Implementation and acceptance of national language policy: the case of Dutch (1750–1850)

Rutten, Gijsbert; Krogull, Andreas; Schoemaker, Bob

doi:10.1007/s10993-019-09527-y

Cited by 40 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results generally signal a normative ‘Weiland effect’ on the use of the Dutch genitive case, at least to a certain degree and with some internal restrictions. Importantly, though, the observed effectiveness of official prescriptions with respect to the genitive case is fairly subtle compared to the more drastic developments attested for various orthographic variables, coherently shifting in the direction of the official spelling rules by Siegenbeek (1804) in a short period of time ( Krogull 2018a , 2018b ; Rutten et al 2020 ). Examples include the shift from <d> to <dt> for final /t/ in d -stem verbs (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…(2017) argue that the 1805 grammar of Dutch did not exert a strong influence on the use of relative pronouns in a corpus of historical Dutch of the time. Krogull (2018a , 2018b ) and Rutten et al. (2020) , however, show that a strong influence of the official norms can be assumed for various orthographic variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Dutch case therefore also allows us to empirically assess the significance of implementation and acceptance in the sense of Haugen (1966 , 1987) , which have not attracted the amount of historical-sociolinguistic attention they deserve (cf. Rutten et al 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reviving the genitive. Prescription and practice in the Netherlands (1770–1840)

Krogull

Rutten

2020

Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historical metalinguistic discourse is known to often prescribe linguistic variants that are not very frequent in actual language use, and to proscribe frequent variants. Infrequent variants that are promoted through prescription can be innovations, but they can also be conservative forms that have already largely vanished from the spoken language and are now also disappearing in writing. An extreme case in point is the genitive case in Dutch. This has been in decline in usage from at least the thirteenth century onwards, gradually giving way to analytical alternatives such as prepositional phrases. In the grammatical tradition, however, a preference for the genitive case was maintained for centuries. When ‘standard’ Dutch is officially codified in 1805 in the context of a national language policy, the genitive case is again strongly preferred, still aiming to ‘revive’ the synthetic forms. The striking discrepancy between metalinguistic discourse on the one hand, and developments in language use on the other, make the genitive case in Dutch an interesting case for historical sociolinguistics. In this paper, we tackle various issues raised by the research literature, such as the importance of genre differences as well as variation within particular genres, through a detailed corpus-based analysis of the influence of prescription on language practices in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Dutch.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reviving the genitive. Prescription and practice in the Netherlands (1770–1840)

Krogull

Rutten

2020

Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research into the history of the Dutch language has enabled the authors to claim that it was an object of political control. Significant aspects of the nationalization of language were the establishment of an officialized orthography (1804) and grammar (1805), which were to be used in the national school system [7]. Linguistic imperialism is still being debated in Ireland.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Policy in Ukraine in the Context of European Integration

Malysh¹,

Shevchenko²,

Tkachuk-Miroshnychenko³

2022

"Scientific notes of V. I. Vernadsky Taurida National Universit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1991 when Ukraine attained its independence, the Ukrainian language status has become a critical issue. The annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 2014 threatened the very existence of the Ukrainian language on the peninsula. Following russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the language issue has become a matter of national security. The article outlines the key trends in the implementation of language policy in Ukraine. It discusses the key legal provisions of the functioning of the Ukrainian language as a state language and minority languages, among which are the Constitution of Ukraine, the laws of Ukraine "On National Security", "On Education", and "On National Minorities in Ukraine". Special focus is given to the new "Law on Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as a State Language" ("Language Law") which establishes the state status of the Ukrainian language, making it mandatory for state authorities and local self-government bodies, throughout Ukraine. The implementation of the effective state language policy must be directed at the protection of national interests, it has to guarantee the safety of an individual, society, and state from external and internal threats in all spheres of life. The question of the formation of legal regulation of the state language policy is essential for every state. Given the fact that the linguistic diversity of Ukraine resonates with the multilingualism of the European Union, as well as the EU candidate status granted to Ukraine on June 23, 2022, the expertise of the European Union in dealing with language issues has gained even more importance. The article describes how different European countries apply different models of the legal regulation of the official (state) language status. It analyses the European experience in the advancement of official (state) and minority languages and showcases the steps regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Venice Commission in the context of EU integration.

show abstract

“…Language planning alter natives that resemble the values and beliefs of the language community are more likely to succeed than alternatives which conflict with them (Cooper 1990: 184); a factor that has been observed in research on language standardization (e.g. Coluzzi 2017;Rutten et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language ideologies against norm change: A case study of the orthographic norm of Finnish O(i)ttA-verbs and language professionals’ unwillingness to change it

Pajunen

2023

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates why language professionals of the standard Finnish language are unwilling to change a known problematic orthographic norm and how their arguments are based on overt and covert conceptions of standard language. It also analyzes how dominant language ideologies, namely standard language ideology (SLI) and linguistic purism, form the bases of these conceptions. The study is based on a qualitative survey, and it explores the metalanguage of the answers to one open-ended question using content analysis. The concepts of language are presented as conceptual metaphors. The analysis reveals six concepts that represent a particular ideological notion belonging to purism, SLI, or both. The respondents conceptualize language as value judgments and through functions and social connotations. Some concepts are based on non-linguistic but emotionally powerful values, others on usability or language’s ability to serve as a marker of status or social bonds. The study highlights the deep impact of language ideologies. Kokkuvõte. Henni Pajunen: Normingu muutmisega seotud keeleideloogiad: soome keele O(i)ttA-tegusõnade ortograafianormingu juhtumiuuring ja keeleprofessionaalide soovimatus normingut muuta. See artikkel uurib, miks soome keeleprofessionaalid ei soovi laialt tuntud problemaatilise ortograafianormingu muutmist ja kuidas nende argumendid põhinevad avalikel ja varjatud arusaamadel normitud keelest. Samuti analüüsib artikkel, kuidas peamised keelelised ideoloogiad – standardkeeleideoloogia ja purism – on nende arusaamade aluseks. Artikkel põhineb kvalitatiivsel uuringul ja selles käsitletakse sisuanalüüsi abil ühele avatud küsimusele antud vastuste metakeelt. Keelega seotud mõisted on esitatud mõistemetafooridena. Analüüsis tõuseb esile kuus mõistet, mis esindavad purismi, standardkeeleideoloogiat või mõlemat. Küsitlusele vastajad mõtestavad keelt väärtushinnangutena ning seda keele funktsioonide ja sotsiaalsete konnotatsioonide kaudu. Mõned kontseptsioonid põhinevad mittekeelelistel, kuid emotsionaalselt tugevatel väärtustel, teised kasutatavusel või keele võimel olla staatuse või sotsiaalsete sidemete markeriks. Uurimus tõstab esile keeleideoloogiate tugeva mõju.

show abstract

Implementation and acceptance of national language policy: the case of Dutch (1750–1850)

Cited by 40 publications

References 16 publications

Reviving the genitive. Prescription and practice in the Netherlands (1770–1840)

Reviving the genitive. Prescription and practice in the Netherlands (1770–1840)

Language Policy in Ukraine in the Context of European Integration

Language ideologies against norm change: A case study of the orthographic norm of Finnish O(i)ttA-verbs and language professionals’ unwillingness to change it

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About