Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:37:52.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Language Standardization ‘from Above’

from Part I - Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

By
Gijsbert Rutten  and
Rik Vosters
Edited by
Wendy Ayres-Bennett  and
John Bellamy
Wendy Ayres-Bennett
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
John Bellamy
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Language standardization ‘from above’ occurs in situations in which language authorities seek to disseminate a standardized variety across a speech and writing community. Hence, the crucial aspect of language standardization ‘from above’ is implementation, in Haugen’s terminology. In the history of many European languages, standardization ‘from above’ is a Late Modern phenomenon, closely tied to the rise of standard language ideology in the eighteenth century. In this chapter, we first define language standardization ‘from above’, situating it in the sociohistorical context of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Arguing that the sociolinguistic situation at the time can be described as diaglossic, we claim that language standardization ‘from above’ is a top-down effort to reorganize the sociolinguistic condition in terms of standard and non-standard. We then discuss various instruments of implementation, encompassing both private and official language planning activities such as usage guides, language academies, professorships in ‘national’ languages, language laws and educational reforms. Finally, we zoom in on the effects of implementation, distinguishing between discursive and linguistic effects (i.e. changing patterns of language use under the influence of standardization ‘from above’). Our examples are mainly taken from the Dutch situation, while also incorporating examples from English, German, French and Spanish.

Keywords

historical sociolinguisticslanguage planningLate Modernitystandard language ideologyimplementation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 65 - 92
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderwald, L. (2016). Language between Description and Prescription: Verbs and Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, A. (2009). The Subjunctive in the Age of Prescriptivism: English and German Developments in the Eighteenth Century. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, A. (2014). Nineteenth-century English: norms and usage. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 151–70.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: a typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In Delbecque, N., Van der Auwera, J. & Geeraerts, D., eds., Perspectives on Variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–42.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. (2014). From l’usage to le bon usage and back: norms and usage in seventeenth-century France. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. & Seijido, M., eds. (2013). Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Éditions de l’École Normale Supérieure (ENS).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, C. (2005). Authority and personality in the Oxford English Dictionary. Transactions of the Philological Society, 103(3), 261–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, P. (2004). Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Certeau, M. de, Julia, D. & Revel, J. (1975). Une politique de la langue: La Révolution franc¸aise et les patois, l’enqueˆte Grégoire. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Jonghe, A. (1967). De taalpolitiek van Koning Willem I in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1824–1830). Sint-Andries-bij-Brugge: Darthet.Google Scholar
de Rooij, J. (1990). Over hun en hen, en hun: vorm en functie van de niet-gereduceerde voorwerpsvormen van het persoonlijk voornaamwoord in de derde persoon meervoud, in standaardtaal, ouder Nederlands en dialect. Taal en Tongval, 42(2), 107–47.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. (2003). Research directions in the study of language standardization. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 455–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dons, U. (2004). Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S. (2005). Sprachgeschichte von unten: Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, S. (2007a). A twofold view ‘from below’: new perspectives on language histories and language historiographies. In Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–1900). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, S. (2007b). Everyday language in emigrant letters and its implications on language historiography: the German case. Multilingua, 26, 151–65.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S. (2014). Prescriptive norms and norms of usage in nineteenth-century German. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 303–20.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S. & Langer, N. (2012). Jespersen’s cycle and the history of German negation: challenges from a sociolinguistic perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 113(3), 275–92.Google Scholar
Estival, D. & Pennycook, A. (2011). L’Académie française and Anglophone language ideologies. Language Policy, 10(4), 325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairman, T. (2007). Writing and ‘the Standard’: England, 1795–1834. Multilingua, 26(2–3), 167–201.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique, 1(2), 67–88.Google Scholar
