Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:35:42.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceci n'est pas une Tussentaal: Evoking Standard and Vernacular Language Through Mixed Dutch in Flemish Telecinematic Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Jürgen Jaspers  and
Sarah Van Hoof
Jürgen Jaspers*
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)
Sarah Van Hoof*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Avenue F. D. Roosevelt 50, CP 175 1050 Brussels, Belgium, [jurgen.jaspers@ulb.ac.be]
University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1102 Blindern 0317 Oslo, Norway, [sarah.vanhoof@iln.uio.no]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that the use of mixed Dutch, the speech style that Flemish linguists have come to name tussentaal (literally ‘interlanguage’) and which is made up of dialect and standard features, can index meanings conventionally associated with dialect and Standard Dutch, depending on the linguistic ecology in which it occurs. Consequently, and in contrast with current explanations that attribute context-independent social meaning to tussentaal, we argue that its meaning needs to be identified relative to the unfolding interaction in particular contexts of use. Using a corpus of Flemish telecinematic discourse, we suggest that this finding calls for a renewed appreciation of tussentaal in relation to burgeoning hypotheses of destandardization.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 1 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Absillis, Kevin, Jaspers, Jürgen, & Van Hoof, Sarah (eds.). 2012. De manke usurpator. Over Verkavelingsvlaams Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23. 231–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15. 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2012. Introduction: Language and society in cinematic discourse. Multilingua 31. 139–154.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Europe's sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, ed. by Delbecque, Nicole, van der Auwera, Johan, & Geeraerts, Dirk, 8–42., Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard, & Briggs, Charles. 2003. Voices of modernity. Language ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Belemans, Rob, & Goossens, Jan. 2000. Woordenboek van de Brabantse dialecten. Deel III: Inleiding en Klankgeografie. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Barnard, Benno. 1999. Het groot nationaal dichtertje. NRC Handelsblad, February 5, 1999.Google Scholar
van. Bezooijen, Renée. Dialectattitudes in Vlaanderen en Nederland. De Caluwe, Devos, Van, Keymeulen, & De, Schutter 2004, 777–788.Google Scholar
Bleichenbacher, Lukas. 2008. Multilingualism in the movies. Hollywood characters and their language choices. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7. 398–416.Google Scholar
Cajot, José. 2012. Waarom het Verkavelinsgsvlaams onvermijdelijk was. De ontwikkeling van een informele omgangstaal in Vlaanderen. Absillis, Jaspers, & Van Hoof 2012, 39–66.Google Scholar
Camps, Hugo. 2011. Taal. De Morgen, July 28, 2011.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2009. The mediated performance of vernaculars. Journal of English Linguistics 37. 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2010. Language, ideology, media and social change. Performing the self, ed. by Junod, Karen & Maillat, Didier, 127–151. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2014. Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization and broadcast British media. Mediatization and sciolinguistic change, ed. by Androutsopoulos, Jannis, 67–96. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, & Kristiansen, Tore. 2011. Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, ed. by Kristiansen, Tore & Coupland, Nikolas, 11–38. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
De Caluwe, Johan, 2002. Tien stellingen over functie en status van tussentaal in Vlaanderen. Taalvariatie en taalbeleid. Bijdragen aan het taalbeleid in Nederland en Vlaanderen, ed. by De Caluwe, JohanGeeraerts, Dirk, Kroon, Sjaak, Mamadouh, Virginie, Soetaert, Ronald, Top, Luc, & Vallen, Ton, 57–67., Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.Google Scholar
De Caluwe, Johan. 2009. Tussentaal wordt omgangstaal in Vlaanderen. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14. 8–25.Google Scholar
Caluwe, De, Johan, Magda Devos, Van Keymeulen, Jacques, & De Schutter, Georges (eds.). 2004. Taeldeman, man van de taal, schatbewaarder van de taal. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
De Caluwe, Johan, & Van Renterghem, Evelien. 2011. Regiolectisering en de opkomst van tussentaal in Vlaanderen. Taal en Tongval 63. 61–77.Google Scholar
De Schryver, Johan, 2012. Het einde van de tussentaal en de Vlaamse standaardtaaldiscussie. Absillis, Jaspers, & Van, Hoof 2012, 141–165.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda, & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2005. West-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Deprez, Kas. 1981. Naar een eigen identiteit: resultaten en evaluatie van tien jaar taalsociologisch en sociolinguistisch onderzoek betreffende de standaardtaal in Vlaanderen. Leuven, Belgium: K.U. Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Deprez, Kas. 1999. Flemish Dutch is the language of the Flemings. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 13. 13–52.Google Scholar
De Wever, Bart. 2007. Wie echt cool is, heeft Bert Anciaux niet nodig. De Morgen, July 16, 2007.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study. The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41. 87–100.Google Scholar
Elsaesser, Thomas, & Hagener, Malte. 2010. Film Theory. An introduction through the senses. New York-London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Florquin, Joos. 1965. Hier spreekt men Nederlands. Een dialoogtekst voor de hogere cyclus, gebruik dit in de klas! Bouw XI, 1.22–23.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12. 219–245.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1998. VRT-Nederlands en soap-Vlaams. Nederlands Van Nu, 46. 75–77.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2001. Everyday language in the media. The case of Belgian Dutch soap series. Sprache im Alltag. Beiträge zu neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik Herbert Ernst Wiegand zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. by Lehr, Andrea, Kammerer, Matthias, Konerding, Klaus-Peter, Storter, Angelika, Thimm, Gaja, & Wilski, Werner, 281–291. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, DirkGrondelaers, Stef, & Speelman, Dirk. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Amsterdam: Meertensinstituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, & Sutter, Gert De. 2003. ‘Ma wa zegdegij nu? Da kanekik nie verstaan zelle’. Taalgedrag, taalbeleid en taalattitudes in Vlaanderen. Waar gaat het Nederlands naartoe? Panorama van een taal, ed. by Stroop, Jan, 54–64., Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie. 2011. Structuur en dynamiek van diaglossische taalrepertoria. Studies van de BKL 6.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, & Kristiansen., Tore 2013. On the need to access deep evaluations when searching for the motor of standard language change. Kristiansen & Grondelaers 2013, 9–52.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, & van Hout, Roeland. 2011. The standard language situation in the Low Countries. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23. 199–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, van Hout, Roeland, & Speelman, Dirk. 2011. A perceptual typology of standard language situations in the Low Countries. Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, ed. by Kristiansen, Tore & Coupland, Nikolas, 199–222. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, & Speelman, Dirk. 2013. Can speaker evaluation return private attitudes towards stigmatised varieties? Evidence from emergent standardisation in Belgian Dutch. Kristiansen & Grondelaers 2013, 171–192.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hendrickx, Ruud. 1998. Taalcharter. http://www.vrt.be/taal/taalcharter (accessed April 2014).Google Scholar
Hertmans, Stefan. 2012. Onzin, onzinnig en onzindelijk. De Standaard, August 31, 2012.Google Scholar
Hiligsmann, Philippe, & Rasier, Laurent. 2007. Prosodic transfer from L1 to L2. Theoretical and methodological issues. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28, 41–66.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop van der. 2008. Het einde van de standaardtaal. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop van der. 2010. Het einde van de standaardtaal in België. Liever meer of juist minder? Over normen en variatie in taal, ed. by Hendrickx, Els, Karl, Hendrickx, Willy, Martin, Smessaert, Hans, Van Belle, William, & van der Horst, Joop, 15–25. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Janssens, Guido, & Marynissen, Ann. 2005. Het Nederlands vroeger en nu. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Jürgen. 2001. Het Vlaamse stigma. Over tussentaal en normativiteit. Taal en Tongval. 53. 129–153.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Jürgen. 2011. Strange bedfellows. Appropriations of a tainted urban dialect. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15. 493–524.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Jürgen, & Brisard, Frank. 2006. Verklaringen van substandaardisering. Leuvense Bijdragen. 95. 35–70.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Jürgen, & Van Hoof, Sarah. 2013. Hyperstandardisation in Flanders: extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics 23. 331–359.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore, & Stefan, Grondelaers (eds.). 2103. Language (de)standardisation in late modern Europe. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Chloé, Lybaert. 2011. Hoe percipieert een taalkundige leek het Vlaamse taallandschap? Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 64. 123–146.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2003. Talking proper. The rise of accent as a social symbol. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific region. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Notte, Johan, & Scheirlink, Marie. 2007. Lui Vlaams. Interview met Johan Taeldeman. De Nieuwe Gemeenschap 4. 5–8.Google Scholar
Piazza, Roberta, Bednarek, Monika, & Rossi, Fabio (eds.). 2011. Telecinematic discourse. Approaches to the language of films and television series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen. 2008. Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerdGoogle Scholar
onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. Leuven, Belgium: K.U. Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen. 2009. Verkavelingsvlaams als de voertaal van de verburgelijking van Vlaanderen. Studies van de BKL/Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, ed. by Vogeleer, Svetlana, Brisard, Frank, DeBrabanter, Philippe, Dendale, Patrick, & LeBruyn, Bert. Available athttp://webh01.ua.ac.be/linguist/sbkl/Vol4.htm.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen. 2012. Van hetzelfde laken een pak. Verkavelingsvlaams als uiting van status in het nieuwe rijke Vlaanderen. De manke usurpator. Over Verkavelingsvlaams, ed. by Absillis, Kevin, Jaspers, Jürgen, & Van Hoof, Sarah, 189–223., Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Koen, Plevoets, Speelman, Dirk, & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2007. A corpus-based study of modern colloquial “Flemish.” G ermanic language histories “from below” (1700–2000), ed. by Elspass, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim, & Vandenbussche, Wim, 179–188., Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Queen, Robin. 2004. ‘Du hast jar keene Ahnung’: African American English dubbed into German. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8. 515–537.Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in late modernity. Interaction at an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reynebeau, Marc. 2006. De Vlamingen begrijpen elkaar nog altijd niet. De Standaard, June 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Richardson, Kay. 2010. Television dramatic dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rys, Kathy, & Taeldeman, Johan. 2007. Fonologische ingrediënten van Vlaamse tussentaal. Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs, ed. by Cuvelier, Pol, Rymenans, Rita, Dominiek, Sandra, & Van Petegem, Peter, 1–9. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Silverman, David. 1993. Interpreting qualitative data. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Slembrouck, Stef, & Van Herreweghe, Mieke. 2004. Teletekstondertiteling en tussentaal. De pragmatiek van het alledaagse. De Caluwe, Devos, Van Keymeulen, & De Schutter 2004, 853–876.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 1992. Welk Nederlands voor Vlamingen? Spieghel Historiael, 33. 9–28.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 2006. Polarization revisited. Language variation —European perspectives, ed. by Hinskens, Frans, 233–248., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 2008. Zich stabiliserende kenmerken in Vlaamse tussentaal. Taal en Tongval 60. 26–50.Google Scholar
Van, Gijsel, Sophie, Dirk Speelman, & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. Style shifting in commercials. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 205–226.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, Sarah, . In press. Feiten en fictie. Een sociolinguïstische analyse van het taalgebruik in fictiereeksen op de Vlaamse openbare omroep 1977–2012Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, Sarah, & Jaspers, Jürgen. 2012. Hyperstandaardisering. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 108. 97–125.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, Sarah, & Vandekerckhove, Bram. 2013. Feiten en fictie. Taalvariatie in Vlaamse televisiereeksen vroeger en nu. Nederlandse Taalkunde 18. 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2000. Structurele en sociale aspecten van dialectverandering. De dynamiek van het Deerlijkse dialect. Gent: KANTL.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2005. Belgian Dutch versus Netherlandic Dutch: New patterns of divergence? On pronouns of address and diminutives. Multilingua 24. 379–397.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild, & Nobels, Judith. 2010. Code eclecticism: Linguistic variation and code alternation in the chat language of Flemish teenagers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14. 657–677.Google Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim. 2010. Standardisation through the media. The case of Dutch in Flanders. Variatio Delectat. Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation, ed. by Gilles, Peter, Scharloth, Joachim, Zieger, Evelyn, 309–322. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vlaams, Parlement. 2012. Handelingen. Commissievergadering. Commissie voor Cultuur, Jeugd, Sport en Media van 29 november 2012. http://www.vlaamsparlement.be/Proteus5/showVIVerslag.action?id=684056 (accessed January 2013).Google Scholar
Willemyns, Roland. 1996. Pluricentric principles in the standardization of 19th century Dutch. Word — Journal of the International Linguistics Association, 47. 63–72.Google Scholar
Willemyns, Roland. 2007. De-standardization in the Dutch language territory at large. Standard, variation and language change in Germanic languages, ed. by Fandrych, Christian & Salverda, Reinier, 265–279., Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Willemyns, Roland. 2013. Dutch. Biography of a language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willemyns, Ronald, & Daniëls, Wim (eds.). 2003. Het verhaal van het Vlaams. Antwerpen: Standaard.Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn. 1998. Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8. 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar