Book contents
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Studies in Language Variation and Change
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Analysing and Explaining Syntactic Variation
- 1 Comparing Syntactic Variables
- 2 Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
- 3 A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
- 4 On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5 The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
- 6 When Variants Lack Semantic Equivalence: Adverbial Subclause Word Order
- Index
- References
4 - On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2022
Book contents
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Studies in Language Variation and Change
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Analysing and Explaining Syntactic Variation
- 1 Comparing Syntactic Variables
- 2 Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
- 3 A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
- 4 On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5 The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
- 6 When Variants Lack Semantic Equivalence: Adverbial Subclause Word Order
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter we investigate the role of socio-psychological motivations in accounts of grammatical change. Laboratory and corpus evidence is presented to substantiate the impact of dynamic prestige meanings (associated with non-posh media cool) on the diffusion of the object pronoun hun 'them' as a subject in Netherlandic Dutch. In a speaker evaluation experiment, 185 listener-judges rated speech stimuli with standard and non-standard pronouns on pictures which were the best instantiations, according to a preceding norming task, of the evaluation dimensions old prestige (superiority), new prestige (dynamism), and disapproval. While subject-hun was found to be significantly less superior than the standard pronoun, it was perceived to be no less dynamic. The impact of this dynamic prestige meaning was further investigated on the basis of a dataset of tweets. Regression analysis demonstrated that the preference for hun could be adequately predicted on the basis of production proxies of hun’s social meaning. Taken together, all the available data suggest that the social meaning of hun is a pivotal determinant of its diffusion, viz. its use as a consciously deployed 'stylizer', but also the internal conditioning of its non-conscious use as a pronoun alternative.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation , pp. 120 - 143Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Auer, Peter. 2017. ‘The Neo-Standard of Italy and Elsewhere in Europe: Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian’. In Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian, edited by Cerruti, Massimo, Crocco, Claudia and Marzo, Stefania, 365–74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1999. ‘Taming the Vernacular: Some Repercussions for the Study of Syntactic Variation and Spoken Grammar’. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesia 8: 59–80.Google Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Speelman, Dirk and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2005. ‘Regionale en stilistische effecten op de woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke eindgroepen’. Nederlandse Taalkunde 10: 97–128.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. ‘Variation and the Indexical Field’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and Labov, William. 2017. ‘Phonetics, Phonology and Social Meaning’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21: 467–9.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Brysbaert, Marc, Speelman, Dirk and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2002. ‘Er als Accessibility Marker: On- en offline evidentie voor een procedurele interpretatie van presentatieve zinnen’. Gramma/TTT 9: 1–22.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and Kristiansen, Tore. 2013. ‘On the Need to Access Deep Evaluations When Searching for the Motor of Standard Language Change’. In Language (De)Standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, edited by Kristiansen, Tore and Grondelaers, Stefan, 9–52. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and Speelman, Dirk. 2007. ‘A Variationist Account of Constituent Ordering in Presentative Sentences in Belgian Dutch’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 161–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and Speelman, Dirk. 2013. ‘Can Speaker Evaluation Return Private Attitudes towards Stigmatised Varieties? Evidence from Emergent Standardisation in Belgian Dutch’. In Language (De)Standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, edited by Kristiansen, Tore and Grondelaers, Stefan, 171–91. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and Speelman, Dirk. 2015. ‘A Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Free Response Data: Paradox Or New Paradigm?’ In Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics, edited by Daems, Jocelyne, Zenner, Eline, Heylen, Kris, Speelman, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert, 361–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Speelman, Dirk and Carbonez, An. 2001. ‘Regionale variatie in de postverbale distributie van presentatief er’. Neerlandistiek. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/28503.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Speelman, Dirk, Drieghe, Denis, Brysbaert, Marc and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2009. ‘Introducing a New Entity into Discourse: Comprehension and Production Evidence for the Status of Dutch Er “There” as a Higher-Level Expectancy Monitor’. Acta Psychologica 130: 153–60.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Speelman, Dirk and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2002. ‘Regressing on Er. Statistical Analysis of Texts and Language Variation’. In 6ièmes journées internationals d’analyse statistique des données textuelles – 6th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, edited by Morin, Annie and Sébillot, Pascale, 335–46. Rennes: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, van Gent, Paul and van Hout, Roeland. 2015. ‘Is Moroccan-Flavoured Standard Dutch Standard or Not? On the Use of Perceptual Criteria to Determine the Limits of Standard Languages’. In Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, Processes and Outcomes, edited by Preston, Dennis and Prikhodhine, Alexei, 191–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and van Hout, Roeland. 2010. ‘Is Standard Dutch with a Regional Accent Standard or Not? Evidence from Native Speakers’ Attitudes’. Language Variation and Change 22: 221–39.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and van Hout, Roeland. 2011a. ‘The Standard Language Situation in the Low Countries: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Variations on a Diaglossic Theme’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23: 199–243.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and van Hout, Roeland. 2011b. ‘The Standard Language Situation in the Netherlands’. In Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, edited by Kristiansen, Tore and Coupland, Nikolas, 113–18. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and van Hout, Roeland. 