Gal, S. & Woolard, K. (2001). Constructing languages and publics: authority and representation. In Woolard, K. & Gal, S., eds., Language and Publics: The Making of Authority. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Goeman, T., van Oostendorp, M., van Reenen, P., Koornwinder, O. & van den Berg, B. (2009). Morfologische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten: Deel II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68, 922–35.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1987). Blessings of Babel: Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henckel, F. L. N. (1815). Nieuwe Vlaemsche spraek-konst. Gent: P. F. de Goesin-Verhaege.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In Ricento, T., ed., An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 24–41.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, P. V., ed., Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 35–83.Google Scholar
Janssens, G. (2014). Tweehonderd jaar neerlandistiek aan de Université de Lie`ge: een geschiedenis van de oudste extramurale leerstoel Nederlands. Leuven/Den Haag: Acco.Google Scholar
Kloss, H. (1969). Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Konopka, M. (1996). Strittige Erscheinungen der deutschen Syntax im 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Krogull, A., Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. (2017). Relativisation in Dutch diaries, private letters and newspapers (1770–1840): a genre-specific national language? In Säily, T., Nurmi, A., Palander-Collin, M. & Auer, A., eds., Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–86.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol I: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langer, N. (2001). Linguistic Purism in Action: How Auxiliary Tun Was Stigmatized in Early New High German. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, N. (2011). Historical sociolinguistics in nineteenth-century Schleswig-Holstein. German Life and Letters, 64(2), 169–87.Google Scholar
Langer, N. (2014). Standard German in the eighteenth century: norms and use. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 277–302.Google Scholar
Langer, N. & Havinga, A. E. (2015). Invisible languages in historical sociolinguistics: a conceptual outline, with examples from the German-Danish borderlands. In Havinga, A. E. & Langer, N., eds., Invisible Languages in the Nineteenth Century. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Langhanke, R. & Langer, N. (2013). How to deal with non-dominant languages – metalinguistic discourses on Low German in the nineteenth century. Linguistik Online, 59(1), 77–97.Google Scholar
Leerssen, J., ed. (2018). Encyclopedia of Romantic Nationalism in Europe, Vols. I–II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (2013). A lady-in-waiting’s begging letter to her former employer (Paris, mid-sixteenth century). In van der Wal, M. & Rutten, G., eds., Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 19–43.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (2014). Jacques-Louis Ménétra and his experience of the langue d’oc. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 201–22.Google Scholar
Martineau, F. (2007). Variation in Canadian French usage from the 18th to the 19th century. Multilingua, 26(2/3), 201–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, F. (2013). Written documents: what they tell us about linguistic usage. In van der Wal, M. & Rutten, G., eds., Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 129–48.Google Scholar
McLelland, N. (2014). Language description, prescription and usage in seventeenth-century German. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 251–76.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2011). Introducing Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (2000). Historical description and the ideology of the standard language. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 4th edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nebrija, A. de (1492). Grama´tica de la lengua castellana. Salamanca: n. pub.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (2014). Norms and usage in seventeenth-century English. In Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 103–28.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2017). Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nobels, J. & Rutten, G. (2014). Language norms and language use in seventeenth-century Dutch: negation and the genitive. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar
Paffey, D. (2007). Policing the Spanish language debate: verbal hygiene and the Spanish language academy (Real Academia Española). Language Policy, 6(3–4), 313–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. & Dion, N. (2009). Prescription vs. praxis. The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language, 85(3), 557–87.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Jarmasz, L.-G., Dion, N. & Rosen, N. (2015). Searching for standard French: the construction and mining of the Recueil historique des grammaires du français. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 1(1), 13–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, G. (2007). Remark and remember: cultivating Dutch in Early Modern Europe. Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas Bulletin, 49(1), 39–52.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (2009). Grammar to the people: the Dutch language and the public sphere in the 18th century with special reference to Kornelis van der Palm. Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, 19, 55–86.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (2010). Vroegmoderne relativa: naar een diachrone constructiegrammatica. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 15(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (2013). Waarom verscheen de Twe-spraack in 1584? In Van Hal, T., Isebaert, L., & Swiggers, P., eds., De tuin der talen: taalstudie en taalcultuur in de Lage Landen, 1450–1750. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 254–78.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (2016a). Diaglossia, individual variation and the limits of standardization: evidence from Dutch. In Russi, C., ed., Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open, pp. 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, G. (2016b). Historicizing diaglossia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(1), 6–30.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (2016c). Standardization and the myth of neutrality in language history. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 242, 25–57.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (2018). Matthijs Siegenbeek in defense of Dutch. In Honings, R., Rutten, G. & Kalmthout, T., van, eds., Language, Literature and the Construction of a Dutch National Identity (1780–1830). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 25–48.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. (2011). Local dialects, supralocal writing systems. The degree of orality of Dutch private letters from the seventeenth century. Written Language & Literacy, 14, 251–74.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. (2014). Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. & Vosters, R. (2010). Chaos and standards: orthography in the Southern Netherlands (1720–1830). Multilingua, 29(3/4), 417–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, G. & Vosters, R. (2013). Une tradition néerlandaise ? Du bon usage aux Pays-Bas (1686–1830). In Ayres-Bennett, W. & Seijido, M., eds., Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Éditions de l’École Normale Supérieure, pp. 233–43.Google Scholar
Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2014a). Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutten, G., Vosters, R., & Vandenbussche, W. (2014b). The interplay of language norms and usage patterns: comparing the history of Dutch, English, French and German. In Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Schoemaker, B. & Rutten, G. (2017). Standard language ideology and Dutch school inspection reports (1801–1854). Sociolinguistica, 31(1) 101–16.Google Scholar
Siegenbeek, M. (1804). Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche spelling, ter bevordering van eenparigheid in dezelve (Gebruikte editie: Amsterdam, 1805). Amsterdam: Allart.Google Scholar
Simons, T. & Rutten, G. (2014). Language norms and language use in eighteenth-century Dutch: final n and the genitive. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 49–72.Google Scholar
Takada, H. (1998). Grammatik und Sprachwirklichkeit von 1640–1700: Zur Rolle deutscher Grammatiker im schriftsprachlichen Ausgleichsprozess. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2010). The usage guide: its birth and popularity. English Today, 26(2), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I., ed. (2018). English Usage Guides: History, Advice, Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tosi, A. (2011). The Accademia della Crusca in Italy: past and present. Language Policy, 10(4), 289–303.Google Scholar
van der Horst, J. & Marschall, F. (1989). Korte geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Nijgh & Van Ditmar.Google Scholar
van der Ploeg, H. W. (1800). Het belang der waare volksverlichting. Amsterdam: Wed. Harm. Keijzer, Corns. de Vries & Hendrik van Munster.Google Scholar
van der Wal, M. (2018). Johannes Kinker: a Kantian philosopher teaching Dutch language, literature, and eloquence. In Honings, R., Rutten, G. & Kalmthout, T., van, eds., Language, Literature and the Construction of a Dutch National Identity (1780–1830). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
van Heule, C. (1625). De Nederduytsche Grammatica ofte Spraec-konst. Leyden: Roels. (Reissue of the text by W. J. H. Caron, Groningen: Wolters, 1953.)Google Scholar
Villa, L. (2011). ‘Because when governments speak, they are not always right’: national construction and orthographic conflicts in mid-nineteenth century Spain. In Langer, N., Davies, S. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Language and History, Linguistics and Historiography. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 209–28.Google Scholar
Villa, L. (2015). Official orthographies, spelling debates and nation-building projects after the fall of the Spanish Empire. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 228–47.Google Scholar
Voeste, A. (2015). Proficiency and efficiency: why German spelling changed in Early Modern times. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 248–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosters, R., Belsack, E., Puttaert, J. & Vandenbussche, W. (2014). Norms and usage in nineteenth-century Southern Dutch. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar
Vosters, R. & Rutten, G. (2015). Three Southern shibboleths: spelling features as conflicting identity markers in the Low Countries. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 260–74.Google Scholar
Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W. (2012). Bipartite negation in 18th and early 19th century Southern Dutch: sociolinguistic aspects of norms and variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 113(3), 343–64.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2011). Language Myths and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2012). Language myths. In Hernandez Campoy, J. M. & Conde Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 585–606.Google Scholar
Weijermars, J. (2009). Neerlandistiek als bindmiddel van de natie: Hoogleraar Schrant in Gent 1817–1830. De Negentiende Eeuw, 1, 4–19.Google Scholar
Weijermars, J. (2012). Stiefbroeders: Zuid-Nederlandse letteren en natievorming onder Willem. Hilversum: Verloren.Google Scholar
Weiland, P. (1799). Nederduitsch taalkundig woordenboek. Amsterdam: J. Allart.Google Scholar
Weiland, P. (1805). Nederduitsche Spraakkunst. Amsterdam: J. Allart.Google Scholar
Willemyns, R. (1993). Integration vs. particularism: the undeclared issue at the first Dutch Congress in 1849. In Fishman, J. A., ed., The Earliest Stage of Language Planning. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–83.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2012). Language policy, the nation and nationalism. In Spolsky, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–78.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×