records the despair of many grammarians. Some interesting questions of the crossing of a purely morphological process with stylistic variation — here largely spoken versus written — are discussed by Van NETHERLANDS AND FRISIAN 1389 Haeringen in "Concentratie door diminuering" (1962b: 134—41). 'Concentration' refers to the use of a morpheme -je, which otherwise behaves stylistically as one would expect of a diminutive, to mark the use of a single word for a compound or an entire phrase. Variety in the sense of multiplicity of grammatical functions is probably best illu- strated by the problem of the syntactic behavior of the particle er (cf. Bech 1952). Articles on individual grammatical topics are most commonly to be found in the Dutch journals De Nieuwe Taalgids, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde and Levende Talen, and in the Belgian Leuvense Bijdragen and Tijdschrift voor Levende Talen. Questions of correctness and usage are discussed in the semipopular newsletter- style Onze Taal. Much of what has been discussed in this section comes close to the problem of the native speaker's 'world' or linguistic consciousness, a diffuse subject quite properly not given specific attention by Van Haeringen. His own "Ironie in woordbetekenis" (1962a: 268-78) speculates on the social significance of the ironic use of 'elegant' words and finds this habit a peculiarly Netherlandic phenomenon. Not entirely unrelated to this are the semantic explorations being carried on in recent years by the psychologist Kouwer. In a series of studies Kouwer has attempted a somewhat Osgoodian analysis of the semantic structure of certain words used in making judgments (e.g. Kouwer 1961). An attempt to explore the implications of existing 'in' one's language and linguistic community was made by K. Heeroma in Der Mensch in seiner Sprache (1963), pursued further into the theological realm in Nader tot een taaltheologie (1967).

Description

(1) Phonology. Standard Dutch was first analyzed along structural lines by A. W. de Groot (1931), one of the original contributors to the Travaux du Cercle Linguis- tique de Prague. A similar approach underlay Jac. van Ginneken's phonological analysis (1934), and in 1939 N. van Wijk took up some problems of Netherlandic phonology in his Phonologie (1965 = 2nd ed.). In spite of continuous discussion of individual problems, the next attempt at an over-all description did not come until 1958 with the Foniek van het Nederlands of B. van den Berg (1964 = 4th ed.), which was followed quickly in 1959 by what can be called the definitive treatment of Nether- landic segmental phonemics (Cohen et al. 1961 = 2nd ed.). The problem engaging most constant attention, the solution of which appears to be the point at which a systematic description stands or falls, is the place within the vowel system of [i y u], in the traditional orthography ie uu oe. In length they match what are usually classified as short vowels, except that they are distinctly longer before rC and clearly long, matching the traditional long vowels, before r. Various solutions have been proposed for this problem, which was singled out for special attention by Van Haeringen (1958) and by Heeroma (1959). Moulton (1962) summarizes the his- 1390 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER tory of the problem and proposes yet another solution. It is hard to read the stubborn attacks on this problem without feeling that since it evidently does not lend itself to a traditional phonemic solution at all, application of an entirely different phonological theory will some day make it evaporate. A closely related problem is the description of ee eu oo, which are phonetically somewhat diphthongized but 'sociologically' monophthongs; a too strongly diphthongal pronunciation is labeled as vulgar but a too monophthongal pronunciation as eastern-provincial. The phonetically very close ij ui ou, however, are 'sociologically' diphthongs, and a monophthongal pronunciation is labeled as affected urban. An account of various solutions to these problems appears in Moulton (1962). The most recent discussion of some of the difficulties is B.C. Damsteegt's "Fonologische twijfelpunten" (1968). Part at least of the continuing interest in the description of these six sounds stems from their status as the prime shibboleth of a cultured standard pronunciation. (2) Grammar. Nearly all grammars of Netherlandic aiming at some completeness of presentation of the customary divisions of grammar have been practical works meant for school or university use. This whole field is too well populated and too complex to allow easily a brief summary within our present scope. It is reviewed very sketchily by Van Haeringen in chapter 8, and much more fully and critically (though from a single point of view) throughout the lengthy introduction in De Witte and Wijngaards (1961). Most 'classical' school presentations make little or no attempt to formulate a specific theory supported by detailed observation of the language, though even a casual comparison of successive editions shows that expected penetration of structural influence partly by way of the periodical literature. The rest of this final section will survey the work of those who have attempted to develop an original, inclusive descriptive theory designed to fit the standard Nether- landic language. The disproportionate length of this section seems justified by Van Haeringen's reluctance to venture into the unwieldy realm of theories, but it is also intended as an antidote to his passionately tidy organization which has the effect of fragmenting beyond recognition the often untidy, meandering thought of some of the most original thinkers. Van Ginneken and Heeroma, both of whom ranged from phonetics through dialectology and literature and on into sociolinguistics, are mentioned, respectively, on sixteen and twenty separate occasions. Insofar as there is any particular order of priority in the following discussion, it is a purely subjective one that will certainly be at variance with any that would have been proposed by a native reviewer. The outstanding example of a theory that began in a pre-structuralist framework in the twenties and has thrived and formed an important independent school — the Groningse School — is that of Overdiep. In its general spirit, Overdiep's work recalls the Idealist current of the early decades of this century, particularly the German preoccupation with Innere Form. But whatever historical threads were present in the beginning became increasingly woven into an original and distinctly Netherlandic style of thought. For Overdiep diachronic and synchronic stand in an intimate NETHERLANDS AND FRISIAN 1391 relation; function is a more truly characteristic aspect of any language than is form, since it persists through the generations in spite of all the unpredictable formal changes such as loss of inflection. Overdiep's conviction that the growing edge of function is to be found in unassuming local forms of speech closely connected to everyday life takes concrete shape in his lengthy study of the dialect of Katwijk aan Zee (Overdiep 1940). The centrality of the idea of an inner form does not lead Overdiep into psychological generalizations but deep into the realm of colloquial syntax, the area in which he established his reputation. His major work, Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch (1949), provides not a guide to correct style but a study of the possible intent behind the endless variety of spoken style in different regions, at different levels, and in different stituations. Overdiep's ultimate interest remains nevertheless the standard written language in its function as national repository of linguistic means absorbed from the spoken variety. His theory is very strongly sentence-oriented, the 'word' being defined as merely an intellectual abstraction and an agreement between writer and reader which has significance only in the context of the sentence (Overdiep 1949:175). The same determined sentence orientation characterizes the work of G. A. van Es, Overdiep's successor and the present guiding spirit of the Groningen School. His most recent work (1966), a modest treatment of some syntactic problems, grew out of dissatisfaction with Overdiep's categories and announces Van Es' intention to set up a syntactic framework for an entirely new stylistic grammar. Synchrony and diachrony are related more explicitly, and the theory of the word has become subtler, each word being possessed of a form-meaning correlation recognized in sequence by the hearer who makes use of knowledge of the various syntactic potentials of individual words until understanding is complete at the end of the sentence. It will be interesting to see whether this straightforward, linear conception of the relation between word and sentence can be made to do the large-scale descriptive job that Van Es promises. Although structuralist currents entered into the Netherlandic scene in the work of De Groot and Van Ginneken concurrently with Overdiep's early work in the 1920s, in one sense the course of later structural description of the language was set by a series of questions asked during the early 30s and which have not yet been fully explored. The first of these was the dissertation of M.J. Langeveld, Taal en denken (1934), which mounted a frontal assault on the grammatical systems in use in the schools. Langeveld voiced the same complaint that has been heard in other circles outside The Netherlands — notably in Copenhagen — a few years previously: the classical definitions of word, part of speech, and sentence are unable to stand up under close scrutiny, especially in their application to the description of our modern ver- naculars. Langeveld's purpose was accordingly to point the way toward a set of concepts that would represent the Netherlandic language uniquely and be based on the acts of understanding underlying grammatical patterns. The large amount of space devoted to psychological theories such as that of Wundt is characteristic of the years that produced Gardiner's The theory of speech and language and Buhler's 1392 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER Sprachtheorie. Langeveld's argument does not rest on a naive assumption of some type of thought-content in every speech entity, but on the idea that the verbal world as a whole has an independence of its own via the abstracting function of the sign. The idea of the sign having as its principal function the overcoming of the 'time- boundness' of language was to be taken up two decades later by Pos. The sentence has the function of integrating separate acts of thought at a higher level, and understanding of the sentence is the fundamental linguistic act involving complex sets of perceptual and mental events. Although Langeveld's psychology is long since out of date, his method of attacking the problem of an autonomous grammatical description has had a profounder effect than his purely pedagogical investigation may have intended. Langeveld's book was followed in the next year by A. Reichling's dissertation, Het woord: Een studie omtrent de grondslag van taal en taalgebruik (1935), an overlong work that probably very few who quote it have had the determination to read from cover to cover but which even more than Langeveld's work placed a whole school of thought in its debt. The title could hardly have been better chosen to signal the single point Reichling makes in his entire 460 pages: the word occupies an absolutely unique position in the linguist's answers to questions such as, Where does the meaning aspect of language reside? What are linguistic thoughts? How does the sign-signalling function of language work? How can the investigator know what he finds? Whereas the word is unobservable in its capacity as a unity of form and meaning, its use represents its actual observability and the native speaker, who can be the investigator himself, knows the meaning of a word in a way which is unlike his knowledge of any other kind of meaning. The word is a gestalt, a unity, where for Reichling all linguistic structure is focused because it is in this unity that all meaning is focused; a phrase like 'word- meaning' is senseless, since referential meaning exists only in the word. The experien- tial whole of the word contrasts, for instance, with the situational meaning of the sentence, the Feld suggested by Biihler. Reichling's lengthy argument that word meaning is constant through all uses is too involved to summarize here. In his in- sistence that morphemes exist only via the meaning of the entire word and are not separate building blocks with separate meanings lies the germ of much of his later antagonism toward American structuralism. The problem of the linguist's knowledge of meaning is given brief discussion in "Meaning and introspection" (Reichling 1962), and many points raised in Het woord are brought up to date or modified in Verzamelde studies over hedendaagse problemen der taalwetenschap (Reichling 1967). Two recent dissertations written under Reichling's direction have focused more intensively on some of his own favorite ideas. J. S. ten Brinke (1963) takes up once again the problem of the linguist's knowledge of meaning, specifically in the realm of Bloomfield's distinction between lexical and grammatical forms. The book aims a few well-directed blows at the by now well-trounced American faith in observability. Mrs. Balk (Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst 1963) carries Reichling's theory of the unique centrality of the word considerably farther into the grammatical realm. Assuming NETHERLANDS AND FRISIAN 1393 as basic the speaker's knowledge of the word as a psychologically founded unity of form and meaning, the question is now what part this semantic understanding plays in grammatical distinctions. Since morphology derives its meaning only from the over-all word meaning itself, the grammatical functioning of word classes is based on a hierarchy of semantic functions discoverable in the speaker's understanding. In this fashion not only the parts of speech but units from the morpheme to the sentence are distinguished. Work with the philosophical foundations of description suggests one or two other names which, however, are concerned only marginally with the description of the Netherlandic language as such. The scholarly activity of H. J. Pos — who like De Groot, Van Ginneken, and Van Wijk began as a Prague-oriented structuralist in the 20s and 30s — revolved around the question of the nature of linguistic thought. His most general work is probably Inleiding in de taalwetenschap (Pos 1926), a presentation in dialogue form of the goals and methods of linguistics. Philosophically Pos might best be termed a phenomenologist searching for the nature of language as an object of consciousness the fundamental center of which — meaning — lies outside of time. One of Pos's most stimulating articles is "Taal en tijd", reprinted in a two- volume collection of his shorter writings (Pos 1957:150-67). Phenomenologically, language (or rather its langue aspect) is a totality that is not experienced in terms of ordinary temporal succession; thus a phenomenon that necessarily has its roots (that is, its phonetic realization) in the concrete reality of time nevertheless has its essential nature in its expression of a content lying outside of time. C. F. P. Stutterheim has also been influential in the philosophical field, especially through his dissertation, Het begrip metaphoor (1941), a thorough work unjustly ignored outside The Netherlands, his Inleiding tot de taal-philosophie (1949), numerous articles on descriptive problems and the concepts involved, and equally numerous essays on attitudes toward usage and correctness, some of which have been reprinted in Taalbeschouwing en taalbeheersing (1965). P. A. Verburg's Taal en functionaliteit (1952) deals with the history of views of language as a 'function' in the period between the Middle Ages and 1800, and some social aspects of language description are suggested in "Some remarks on 'communica- tion' and 'social' in language theory" (Verburg 1962). Without question, the most serious and persistent attempts to unite the many facets of description of a language within a single complete and coherent theory have been made by A. W. de Groot. Although De Groot was an early contributor to phonological theory and, as a classicist, to the study of versification, his first major effort toward the description of Netherlandic did not come until his Structurele syntaxis (De Groot 1965), first published in 1949 and recently reissued with an introduction by two of his former students. De Groot's major work, in which a comprehensive descriptive theory is envisioned and sketched in, is Inleiding tot de algemene taalwetenschap (1962), a work that has already received wide attention. One further publication of prime importance (De Groot 1966), consisting of essays published posthumously, contains some of his most penetrating observations on problems of meaning structure. 1394 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER The sustained theme of De Groot's writings is that language is first of all a semantic system of oppositional categories, and that morphological-syntactic oppositions run parallel to semantic oppositions. Most of his work can in fact be seen as a series of increasingly determined attempts to accept and further exploit all implications of this parallelism. We do not describe all that is observable or even verifiable, but look instead for kenmerken, formal indications that support the working hypothesis. We begin with the word, which is the smallest independent linguistic unity of form and meaning that is not part of the meaning of some more inclusive meaning-entity. Its meaning is discovered in its expressional potential, by introspection of the native speaker, and by its categorial value in the sentence. The relation between word and sentence is of course crucial and hence probably the most interesting point. De Groot's Structurele syntaxis and a good share of his Inleiding are devoted to the search for the structural principle of the sentence. The sentence is the smallest unit of language use, and fundamental to it is its attitudinal nature in contrast to the referential nature of the word. It consists of two layers, the objective one of word content and the subjective one of intonation. Though we cannot escape the obligation of describing the functional load of word order and the structure of the major construction types, we only begin at the point where we face the problem of how word meanings are structured by the framework of the sentence itself. The key to De Groot's style of thought seems to be in the view that various types of syntactic units participate in privative oppositions. This is certainly true of the parts of speech and probably for various syntactic features as well. The distinguishing characteristics of various types of construction are expressed in the fruitful concept of valence, the sets of syntactic combinatory possibilities characteristic of each class. While the choice of this word perhaps un- consciously betrays a certain synthetic rather than analytic bias, De Groot's interest in any unit is fixed on its ultimate placing in the syntactic context. De Groot's semantic-syntactic approach has proved particularly contagious among younger investigators, a number of whom were co-workers at his institute in Utrecht carrying on a variety of studies in Netherlandic grammar which were ultimately to develop into the full description of the language that was envisioned by Langeveld and raised to the rigorous level by De Groot. The only product of this cooperative endeavor, which De Groot himself plainly thought of as still in the preparatory ground- clearing stages, was Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands (De Groot et al. 1963), the first volume of the new linguistic series Acta linguistica Rheno-trajectina. The identity of inspiration notwithstanding, these eight studies vary somewhat in quality, and they range through grammatical problems from individual parts of speech to syntactic constructions. Two dissertations are particularly interesting, those of H. Roose and G. F. Bos, De Groot's scholarly executors who saw to the reissuing of his Structurele syntaxis and the editing of his posthumous work. Roose (1964) follows De Groot's hypothesis concerning the parallelism of meaning and grammatical valence, and takes up the difficult problem of the description of the adverb. Roose briefly moves on to the even NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN 1395 pricklier territory of a functional classification of all the parts of speech according to essentially binary oppositions. Mrs. Bos (1964) examines the compound sentence, viewing the sentence as an independent auditory-structural unit with both referential and attitudinal function. The particular combination of these functions involved in the phenomenon of subordination leads to the application of the idea of primary and secondary semantic function. This idea, which was applied by De Groot to the semantics of case relationships (and which appears to be derived from Kurylowicz), leads to many stimulating if speculative insights. A good sample of the De Groot style of reasoning as elaborated by Bos appears in "The coordinative construction in modern Dutch" (1962), and an interesting study of the crossing of formal and attitudinal features is Bos's article in the above-mentioned Studies (De Groot et al. 1963:174-94). The De Groot Festschrift contains another article on the same subject, A. G. F. van Hoik's "Referential and attitudinal constructions" (1962). A contrast to De Groot's strongly paradigmatic leaning is offered by the consistently syntagmatic model of E. M. Uhlenbeck. While he stands close to De Groot in sub- scribing to the primacy of word meaning, Uhlenbeck bases his syntactic theory on a segmentation procedure that follows what he considers to be the linear order of the hearer's understanding of the sentence. Proceeding 'left to right', the decoder per- forms a gradual synthesis of the content, making it the linguist's task to account for understanding of the various grammatical devices as they occur. These devices are intonation, morphological means such as affixation, and order of elements. Purely formal indications of meaning are, however, not enough, and situational data are therefore necessary as well. Uhlenbeck's contributions, which are not mentioned by Van Haeringen in spite of their indisputable influence, include "Traditionele zinsontleding en syntaxis" (1958), "De beginselen van het syntactisch onderzoek" (1962), and "Betekenis en syntaxis" (1964). The theory was represented and discussed at the 9th International Congress of Linguists (Reichling and Uhlenbeck 1964). The second of Uhlenbeck's articles just mentioned appeared, incidentally, in a noteworthy collection of essays, Taalonderzoek in onze tijd, summarizing recent linguistic thought in the fields of theory of meaning (Reichling), syntax (Uhlenbeck), phonology (Van den Berg), dialectology (Weijnen), lexicology (F. de Tollenaere); the collection closes with some ruminations on divergent attitudes toward what linguistics is all about (C. Soeteman). Although H. Schultink wrote his dissertation (1962) under Uhlenbeck, its general style of thought is more reminiscent of De Groot and perhaps even Reichling in its focus on paradigmatic morphology rather than syntax. Schultink explores the combinatory possibilities (valences) of non-composite adjectives, incidentally denying any distinction between derivation and inflection. The form-meaning correlation operates via the unity of the word rather than via syntactic context; to belabor Schultink's image, it is probably not unfair to say that his valence is oriented toward the nucleus rather than out toward other atoms and their interconnecting forces. The whole style of thought is geometrical, even Rationalistically visual, but the productivity of adjec- tive morphology stands in sharp focus. 1396 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER H.F.A. van der Lubbe's Woordvolgorde in het Nederlands (1965) has proved particularly influential in the ten years since its first appearance as a dissertation. The question asked here is rather formidable: How do we go about discovering the linguistic role of the temporal order of elements in the sentence and the changes in understanding brought about by rearrangements of this order. Fundamental to Van der Lubbe's approach is the centrality of the phrase, a point which separates him from all others mentioned up to this point. A phrase (and this includes the subject-predicate axis) is a combination of words, syntagmatically connected or not, whose semantic connection is indicated by some syntactic criteria. The various types of phrases can be seen in terms of privative oppositions involving the dichotomies predicating vs. non-predicating, exocentric vs. endocentric, and several others. The bulk of Van der Lubbe's discussion is devoted to the problem of relations of modification between the members of such phrases, especially as they are manifested in terms of differences in linear arrangement. The analysis has some resemblance to classical IC analysis except that the procedure is always within the context of the over-all sentence frame rather than a continually expanding system of larger units. Numerous contributions to grammatical description have also been made by B. van den Berg, who however is probably still better known for his phonological work. Van den Berg joins many members of a somewhat younger generation in emphasizing a sentence orientation at the expense of the type of word orientation exemplified by Reichling and Langeveld, whose goal was to determine the 'thought' even in syntactic function words such as dat or er. Van den Berg (1963) has analyzed the sentence structures in a play, working with a scheme of place possibilities rather than thought- functions. His school-oriented Beknopte Nederlandse spraakkunst (1967) also shows that, like Uhlenbeck, Van der Lubbe, and others, Van den Berg deviates somewhat from the typically Netherlandic form of structuralism in his emphasis on distribution. F. G. Droste has identified his name with work on semantic problems. His dissertation (Droste 1956) wrestles with some of the difficult problems of the semantics of modal auxiliaries. Here, and in a study (1958) of the Netherlandic tense system, Droste attempts to abstract relevant semantic dimensions from various formal oppositions. A semantic analysis of the Dutch tenses is offered by C.L. Ebeling (1962). A structuralist who has gone entirely his own way among Netherlandic linguists is P. C. Paardekooper. His magnum opus now consists of four volumes, which have appeared regularly every two years: ABN-spraakkunst: Voorstudies (Paardekooper 1958-62). The book that is now counted as the first of the four volumes appeared in 1955 as a separate study under the title Syntaxis, spraakkunst en taalkunde. The gradual shifts that have taken place over the years, plus Paardekooper's headlong style and reluctance to take serious account of competing points of view, make it difficult to formulate a summarizing statement. In general, Paardekooper's work aims, like that of many others, at a new theoretical foundation for syntax together with an adequate description of modern Netherlandic. Though he superficially appears to follow a Copenhagen style of thought in making an initial division into phonemic vs. NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN 1397 syntactic and then further into syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic, the concepts are not sharply delineated. The actual descriptive procedure is a modified place-category technique which leads to a certain devaluation of morphology. Paardekooper is unflinchingly original and independent, and though his personal style may have undeservedly lessened his prestige among his compatriots, his habit of bringing up disquieting problems and letting the challenge to a better solution stand has been a healthy one. One further description in the grand manner is A. J. J. de Witte and N. C. H. Wijn- gaards, De struktuur van het Nederlands (1961). The subtitle, Een evolutief-klassieke synthese, is obviously meant to be taken seriously, since nearly a third of the book is devoted to a discussion — enlightening in itself — of the principles of modern grammatical description and of the possibility of a synthesis between the Classical vision of grammar and modern 'European and structural' linguistics. The grammatical description that occupies the rest of the book is based on Br0ndalesque categories derived from a study of the semantemes of the language, all signaling elements from morphophonemic alternations to the sentence and its formal features. The reader will be the best judge of the extent to which Netherlandic linguistic work might have made lasting contributions. It can fairly be said, in summary, that under the stimulus of the many currents of structural thought of the 20s and 30s a vigorous and intellectually lively native descriptive tradition took root. Netherlandic linguistics had its own Sapir and its own Bloomfield and has evolved something like a distinc- tively Netherlandic style of talking about linguistic matters. This distinctness might be found in the embracing of the standard language of North and South in an almost existential way but without losing sight of the necessity to bind the speaker's understanding firmly to the most rigorous descriptive method. This very vigor of the native linguistic tradition seems to have prevented generative grammar from making any very strong impact yet. The whole generative approach has been subjected to a critique by Reichling in "Grondslagen en methoden der syntaxis: het kryptanalytisch formalisme", one of the essays in Verzamelde studies (Reichling 1967), which appeared in English as "Principles and methods of syntax: Cryptanalytical formalism" (Reichling 1961); Reichling's word orientation makes a lack of sympathy inevitable, and his criticism seems curiously beside the point. More fundamental objections are raised by Uhlenbeck in "An appraisal of transformation theory" (1963). Aside from a few specialized subjects such as A. van Katwijk, "A grammar of Dutch number names"(1965) and H.Brandt Corstius, "Automatic translation of numbers into Dutch" (1965), nothing of substance appeared until the publication of A. Kraak's dissertation Negatieve zinnen (1966). Nearly half the book is occupied by the customary disposal of previous syntactic work, in this case mainly Uhlenbeck. The main part of the work draws some interesting comparisons between the concepts of negation and quantification as viewed grammatically and logically, and the relations between complete sets of positive and the corresponding negative statements are investigated. Kraak's work was recently presented to a larger public 1398 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER in English in a detailed review article by P. A. M.Seuren, "Negation in Dutch" (1967). A. Kraak and W.G. Klooster, Syntaxis (1968) is an application of the generative approach to a selection of problems in Netherlandic grammar and aimed at the university level. It appeared while these lines were being written, and it is too early to assess its effect or reception yet.

FRISIAN

The most immediately evident fact about linguistic work on Frisian is its international character. A ready illustration of this is provided by the nationalities of the contributors to Fryske studzjes, a Festschrift for J. H. Brouwer, who was professor of Frisian at Groningen University (Brouwer 1960). There are nineteen authors who write in Frisian or who have Frisian names, fourteen from the rest of the Netherlands, four from Belgium, eight from Germany, two from Sweden, one each from Norway and Denmark, two from England, and one from the U.S. This situation has an interesting double explanation. On the one hand, Frisian attracts purely scholarly interest because of the importance of its place in the Germanic field, all the more since, as one writer put it, Frisian has long been the 'Cinderella' of this language family (Miedema 1961:7, 288). On the other hand there is a strong current of interest in Frisianity which even in the modern period is not without a Romantic undercurrent. Today there are only scattered remnants along the coasts of Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands of a language that in Roman times seems to have been spoken in a continuous area down into present-day Belgium. As already mentioned, Frisian is today still a vigorously living language in the Dutch province of Friesland, where its present recognition required a continuing struggle not unlike that waged on behalf of Netherlandic in Belgium. The story of this struggle is told in The Frisian movement: Yesterday, today, tomorrow (Anon. 1963), published at the same time also in Dutch, French, and German. The historic independence of the Frisian tribes has not been forgotten, and reminders of it not only served to focus resistance to Dutch linguistic domination but still contribute to a Frisian national consciousness that extends beyond the borders of The Netherlands. Whether the center of gravity of the present international company of Frisianists lies in austere philology or in loyalty to an ethnic heritage (which may in fact amount to almost the same thing), this company continues to produce work worthy of attention. For our present purpose it will be most convenient to divide the history of work on Frisian into two periods, the first extending up to World War II and the second from the war to the present. For the first period, H. T. J. Miedema's dissertation Paedwizers fan de fryske filology (1961) provides a thorough documentation of Frisian philology down to 1940, spending some time on Humanism and Romanticism but concentrating on the serious work that began with the Neogrammarians and culminated in the two 'pathfinders', Theodor Siebs and F. Buitenrust Hettema. Unluckily for the uninitiated, NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN 1399 the book is written in Frisian; because of the impossibility of summarizing in a few pages a work that includes a great amount of historical detail, Miedema restricted himself to a six-page German summary entitled "Siebs und Hettema und ihre Bedeu- tung fur die friesische Philologie". The general drift of Miedema's book is exactly what the title promises, a history of the study of Frisian language and literature, including the many scattered dialects and dialect remnants discovered during this period. The study of Frisian is seen in its logical connection with the Romantic movement and in turn with the struggle for the Frisian language that is still being carried on. Altogether the book has somewhat the tone of an epic, with chapters entitled "The Neogrammarians", "Study and struggle in Greifswald and Zwolle", "Climax and turning point", and "Others to the fore". The principal investigators appear in the roles of heroes, and the numbers of minor figures, the publications and university chairs become the strategic deployment of forces carrying forward the destinies of the Frisian language. Within this imaginatively conceived framework, Miedema discusses and places in perspective a surprisingly wide variety of works dealing with every aspect of philology from phonetics to jurisprudence, and assesses the impact of such general European intellectual trends as Positivism and Idealism. Miedema's last period, 1920-40, follows the one he considers the real climax but includes the appearance on the scene of Holthausen, Borchling, Rooth, and some Scan- dinavian scholars. This period shows an increasing variety of studies of not only West Frisian but also North and East Frisian dialects, a single representative of all of which, dealing with one of the most intensively studied dialects, might be J. Schmidt-Petersen and J.C. Craigie, The North Frisian dialect of Fohr and Amrum (1928). Even prior to this period, the multiplicity of Frisian dialects held considerable phonetic interest, and those of Grouw, Hindeloopen and Schiermonnikoog were described phonetically by L.P.H. Eijkman, one of the formost Dutch phoneticians; Siebs himself undertook some of the earliest machine recording of Frisian dialects, and in this period published Friesische Sprachproben (1931), a transcription of Wen- ker's first seven sentences in each of fifteen dialects. On the literary side, this period shows an active continuation of work on the language of the Frisian poet Gysbert Japiks (1603-66) which began in the Romantic period. The second main period, which begins at the point where Miedema's study leaves off, can be seen as a fulfillment of much that his epic treatment points toward. The Fryske Akademy was founded in 1938, the year after Frisian instruction was per- mitted for the first time in the schools of the province. Brouwer became professor of Frisian in Groningen in 1941, an event which resulted in the founding of the Frysk Ynstittit as a center of Frisian studies. At present this institute is a collecting point for a large quantity of material for an Old Frisian dictionary and for historical materials relating to Frisian philology. A wide variety of texts on subjects relating to literature, folklore, and linguistics in any period from Old Frisian to the present appears in the irregular series Estrikken: Rige lytse teksten en studzjes op it medfan de Fryske filology, formannichfaldige op it Frysk Ynstitut oan de R. U. to Grins. The Institute also pub- 1400 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER lishes Oudfriese taal- en rechtsbronnen and a newly established series of longer works called Stins-rige. The formal organ of the institute is Us Wurk, which began publication in 1952. This journal again reflects the international interest mentioned above: the language of publication is Frisian, but nearly every issue contains an article or two in Dutch, French, German, or English. Though the Estrikken and Us Wurk are not the only outlets for work on Frisian, a brief resumé of some of the more interesting items that have appeared there as well as in the Brouwer Festschrift might give an adequate picture of the character of the second period. The first three of the six groups of contributions in Fryske studzjes (Brouwer 1960), most of the Estrikken, and probably half of the publications in Us Wurk continue the mainstream philological tradition with problems ranging from the identification and influence of the coastal tribes that first appear in history under the name of Ingvaeones — the debate on the substratum effect of whose language is summarized by Van Haeringen in chapter 13 — down to the eighteenth century. The rather improbable conjoining of generative grammar and Old Frisian is attempted by R. van de Velde (1966). One of the most interesting of the linguistic and sociological problems in the history of Frisian is the origin of stedsk, an urban variety of Frisian that arose mainly in the capital city of Ljouwert (Leeuwarden) and that is generally presumed to be due to strong incursions of Dutch speakers in the cities as early as the fifteenth century. The problem of its origin was first taken up by K. Fokkema in his dissertation Het stadsfries (1937). J. J. Hof's study in the Estrikken series Dit en dat oer it stedsk (1956) takes the position that Frisian speakers adapted their speech to the North-Holland dialect rather than to more cultivated urban speech of the fifteenth century. This position was in turn challenged by Fokkema, who in "Hof en it untstean fan it Ljouwerters" (Brouwer 1960:137-43) pointed out considerable discrepancies between stedsk and North-Holland dialect and made a case for the Frisian city speech in fact preserving conservative traits. Between Hof's Friesche dialectgeographie (1933), the earliest detailed geographical treatment of Frisian dialects, and Fokkema and Spahr van der Hoek's Taelatlas fan de wàlden (1967), twelve maps of a section of Friesland with linguistic and historical commentary, the intensity of interest in Frisian dialects has continued at a level that makes it possible to consider dialect studies the primary specialization of Frisian linguists. Two larger studies — which incidentally show a gradually increasing domi- nance of the field by scholars in The Netherlands — are B. de Boer's dissertation Studie over het dialect van Hindeloopen (1950) and G. Knop's De spraakkunst der Terschellinger dialecten (1954). Section 5 of Fryske Studzjes contains several dialect studies, including North Frisian island dialects, that of Wyk on the island of Fohr, that of Terschelling and the Dutch-Frisian dialect of Het Bildt. Recent dictionairies of North and East Frisian dialects are those of Kramer (1961) for Saterland, Krog- mann (1957) for Helgoland, Arfsten (1965) for Fòhr, and J0rgensen (1955) for Bòkingharde-Karrharde. Recent issues of Us Wurk contain Arne Spenter's "Zur Distribution der Phoneme der Schiermonnikooger Mundart" (1967) and P.Kramer's NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN 1401 "De Sealter luden" (1968), a brief phonological description of the Saterland dialect in Germany. The bibliographies of all these articles will provide a fair picture of the nature of the periodical and monograph literature appearing particularly in The Netherlands and Germany. An up-to-date, complete bibliography is provided by Arhammar in Friesische Dialektologie (1967). In addition, K. Fokkema's regular summaries of work on Frisian in Friesisches Jahrbuch should be mentioned. The articles by Spenter and Kramer just mentioned give evidence of another persistent interest, the phonological one that grew out of early phonetic descriptions by Eijkman and others, via such early structural descriptions as G. Knop's "De phonologische beschrijving van het Westerschellingsch" (1938). Descriptive efforts between that time and the present have culminated in Fokkema's two chapters on Frisian in Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries (Cohen et al. 1961:107-39). That the discussion is by no means to be regarded as closed, however, is indicated by the imme- diate reactions to Fokkema's formulation by Van Coetsem (1960) and Hoekema (1961). A phonological crux in most Frisian dialects is the rising and falling diphthongs that often stand in complex morphophonemic relations to each other. They form an important part of any description of Frisian and occupy a place of honor in all the grammars. Some phonetic aspects of them are discussed briefly by G.L. Meinsma in "Fonetyske oantekeningen ta ienluden en twaluden" (Brouwer 1960: 351-3), and T. Hoekema continues the discussion in the above-mentioned article and in "Fonologyske wurdpearen mei 'op- en delgeande twieluden'" (Hoekema 1962). Miedema reviews the problem in "De Nieuwfriese 'breking' en zijn verspreiding" (1958). The matter of the ideal spelling for modern West Frisian is still not settled, partly due to the problem posed by morphophonemic alternations. A proposed new spelling is presented in a series of recent articles by Miss A. Feitsma, "Om in nije stavering" (1958-59) and "De partysypaasje yn de fryske fonology" (1966). The history and state of grammar writing is also to be found in Miedema (1961), making it necessary to mention here only the best known and most recent. Probably the most used has been P. Sipma, Phonology and grammar of Modern West Frisian (1913); a later work of Sipma's is Ta it Frysk (1948-49). A grammar of comparable scope is O. H. Sytstra and J.J. Hof's Nieuwe Friesche spraakkunst (1925), a work that was not superseded until the appearance of Fokkema's Beknopte Friese spraakkunst (1948), which contains considerable material on syntax and some 40 pages of phonetically transcribed text. The most recent addition to the list of Frisian grammars is J. Anglade, Petit manuel de Frison Moderne de VOuest (1966). One very noticeable feature of Frisian linguistic work is its sparse representation in the syntactic-semantic area; study of the language has produced very little of the lively form-meaning debate that has long characterized Netherlandic linguistics. One possible and obvious explanation is simply the preoccupation of Frisianists with phonology on the one hand and lexicology on the other, areas where descriptive and historical methods are perhaps equally relevant. Another, considerably more speculative, explanation would be in terms of the large-scale syntactic calquing on Nether- 1402 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER landic that has occurred over many centuries and that makes a uniquely Frisian syntax increasingly harder to distinguish. There are signs of increasing interest in this area, however, and we have reason to hope for the growth of theoretical insights in the years to come.

REFERENCES

ANGLADE, J. 1966. Petit manuel de Frison moderne de l'Ouest. Stins-rige 1. Groningen. ANONYMOUS. 1963. The Frisan movement: Yesterday, today, tomorrow. Ljouwert, Ried Fryske Biweging. ARFSTEN, R. 1965. Fering Wurdenbuk. Bredstedt, Nordfriisk Instituut. ARHAMMAR, N. 1967. Friesische Dialektologie. ZMaF 5. BALK-SMIT DUYZENTKUNST, F. 1963. De grammatische functie: Methode van gram- maticale analyse, aan het Nederlands gedemonstreerd. Groningen, Wolters. BECH, GUNNAR. 1952. Über das niederländische Adverbialpronomen er. TCLC 8.) Copenhagen. BERG, B. VAN DEN. 1963. Onderzoekingen betreffende de zinsbouw van het Neder- lands. The Hague, Van Goor. . 1964. Foniek van het Nederlands. 4th ed. The Hague, Van Goor. . 1967. Beknopte Nederlandse spraakkunst. 5th ed. The Hague, Van Goor. BERITS, J. 1964. Honderd jaar spellingstrijd: De Nederlandse spelling sinds 1863. 2nd ed. Groningen, Wolters. BLANCQUAERT, E. 1957. Praktische uitspraakleer van de Nederlandse taal. Antwerp, De Sikkel. BOER, B. DE. 1950. Studie over het dialect van Hindeloopen. Assen, Van Gorcum. Bos, G.F. 1962. The coordinative construction in Modern Dutch. Studia gratulatoria dedicated to Albert Willem de Groot (= Lingua 11.45-58). . 1964. Het probleem van de samengestelde zin. The Hague, Mouton. BRANDT CORSTIUS, H. 1965. Automatic translation of numbers into Dutch. FL 1.59-62. BRINKE, J. S. TEN. 1963. Onafhankelijke en afhankelijke grootheden in het taalgebruik: Een beschouwing van de theorie van Bloomfield betreffende de 'lexical' en 'grammatical forms'. Groningen, Wolters. BROM, GERARD. 1955. Boekentaal. VKNA 62/1. BROUWER, J.H. 1960. Fryske stüdzjes oanbean oan Prof. dr. J.H. Brouwer op syn sechstichste jierdei 23 augustus 1960. Assen, Van Gorcum. CARON, W.J.H. 1964. Petrus Montanus, De spreeckonst. Trivium 5. Groningen, Wolters. COETSEM, F. VAN. 1960. Enkele kanttekeningen bij een nieuw werk over de fonologie van het Fries. Us Wurk 9.43-8. COHEN, A., C.L. EBELING, K. FOKKEMA, and A. G. F. VAN HOLK. 1961. Fonologie NETHERLANDS AND FRISIAN 1403 van het Nederlands en het Fries: Inleiding tot de moderne klankleer. 2nd ed. The Hague, Nijhoff. DAMSTEEGT, B.C. 1968. Fonologische twijfelpunten. NTg 61.26-33. DROSTE, F. G. 1956. Moeten: Een structureel semantische Studie. Groningen, Wol- ters. . 1958. Het temporele stelsel van het moderne Nederlands. NTg 51.305-12. EBELING, C.L. 1962. A semantic analysis of the Dutch tenses. Studia gratulatoria dedicated to Albert Willem de Groot (= Lingua 11.86-99). EIJKMAN, L.P.H. 1955. Phonetiek van het Nederlands. 2nd ed. Haarlem, Bohn. Es, G. A. VAN. 1966. Nederlandse syntaxis in klein bestek. Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink. FEITSMA, A. 1958-59. Om in nije stavering. Us Wurk 7.34-9, 86-90; 8.8-15. . 1966. De partysypaasje yn de fryske fonology. Us Wurk 15.106-8. FOKKEMA, K. 1937. Het stadsfries: Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis en de grammatica van het dialect van Leeuwarden. (Friesch-Saksische Bibliotheek, 2.) Assen, Van Gorcum. . 1948. Beknopte Friese spraakkunst. Groningen, Wolters. , and J.J. SPAHR VAN DER HOEK. 1967. Taelatlas fan de wälden. Assen, Van Gorcum. GINNEKEN, J. VAN. 1934. De phonologie van het algemeen Nederlandsch. Onze Taaltuin 2.321-40, 353-65. . 1943. De Studie der Nederlandsche streektalen. Amsterdam, Elsevier. GROOT, A. W. DE. 1931. De wetten der phonologie en hun betekenis voor de Studie van het Nederlands. NTg 25.225-43. . 1962. Inleiding tot de algemene taalwetenschap, tevens inleiding tot de grammatica van het hedendaagse Nederlands. Groningen, Wolters. . 1965. Structurele syntaxis. 2nd ed. The Hague, Servire. . 1966. Betekenis en betekenisstructuur: Nagelaten geschriften van Prof. dr. A. W. de Groot. Groningen, Wolters. , et al. 1963. Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands. Acta Linguistica Rheno-trajectina 1. The Hague, Mouton. GROOTAERS, L. 1950. Album Grootaers: Aangeboden aan Prof. dr. Ludovic Groot- aers, hoogleraar aan de Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, bij zijn vijf en zestigste verjaring. N. p. HAERINGEN, C. B. VAN. 1958. De plaats van ie, oe en uu in het Nederlandse klinker- stelsel. Album Edgard Blancquaert, 159-64. Tongeren, Michiels. . 1960. Netherlandic language research: Men and works in the study of Dutch. 2nd ed. Leiden, Brill. . 1962a. Neerlandica: Verspreide opstellen. 2nd ed. The Hague, Van Daamen. . 1962b. Gramarie: Keur uit het werk van zijn hoogleraarstijd. Assen, Van Gorcum. HEEROMA, K. 1959. De plaats van ie, oe en uu in het Nederlandse klinkersysteem. NTg 52.297-304. 1404 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER . 1963. Der Mensch in seiner Sprache. Witten, Luther. . 1967. Nader tot een taaltheologie. Fakulteitenreeks 7. The Hague, Bakker. HELLINGA, W. GS. 1937. De opbouw van de algemeen beschaafde uitspraak van het Nederlands. Amsterdam. HOEKEMA, T. 1961. In pear fonologyske opmerkingen. Us Wurk 10.19-21. . 1962. Fonologyske wurdpearen mei 'op- en delgeande twielüden'. Us Wurk 11.1-3. HOF, J.J. 1933. Friesche dialectgeographie. The Hague, Nijhoff. . 1956. Dit en dat oer it stedsk. Estrikken 17. Groningen, Frysk Ynstitüt. HOLK, A. G. F. VAN. 1962. Referential and attitudinal constructions. Studia gratulatoria dedicated to Albert Willem de Groot (= Lingua 11.165-82). J0RGENSEN, V.T. 1955. Frasch-Tjüsch-Dänsk Uurdebök. Husum. KATWDK, A. VAN. 1965. A grammar of Dutch number names. FL 1.51-8. KLOEKE, G.G. 1927. De Hollandsche expansie in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw en haar weerspiegeling in de hedendaagsche Nederlandsche dialecten. The Hague, Nijhoff. . 1952. Yerzamelde opstellen van Prof. dr. G.G. Kloeke als feestgave aan de schrijver aangeboden bij zijn 65ste verjaardag. Assen, Van Gorcum. KNOP, G. 1938. De phonologische beschrijving van het Westerschellingsch. Onze Taaltuin 7.363-77, 8.11-22. . 1954. De spraakkunst der Terschellinger dialecten. Taalkundige Bijdragen van Noord en Zuid 6. Assen, Van Gorcum. KOUWER, B.J. 1961. Onaangename situaties. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden N.R. 16.117-25. KRAAK, A. 1966. Negatieve zinnen: Een methodologische en grammatische analyse. Hilversum, De Haan. , and W. G. KLOOSTER. 1968. Syntaxis. Culemborg, Stam-Kemperman. KRAMER, P. 1961. Seelter Woudebouk: Seeltersk-Düütsk-Wäästfräisk. Ljouwert. . 1968. De Sealter lüden. Us Wurk 17.21^. KROGMANN, W. 1957. Helgoländer Wörterbuch. Lieferung 1-4. Wiesbaden. LANGEVELD, M.J. 1934. Taal en denken: Een theoretiese en didaktiese bijdrage tot het onderwijs in de moedertaal op de Middelbare School, inzonderheid tot dat der grammatika. Didaktische Monographieen 4. Groningen, Wolters. LINTHORST, P., and G. LEERKAMP. 1966. De zuivere uitspraak van het Nederlands. 7th ed. Groningen, Wolters. LOEY, A. VAN. 1960. Schönfeld's Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. 6th ed. Zutphen, Thieme. . 1968. Inleiding tot de historische klankleer van het Nederlands. Zutphen, Thieme. LÜBBE, H.F.A. VAN DER. 1965. Woordvolgorde in het Nederlands: Een synchrone structurele beschouwing. 2nd ed. Assen, Van Gorcum. MIEDEMA, H.T.J. 1958. De Nieuwfriese 'breking' en zijn verspreiding. TeT 10. 148-56. NETHERLANDIC AND FRISIAN 1405 . 1961. Paedwizers fan de Fryske filology. Ljouwert, Van der Velde. MIRONOV, S.A. 1967. Morfologija imeni v niderlandskomjazyke. Moscow, Akade- mija Nauk. MOULTON, W. G. 1962. The vowels of Dutch: Phonetic and distributional classes. Studia gratulatoria dedicated to Albert Willem de Groot (= Lingua 11.294-312). OVERDIEP, G. S. 1940. De volkstaal van Katwijk aan Zee. Antwerp, Standaard- Boekhandel. . 1949. Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. 2nd ed., ed. by G. A. van Es. Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink. PAARDEKOOPER, P. C. 1955. Syntaxis, spraakkunst en taalkunde. Den Bosch, Malm- berg. . 1958-62. ABN-Spraakkunst: Voorstudies. Vol. 2 (1958), vol. 3 (1960), vol. 4 (1962). Den Bosch, Malmberg. PAUWELS, J.L. 1965. Verzamelde opstellen aangeboden aan de auteur ter gelegen- heid van zijn 65e verjaardag. Assen, Van Gorcum. Pos, H.J. 1926. Inleiding in de taalwetenschap. Volksuniversiteitsbibliotheek 36. Haarlem, Bohn. . 1957. Keur uit de verspreide geschriften van Dr. H. J. Pos. 2 vols. Arnhem, Van Loghum Slaterus. REICHLING, ANTON. 1935. Het woord: Een Studie omtrent de grondslag van taal en taalgebruik. Nijmegen, Berkhout. . 1961. Principles and methods of syntax: Cryptanalytical formalism. Lingua 10.1-17. . 1962. Meaning and introspection. Studia gratulatoria dedicated to Albert Willem de Groot (= Lingua 11.333-9). . 1967. Verzamelde studies over hedendaagse Problemen der taalwetenschap. 3rd ed. Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink. , and E.M. UHLENBECK. 1964. Fundamentals of syntax. PICL 9.166-71. The Hague, Mouton. ROOSE, H. 1964. Het probleem van de woordsoorten, in het bijzonder van het bij- woord in het Nederlands. Acta Linguistica Rheno-trajectina 3. The Hague, Mouton. ROYEN, GERLACH. 1947-54. Buigingsverschijnselen in het Nederlands. VKNA 49/3, 52, 58/1-2, 59/3. SCHMIDT-PETERSEN, J., and J.C. CRAIGIE. 1928. The North Frisian dialect of Föhr and Amrum. Edinburgh, Hutchen. SCHULTINK, H. 1962. De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern Nederlands. The Hague, Van Goor. SEUREN, PIETER A. M. 1967. Negation in Dutch. Nph 51.327-63. SIEBS, THEODOR. 1931. Friesische Sprachproben. Die Friesen, ed. by C. Borchling and R. Muuss. Breslau. 1406 WILLIAM Z. SHETTER

SIPMA, P. 1913. Phonology and grammar of Modern West Frisian, with phonetic texts and glossary. Philological Society Publications 2. London, Oxford University. . 1948-49. Ta it Frysk. Ljouwert, Van der Velde. SPENTER, ARNE. 1967. Zur Distribution der Phoneme der Schiermonnikooger Mundart. Us Wurk 16.84-6. STUTTERHEIM, C. F. P. 1941. Het begrip metaphoor: Een taalkundig en wijsgerig onderzoek. Amsterdam. . 1949. Inleiding tot de taal-philosophie. Antwerp, Standaard-Boekhandel. . 1965. Taalbeschouwing en taalbeheersing. 2nded. Amsterdam, Polak & Van Gennep. SYTSTRA, O.H., and J.J. HOF. 1925. Nieuwe Friesche spraakkunst. Leeuwarden, Van der Velde. UHLENBECK, E. M. 1958. Traditionele zinsontleding en syntaxis. LT 1958.18-30. . 1962. De beginselen van het syntactisch onderzoek. Taalonderzoek in onze tijd, pp. 17-37. The Hague, Servire. . 1963. An appraisal of transformation theory. Lingua 12.1-18. . 1964. Betekenis en syntaxis. FdL 5.67-82. VELDE, R. VAN DE. 1966. Transformatie en idiosynchronie: Kanttekeningen bij de transformationeel-generatieve metode en haar toepasbaarheid op de Oudfriese 'phrase structure grammar'. Us Wurk 15.90-101. VERBÜRG, P.A. 1952. Taal en functionaliteit: Een historisch-critische studie over de opvattingen aangaande de functies der taal vanaf de prae-humanistische philologie van Orleans tot de rationalistische linguistiek van Bopp. Wageningen, Veenman. VOOYS, C. G. N. DE. 1924-25. Verzamelde taalkundige opstellen. 2 vols. Groningen, Wolters. . 1952. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. 5th ed. Antwerp, De Sikkel. WEIJNEN, A. 1958. Nederlandse dialectkunde. Taalkundige bijdragen van Noord en Zuid 10. Assen, Van Gorcum. —1962. Hedendaags dialectonderzoek. Taalonderzoek in onze tijd, 55-82. The Hague, Servire. WIJK, N. VAN. 1965. Phonologie: Een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap. 2nd ed. The Hague, Nijhoff. WITTE, A. J. J. DE, and N. C. H. WIJNGAARDS. 1961. De struktuur van het Nederlands: Een evolutief-klassieke synthese. 's-Hertogenbosch, Malmberg.