2011. ‘Watching Dutch Grammar Change. Why Do We Say Them When We Know Perfectly Well It Should Be They?’ Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 40, University of Georgetown, October 2011.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and van Hout, Roeland. 2013. ‘Functional Innovation and Crumbling Standard Language Ideology Engender Change in the Grammar of Netherlandic Dutch’. Paper presented at Iclave 7, University of Trondheim, 26–28 June 2013.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and van Hout, Roeland. 2016. ‘How (In)Coherent Can Standard Languages Be? A Perceptual Perspective on Co-Variation’. Lingua 172–3: 62–71.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, van Hout, Roeland and Steegs, Mieke. 2010. ‘Evaluating Regional Accent Variation in Standard Dutch’. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (1): 101–16.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, van Hout, Roeland and van Gent, Paul. 2016. ‘Destandardization Is Not Destandardization: Revising Standardness Criteria in Order to Revisit Standard Language Typologies in the Low Countries’. In (De)Standardisation in Europe: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 68 (2): 119–49, special issue of Taal en Tongval: Language Variation in the Low Countries, edited by Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie, Delarue, Steven and Lybaert, Chloé.Google Scholar
Hawkey, James. 2019. ‘Language Attitudes as Predictors of Morphosyntactic Variation: Evidence from Catalan Speakers in Southern France’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 24: 16–34.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Irene. 2008. ‘On Variation and Change in Diphthongs and Long Vowels of Spoken Dutch’. Doctoral Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2001. ‘Two Standards: One for the Media and One for the School’. Language Awareness 10: 9–24.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2009. ‘The Macro Level Social Meaning of Late Modern Danish Accents’. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 40: 167–92.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2010. ‘Attitudes, Ideology and Awareness’. In The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by Wodak, Ruth, Johnston, Barbara and Kerswill, Paul, 265–78. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore, Garrett, Peter and Coupland, Nikolas. 2005. ‘Introducing Subjectivities in Language Variation and Change’. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 37: 9–35.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1993. ‘The Unobservability of Structure and Its Linguistic Consequences’. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 22, University of Ottawa, 16 October 1993.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lambert, Wallace, Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, Robert C. and Fillenbaum, Stanley. 1960. ‘Evaluational Reactions to Spoken Languages’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66: 44–51.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2015. ‘Perception, Cognition and Linguistic Structure: The Effect of Linguistic Modularity and Cognitive Style on Sociolinguistic Processing’. Language Variation and Change 27 (3): 319–48.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam and Walker, James. 2013. ‘An Existential Problem: The Sociolinguistic Monitor and Variation in Existential Constructions on Bequia XE “Bequia” (St. Vincent and the Grenadines)’. Language in Society 42: 407–28.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Ines. 2014. ‘Using Twitter for Linguistic Purposes: Three Case Studies’. Paper presented in the workshop ‘Web Data as a Challenge for Theoretical Linguistics and Corpus Design of the 36th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society’, Marburg University, 6 March 2014.Google Scholar
Smakman, Dick. 2006. Standard Dutch in the Netherlands: A Sociolinguistic and Phonetic Description. Utrecht: LOT Publishers.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Adriaan, Hermans, Dirk, de Houwer, Jan and Eelen, Paul. 2002. ‘On the Nature of the Affective Priming Effect: Affective Priming of Naming Responses’. Social Cognition 20 (3): 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staum Casasanto, Laura, Grondelaers, Stefan and Roeland, van Hout. 2015. ‘Got Class? Language Attitudes and Subjective Notions of Social Class’. In Responses to Languages Varieties: Variability, Processes and Outcomes, edited by Preston, Dennis and Prikhodhine, Alexei, 159–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stroop, Jan. 1998. Poldernederlands: Waardoor het ABN verdwijnt. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Stroop, Jan. 2010. Hun hebben de taal verkwanseld: Over Poldernederlands, “fout” Nederlands en ABN. Amsterdam: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, Pryce, Gwilym, Timmins, Claire and Gunter, Barrie. 2013. ‘Television Can Also Be a Factor in Language Change: Evidence from an Urban Dialect’. Language 89: 501–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjong Kim Sang, Erik and Bosch, Antal van Den. 2013. ‘Dealing with Big Data: The Case of Twitter’. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 3: 121–34.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje, Stoop, Wessel, Vogels, Jorrig and Helen, de Hoop. 2011. ‘Leve hun! Waarom hun nog steeds hun zeggen’. Nederlandse Taalkunde 16: 2–29.Google Scholar
Van Bezooijen, Renée. 2001. ‘Poldernederlands: Hoe kijken vrouwen ertegen?’ Nederlandse Taalkunde 6: 257–71.Google Scholar
Van Bezooijen, Renée. 2002. ‘Aesthetic Evaluation of Dutch: Comparisons across Dialects, Accents, and Languages’. In Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, vol. 2, edited by Long, Daniel and Preston, Dennis R., 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van der Horst, Joop. 2009. Het einde van de standaardtaal: Een wisseling van Europese taalcultuur. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.Google Scholar
Van Gijsel, Sofie, Speelman, Dirk and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. ‘Style Shifting in Commercials’. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 205–26.Google Scholar
Van Hout, Roeland. 2003. ‘Hun zijn jongens: Ontstaan en verspreiding van het onderwerp “hun”’. In Waar gaat het Nederlands naartoe? Panorama van een taal, edited by Stroop, Jan, 277–86. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Van Hout, Roeland. 2006. ‘Onstuitbaar en onuitstaanbaar: De toekomst van een omstreden taalverandering’. In Wat iedereen van het Nederlands moet weten en waarom, edited by Nicoline, van der Sijs, Stroop, Jan and Weerman, Fred, 42–54. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Vor der Hake, Jan Arend. 1911. ‘Is de beleefdheidsvorm U ’n verbastering van UEd.?’ De Nieuwe Taalgids 5: 16–34.Google Scholar
Willemyns, Roland. 2003. ‘Dutch’. In Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present, edited by Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim, 93–125. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahn, Christopher Joseph and Hopper, Robert. 1985. ‘Measuring Language Attitudes: The Speech Evaluation Instrument’. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4: 113–23.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by