Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T01:28:21.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Class differences in syntactic complexity in the Flemish town of Maaseik1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Jef van den Broeck
Jef van den Broeck
Affiliation:
Belgian National Science Foundation (Aspirant N.F.W.O.)University of Louvain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The linguistic foundation of Bernstein's code theory is tested in a bidimensional sociolinguistic investigation. Not only class, but also situation is controlled. In the Flemish town of Maaseik each of eight informants (four middle class and four working class) have been interviewed in two different situations, one formal and one informal. In the formal situation standard Netherlandic was spoken and in the informal the local dialect. Five measures of syntactic complexity constituted the linguistic variable. The results in the formal situation corroborate those of Bernstein: the middle-class subjects exhibit a greater degree of syntactic complexity than the working-class subjects. In the informal situation all subjects exhibit about the same degree of syntactic complexity, and for the middle-class subjects this degree is less than that in the formal situation (as might be expected). The striking result is that the working-class informants exhibit significantly higher complexity in the informal situation. In the discussion these findings are compared to those of previous studies, Bernsteinian and other. In an appendix sample data for formal and informal styles from one middle- and one working-class subject are presented. (‘elaborated’ and ‘restricted’ codes, social vs. cognitive meaning, syntactic variation; Flemish cf. Maaseik, Belgium).

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 149 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Ammon, U. (1972). Dialekt, Soziale Ungleichheit und Schule. Weinheim-Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
Ammon, U.Dialekt und Einheitssprache in ihrer sozialen Verflechtung. Weinheim-Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (1975). The language factor in educational performance at university level (in Tanzania). Occasional Paper no. I, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics. University of Dar es Salaam.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R. (1973). Gibt es einen sinnvollen Begriff von linguistischer komplexität? Zeitschrift für linguistische Germanistik I (1). 6–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1961). Social structure, language and learning. Educational Research 3. 163–76.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1962). Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements. Language and Speech 5. 221–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1965). A socio-linguistic approach to social learning. In Gould, J. (ed.), Penguin survey of the social sciences. London: Penguin. 144–67.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1970). Education cannot compensate for society. In Rubinstein, D. & Stoneman, C. (eds.) Education for democracy. London: Penguin. 104–16.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1972). A socio-linguistic approach to socialization; with some reference to educability. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 465–97.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes and control. Volume II. Applied studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes and control. Volume I. Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. Second Revised Edition. New York: Schocken books. (First Edition 1971.)Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of language 7. 457–92.Google Scholar
Blom, J. P. & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 407–34.Google Scholar
Callary, R. E. (1971). Syntactic correlates of social stratification. (Ph.D. Thesis. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.)Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1970). The situation: a neglected source of social class differences in language use. Journal of Social Issues 26 (2). 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, D. R. (1976). Bidialectal education: Creole and standard in the West Indies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 8. 93–134.Google Scholar
Deprez, K. & Geerts, G. (1975). Lexical and pranominal standardization. A study of the evolution of standard Dutch in West Flanders (Belgium). Department of Linguistics, University of Louvain. Preprint 28.Google Scholar
Dialekt als Sprachbarriere? (1973). Ergebnisbericht einer Tagung zur Alemannischen Dialektforschung. Tubingen: Tübinger Vereinigung für Volkskunde. Band 33.Google Scholar
Endicott, A. L. (1971). A proposed scale for syntactic complexity. Research in the Teaching of English 7 (1). 5–52.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1971). Sociolinguistics. In Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Advances in the sociology of language, Volume I. The Hague: Mouton, 15–91.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word 15. 325–40;Google Scholar
also in Ferguson (1971), 1–26.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Language structure and language use: Essays by C. Ferguson. Selected and introduced by A. S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Gumperz, J. J. (1960). Linguistic diversity of South Asia. Studies in regional, social and functional variation, edited with an introduction by Charles A. Ferguson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1971). The sociology of language: an interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. In Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Advances in the sociology of language, Volume I. The Hague: Mouton. 217–404.Google Scholar
Geerts, G. (1974). Tweetaligheid binnen het Nederlands. Sociolinguistische facetten van het Nederlands in Vlaanderen. Ons Erfdeel 17 (5). 645–60.Google Scholar
Geerts, G., Nootens, J. & Van den Broeck, J. (in press). Flemish attitudes towards dialects and standard language. To appear in International Journal of the Sociology of Language.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. (1974). The metaphoricality of Marxism and the context-freeing grammar of socialism. Theory and Society I (4). 387–414.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1961). Speech variation and the study of Indian civilization. American Anthropologist 63. 976–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
also in Hymes, D. (ed.) 1964. Language in culture and society. New York: Harper and Row. 416–28.Google Scholar
Guy, G. (1974). Variation in the group and in the individual: The case of final stop deletion. Pennsylvania Working Papers on linguistic change and variation, Volume I, No. 4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. N.C.T.E. Research Report No 3. Champaign, Ill..Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Setting. Journal of Social Issues 23(2). 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 35–71.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1973). The Scope of Sociolinguistics. In Hymes 1974. 193–209.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics, An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvannia Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of Nonstandard English. In Labov 1972b. 201–240.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23. 30–87;Google Scholar
also in Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Advances in the Sociology of Language, Volume I. The Hague: Mouton 1971. 152–216.Google Scholar
Labov, W.. (1972a) Sociolinguistics patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). Language in the Inner City. Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W.. The linguistic consequences of being a lame. Language in Society 2. 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, D. (1968). Social Class, Language and Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lindenfeld, J. (1969). The social conditioning of syntactic variation in French. American Anthropologist 71.890–898;Google Scholar
also in Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Advances in the Sociology of Language, Volume II. The Hague: Mouton 1972. 79–90.Google Scholar
Loban, W. (1966). Language Ability. Grades Seven, Eight and Nine. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Cooperative Research Monograph No. 18. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Meeus, B. (1972). Het gebruik van het ABN en het dialekt in het Vlaamse land. Brochure van Mens en Ruimte en het Ministerie van de Nederlandse Cultuur. Brussels.Google Scholar
Meeus, B. (1973) Societal bilingualism. ITL 20. 1–9.Google Scholar
Oevermann, U. (1972). Sprache und soziale Herkunft. Frankfurt: Suhrkampf.Google Scholar
Poole, M. E. (1974). Comparison of the factorial structure of oral coding patterns for a middle-class and a working-class group. Language and Speech 17 (3). 222–39.Google Scholar
Pope, M. (1971). Syntactic maturity of black and white fourth graders' speech. Research in the Teaching of English 5 (2). 202–15.Google Scholar
Schulz, G. (1971). Satzkomplexität - ein zweifelhaftes linguistisches Kriterium. Diskussion Deutsch 3. 27–36.Google Scholar
Shetter, W. Z. (1969). Introduction to Dutch. A practical grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, J. (1976). Extra- and into-linguistic constraints on the use of passives in the Flemish town of Maaseik. Paper read at the 10th Annual Meeting of the European Linguistic Society (SLE) held at Salzburg, August 1976. Stencilled.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, J. (forthcoming). Social conditioning of syntactic variation in the Flemish town of Maaseik. (Ph.D. thesis. University of Louvain.)Google Scholar
Verdoodt, A. (1973). Lesproblèmes desgroupes linguistiques en Belgique. Cours et documents de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain No. I. Louvain.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. A. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar