Wim Vandenbussche - Historical Sociolinguistics in Flanders

8/6/2019 Wim Vandenbussche - Historical Sociolinguistics in Flanders

1/33

Wltrr VaNoENBUSSCHE, JETJEDn GRoor, ELINE VaNsBcrs &RoLAND WILLEMYNS

HISTORICAL OCIOLINGUISTICSN FLANDERS:ReolscovERINGrue, lgt t CENTURY

IntroductionHistorical sociolinguisticss a relatively young discipline (Rorvmnw

1982; MarrHuen 1988)which, until a decadeago,was mainly practicedand elaboratedn Germany.tAs a state-of-the-art verview article of thesociolinguistic ctivity n the Dutch anguage rea ecentlyobservedHacEN/ VaN Hour 1998), he absence f studieson the historical sociolingrristicsof Dutch was in line with the situation n the rest of the world. Yet, therewas, as they pointedout, one major exception, .e. the so-called Bruggeproject' of the Centre or Linguisticsof the Vrije UniversiteitBrussel.Whatis referred o here s a projectwhich startedn the early ninetiesofthe 20scenturyas a sociolinguistic tudyof the linguistic situationn Bruggeduringthe 19ft century.Taking into accounta number of relevant sociolinguisticvariables or the languagesituation n 19* century Flanders variableswhich had oftenbeenneglected r misinterpretedn the past researchwasdone into the linguistic behaviour of various actors in the languagecommunity, mainly though not only from the town of Brugge in West-Flanders. his was doneexclusively a novelty atlhat time as well - on thebasis of original sourcematerial,never used for linguistic research efore(Wu.BnnNs / VeNrBNnusscHE 000).I An overview of the German production is given in Marnmnn (1998) and VeNosI'{BUSSCHE2002a). Meanwhile, a number of consistent ong-term projects in historicalsociolinguisticshave also beenset up in other counkies.For English, for example,cf. theprojects of the 'sociolinguistics and language history' team in Helsinki (NevarenlnN /Rc.LIMouN-BnuNIBrnc 003); for Norwegian, cf. Jann (2001); for Portuguese,cf. Cen-vauro (2003). An introductory bibliography can be found on the homepage of the e-joumal 'Historical sociolinguistics and socio-historical linguistics':www. let. eidenuniv.nl,/Enelish/staffl ieken/tieken.htrnl.


2/33

WrM VANDENtsusscr{E.ETJEDEGRooF. ELnrE VeN'lscrc, & RoraND WILLEMYNS

Shortlyafter, the projecthas been enlarged o encompass theraspectsandcover alargergeographic rea.All four authorsofthe presentarticleareaffiliated with the research nit mentionedand have contributed o variousaspects fpast andongoing esearch n the topic. Both detailed esult eportsand accounts fresearch-in-progressavebeenpublishedover thepastyearsin a large number of intemational as well as domestic scientificpublications.2

Thepresent rticle s the first overview n Englishsummarizinghe majorfindings and challengesof all the various parts of this researchproject.Although the researchopics are nterrelated,he paperhasbeensubdividedin the following distinct paragraphsor the sake of cleamess:languageplanning', 'languageand ideology', 'languageand class', 'languageandadministration'and 'languageand the media'. An introductoryparagraphfocuseson the complexpolitical history of Flanderswhich determined tslinguisticmake-upduring he 19m entuly o a greatextent.

Although the link to Germanhistoricaldialectologymay not be obviousright away, various sectionsof the project discussed ere have, to someextent,been nspiredby German esearch rojectsconcerning he linguistichistoriography f 'das ange 19.Jahrhundert'. oth with regard o methodo-logy and thematic focus, we profited from, among others, he Germanexperienceon the topics of 'Arbeitersprache' KrnNr 1997, MarrrmIBn1986, Mmv 1998,ScHxoRSKy 1990), btirgerlicheSprache' CHerumna1983,LINKE 1996)and. orpusdesign Gnosse 1989,HUNECxE 997). nMATTHEIER's1998)overviewarticleof the impressive cholarlyproductionso far in thesedomains urther references an be found on studieswhichhave largely inspiredour own research.Also, it shouldbe mentioned, hattherehasbeena continuous nd ntenseexchange f views with a numberofthe aforementioned uthorsand their research eams, or example n thecontext of the'Arbeitskreis HistorischeStadtsprachenforschung'BlsrEn-BRoosEN 1999) and the 'GraduiertenkollegDynamik von Substandard-varietiiten' n Heidelbers.

' Cf. the reference ection ntries or the ndividualandjointpublicationsfDn Gnoor,Vel'ueNsusscnn,Vauuncrn andWLlsMyNs.


3/33

Historicalociolinguisticsn Flanders:ediscoveringhe19-century

Historicql backgroundAs the offrcial language f Belgiumand he Netherlands,Dutch may be

considered pluricentric anguage. s of today hepluricentricor peripheralcharacterof BelgianDutch is simply a matterof scientific calegorization.This used o be different n the 19th century,when it was not alwayssurewhich direction he standardizationrocessof Dutch in Flanderswas goingto take.

Fromthe very beginningof theMiddle Dutch writing traditiona linguisticcontrast etweenaneasterlyand a westerlyshaped arietycanbe witnessed,the main featureof the east-westoppositionbeing the presence east)orabsencewest)of the secondary mlautand the completelydifferent nflec-tional systemshat resulted rom it, giving way to structurallydiffering lan-guagevarieties.The overwhelmingmajority of all texts displayeddecidedlywestemlanguage eaturesand the written languageof the Middle Dutchperiodwas firmly westem specificallyFlemish) n its roots even n thenon-Flemishpartsof the languageerritory. n the l6th century, hough, he eco-nomic andpolitical centreof gravity of the Dutch langrrage rea shifted oBrabant,and Antwerp, Mechelenand Brusselsdeveloped nto the moreimportant centres.During this period a standardvariety of the writtenlanguagewas takingshape.t wasmainly basedon the language arietiesofFlanders ndBrabant VaN oENBnaloEN 1956).

This standardizationrocess,hough,would very soonchangets coursedramaticallyas a result of the revolt of the Low countriesagainstheir Ro-man CatholicSpanish ulers,starting n the sixties of the 16* century.Thepolitical split ofthe language rea,which occurredasa consequencefthatrevolt,hada dramaticmpacton the evolutionof Dutch'From 1585onwardsthe Low Countrieswere divided into two separateparts (more or lesspresent-dayHolland andBelgium),eachwith its specificpolitical, cultural,religious,and socialdevelopment. he centreof gravity of standardizationgraduallypassed o the North (more or lessthe present-dayNetherlands)which had comeout victoriouslyandas an independentation rom the war' A full accountof the sociolinguistichistory of Dutch in Flanderscanbe found in Wtr-lr-Mrr{s (2003).

5l


4/33

WliI VewosNBusscrm. Jnrrn DE GRooF.ELrNEVANIDcKE & RoraNo Wnrruvtts

against he Spanish ulers. The large number of (mostly wealthy, influentialand highly educated)southern mmigrants accounted or a permanent ivecontact with SouthernDutch, which was, at that moment, still the prestigevariety of the language.Yet, it was graduallyruled out as far as its influenceon the evolution of StandardDutch was concemed.

As a result of the SpanishWar of Succession1702-1713),he southem'Belgian' territorieswerepassed n from the Spanisho the Austrianbranchof Habsburg,which ruled hrough heendof the 18th entury.The consolida-tion of Frenchas the more socially acceptableonguecontinued,andDutchlost most of its official statusand of its standardanguageunctions,exceptat the ocal evel.In 1795 the 'Belgian' territories were annexed by France. Theirinhabitantswere considered itizensof the newly createdFrenchRepublic,andfor the first time in history there was amassiveofficial attempt o changethe linguistic habits of the massesby suppressinghe Dutch language(Dnxncrnne 1975).The northempart of The Netherlandswas ovemrn byFrench evolutionary roops as well, yet, hereno conscious ffort was madeto rule out the vernacular anguage.After French troops had occupiedUtrecht n February1795,a,,BataafscheRepubliek",a Frenchvassalstate,was founded hat sameyear. In 1806 t was replacedby the ,,KingdomofHolland" of which Louis Napoleon,one of Napoleon'sbrotherswas theking. Thepolitical changes uringthe French ime were, asDs,BoNtH e. a.(1997:369)state, ,beneficialo the standardizationf Dutch".At any rate, twas during the French ime that two of the main instruments or the standar-dization of Dutch were published, viz. SIEGpNeeBT's pelling andWEtr-AND's rafirmar.As a result of thepolitical wish of the victoriousanti-Napoleon oalitionBelgium and Holland were reunited as one United Kingdom of the Nether-lands(1814-1830),meant o be a fortresson France'snorthernborders DnJoNcrm 1967).This union, althoughshortJived,was of the utmost mpor-tance to the Flemings, who suddenly rediscovered heir language foradministration, olitics,the courtsand education, reaswhere t had but sel-dom been usedfor almost wo centuries.Although the reunificationperiodwas too shortfor the official policy of 'Dutchification' to really succeed,


5/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he 19ftcentury

small gfoup of cultural leadersand intellectualswere strongly influencedbyboth the Dutch standard anguageand the new linguistic opportunities- nthis way King Willem's relativelyshortreignwas decisive or the eventualsuccessf theFlemishMovement.By 1830Belgium had becomean independent onstitutionalmonarchywith aparliamentarysystemdominatedby the bourgeoiselite,which securedits position by adoptinga poll-tax system:out of 3.5 million people, only46,000had the right to vote (Rws l98l: 47).For this bourgeoisie, renchwas a natural choice as the languageof the state and so doing the onlylanguageused n the administrationand indeed n public life in general.Thegovernmentappointedonly French-speaking ivil servantsandthe discrimi-nationof Dutch throughout he 19ft centulywasgeneralizedatrdvery delibe-rate(WIrrnvrvNs / DE GRooF VANDENBUSSCHE002).Hence,despite hefactthatDutch speakers onstituted he majority of the population*,no legalmeanswereprovided for their language.A so-calledFlemishMovementwasstartedup almost immediately and fought a long lasting battle for culturaland inguistic rights for Dutch speakers.

It took until 1898,though, for the geliikheidswel 'equality law') todeclareDutch andFrench he two official languagesof the country. It took acomplete entury o finally achievehe so-calledDutchification'of the uni-versity of Ghent (in 1930),meaningthat, at last, Dutch speakinguniversitystudentswere taught in their own language.Afterwards things developedconsiderably aster:two setsof laws in 1932and1963guaranteedwhat hadbeen he ultimategoal of the FlemishMovement, .e., the offrcial and com-plete .Dutchification' of Flanders.The walloons having beenopposed owidespreadbilingualism throughout the country, Belgium gradually tumedto the territoriality principle model to accommodatehe various linguisticgroups. t is officializedthe languagerontier as a domesticadministrativeborder,madeit virtually unchangeableand accomplished he linguistic ho-mogeneityof the languagegroups andregions.Revisionsof the constitutionin 1970and 1980provided for cultural autonomyanda considerableamountof self-determinationor the linguistically divided partsof the country. sub-42.3 million Dutch speakers sopposed o 1.2 million French speakers@WS l98l: 47).

53


6/33

Wrrr,tV,qNom*nusscne.JeuE De Gnoon. ELtt'UVANIDCKE& RoLANDWILLEMYNS

sequentconstitutionalchangesn 1988(Wnrn / CnaBvsBcKx/ MEYNEN2000) and in 1993(Ar-rN / SwrBNs 1993) inally turnedBelgiuminto thefederalcountry t is now.

LanguageplanningsGiven the historicalcontextsketched bove, t comesas no surprisehat

languageplanninghas been an important aspectof the standardizationfDutch in Belgium from the beginningof the ,,lange19. Jahrhundert"on-wards. ndividuals,organizations,cademies,olitical partiesand he varioussuccessiveovernments ave all tried to influence he language ituation naccordance ith their own particularviews andagendas.Despiteacademicinterest rom historiansandpolitical scientists,heseofficial and non-officialinterventions have thus far hardly ever been analysed from a purely(socio)linguistic erspective. he part of our projectdiscussedn this para-graph ries to fill this gap,and servesasthe backboneor the evaluationofthe actual anguage se in the 19* centurysocietyas found in the archivesourcesseebelow).

Before 1830Up until the end of the Austrian rule over the SouthernLow Countries(1794),no official language egislationwas imposedon the inhabitantsof

theseterritories. The Spanishand Austrian rulers did display a personalpreferenceor French, hough,which was shared y thehighersocialclasses.From 1795 onwards, he one nation,one languagepolicy from the Frenchrulersprovokeda dramatic anguage-politicalhange.After a failed attemptin 1794 o Frenchiff all court and administrativeife, a languageaw of 1803stipulatedhat from 1804onwards,all official documentswere o be writtenin French.The press, iteratureand theatren Dutch, alsograduallybecamesubjecto a directedanguage olicy, for thefirst time ever.

After the defeatof Napoleon, he Dutch monarchWilliam I tried to re-implement he Dutch language n education,administrationand the courtsCf.DeGnoop 2002).(2003).


7/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscoveringhe 19* cenhrry

a seriesof languageaws.This new language olicy stirreda heavyn which both the opponentsand advocatesused argumentswhich

laterreturn at thecentreof theDutch-French anguagestruggleduringheBelgianperiod.Adversarieseferred o the statusandprestigeof French,o the poor development f the Flemishdialects,and continuouslyclaimedthat Dutch and Flemish were separateunrelated languages'They eagerlyused he support ound n the alreadycitedfact,,thatour Flemings rom theSouthemprovinces,understandwith difficulty, or do not understandat all,theDutchof theNorthernprovinces,which is mutual" (Dennnnte 1829:7).The advocates,on the contrary, underlined the common historical andlinguistic backgroundof both languagestheNorthem andSouthemvarietiesof butch) andpraised he inherentgrammatical eaturesof Dutch (its alleged'structuralsimplicity', for example).

William's language olicy failed in the end.The reticentattitudeof theheavilyFrenchifiedLiberal group(who supported is economicpolicy) cer-tainly contributed o this failure, as did the fierce oppositionfrom the catho-lic ciergy who put Northern Dutch on a par with Protestantism.Both groupsjoined fo.""r, organized etitionsagainsthe languageegislation'and,even-tually, forced the Dutch King to redraw his language aws on the brink ofBelgian ndependence.

From lB30 onwardsBelgium emergedas a statewhich advocatedde iure full freedomof

larrguagehoice,but becamede acto fully Frenchifiedn the offrcial admi-nistration,the court, the army andthe educationalsystem'A new, emerging'non-Frenchifiedmiddle class (trained during the time of the reunificationwith TheNetherlands) bjectedo thisFrenchification f public life andgaverise to the FlemishMovement n the 1830s.First perceivedasharmless itsinitial main activities were literary, not political), the Movement graduallybecamean influentialpolitical player from the 1840sonwards. ts leadersdemandedaws which would guaranteehe basic right to use one's ownlanguagen thedomainsistedabove.etttrougtr the Movement reunited people who shared a longing forlinguistic emancipation,hegroup wasfar from monolithic from the very on-


8/33

Wn4VeNoBweusscnp, JBrrs Ds GnooF'.ETTNEVANTDCKE RoreNp WrrrsM\r.{s

set.As amalter of fact, t reflectedall the commonoppositions f public lifeat the time, most notably he ideologicaldividebetweenCatholicsand non-Catholics.This oppositionwould continue o determinemany of the discus-sions within theMovementup until the lastquarterof the20ft century.The Movement'smainpolitical aim(and,eventually,ealisation)was heintroductionof the 'territoriality principle' in Flanders.Whereas eopleusedto have he choice betweenspeakrngFrench or Dutch in all spheres f publiclife (i.e. the 'personalityprinciple'), the Movementaccomplishedhat allofficial administration, ourt and educationn Flandershad to be organizedin Dutch. This political and social(r)evolutionhasbeen describedn greatdetail(cf. NEVB 1998)and neednot concemus frrther here.The 'extra-lin-guistic' language egislationhas most certainlycontributed o the gradualstandardization rocessof Dutch in Flanders,but we will mainly focus on the'intemal-linguistic'planningactivities hat were usedand implementedosupport this standardizationand the integration of Northern and SouthemDutch. It will become clear that the government was only marginallyinvolved in this process.Especially where the attempts o change theattitudes towards the languageissue were at stake, a large share of theplanningactivitieswas nitiatedby non-offrcialactors.

LanguagepIanningmeas resAs far as the orthography ssuewas concemed, he govemmentdidparticipate in the attempts to arrive at an official spelling system. Theparagraphs elow on 'languageand ideology', 'languageand class' and'language and govemment' each deal with detailed aspects of thisdiscussion;t may suffice hereto say that the questionof orthography asbeen a lively one from the very beginningof the existenceof Belgium,dominated y socialand deologicalssues. he Belgiangovernment doptedits frst official spelling for Dutch in 1844(the Committee-spelling),ndchangedo the Dp VnrBs-TBWrNrcr-spelling in 1869;both choicescamedown to an approachowards he spellingsystem or Dutchwhich was usedin The Netherlandsat the time (cf. VaNleNBUsscHE2002b or anoverviewof thesesystems). he ntegrationistractionhoped hat hisgradualadoption

56


9/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he 19ft century

of the Northem spelling system would also convey the prestigeof theNorthern Dutch language o the written langrragen Flanders.

The wish to elevate he status of Dutch was at the heart of all integra-tionist attempts o reinforce the contactwith Northem Dutch. The bi-annual'Dutch Congresses' n Dutch language nd iterature,organizedrom 1849onwards,were seenas a furthermeans o this effect (WnrEIvm.{S1993).Philologists rom both Flandersand the Netherlands iscussed variety oflinguistic and literary topics at these meetings,but the Flemish talks stoodout for their frequent statusplanning nature. For the integrationists, t wasvital to stressand spread he opinion that the languageused n FlandersandHolland really was one and the same language. The fact that this wasachieved hrough lectureson corpusplanning issues s very much in linewith FIsHrvmN's1993:337) claimthat,,[...] at mostcongresseshecorpus-planning emphasesmerely serveas rather transparentmasksfor the status-planningpassionshat are ust a liule below he surface."

One of the few substantial projects that ever sprung from thesecongresses as the compilationof the oint Flemish-DutchDictionary of theDutch Language from 1849 onwards.This crucial step n the standardizationof Dutch (VeN SremrNeuRc 1992) nvolveddiscussions n the statusandacceptability of typically Flemish (peripheral) vocabulary in what was tobecome he ultimate directory of ,,correct"Dutch vocabulary. Typically Fle-mish words were, eventually,only marginally introduced.The establishmentf a ,,FlemishAcademy'' or linguisticsand literaturein 1886 was a firther consecrationof the integrationistgoals. Besides,,linguisticscience"andDutchliterature, he Academywas also supposedoact for languageegislation and to stimulate he emancipationof the Flemishpeople.As such, t called or a fully accepted tandardanguagen Flanders.Yet, by underlining both the languageunion of North and South and, at thesame ime, the vital respect or the Flemish componentof this standardlanguage,he Academy ried to find a compromise osition ,in the middle"of the heatedanguage-ideologicalebates.

A critical evaluationof these anguageplanningactivities(Congresses,Dictionary and Academy) revealsa discrepancybetween he ambitiousgoalsof the Flemish Movement (extendingthe functions and status of Dutch in


10/33

Wtr\4 VANDENBUSSCM, JNTTEDB GROOT,ETTNIE ANTDCKE & ROTENO WIITETNN'IS

Flanders) and the structural inadequacyof the everyday Flemish Dutchlanguagen the 19ftcentury or thistask.The endless ormdebatesemainedvery theoreticaland never reached he necessary oint of adoptingandspreading distinctcodifiednorm(apart rom orthography)'Although t wasdecidedquite early that the nonn was to be the Northern Dutch one, thevarious ssuesof slandardizationausedoo many deologicaldiscussionsnthe sociallydividedFlanders or the standardo be implemented ndused.The impressive work by non-official actors in the debate (languagepurificationmanuals, tc.)may - for lack of anyoffrcialsupport at its besthave influencedthe linguistic attitudesof a small part of the languagecommunity.

Languageand ideology6In the precedingparagrapheferencewas madeto the great mpactof

ideological actorson the language ebaten 19th centuryFlanders.One ofthe moststrikingexamplesn this respect oncemshe SaintLutgardGuild(.Sinte-Luitgaarde ilde'), a Bruges-basedocietywhichwasactivebetween1874and1877.Althoughoftendefinedasan apogee f particularist ction.the Guild defended he rights of the west Flemish languagewithin thebroader Dutch language' (courTENIER 1998) - close reading of thesociety'sannualproceedingsevealed hat this organisation ad a politicaland religioushidden agendawhich has rarely beenobservedn languageplanning situations.Contrary o popularbelief,the SaintLutgardGuild wasnot intended o promote the prestigeof a dialectal anguagevariety, norshould its actions be understoodas an effort to rcalize the goals of theFlemish Movement (social, cultural and political promotion throughlinguistic emancipation). he Guild was first and foremosta tool for thespreadand sustainment f ultramontane ower and the languagessuewasexploitedasoneof themeanso achievehatgoal; over70Yo f its memberswere clergymen.Despiteour well-documented nowledgeof the politicalconflict between liberals, moderateCatholics and fanatic defendersofultramontanism at the time, the latter movement has hardly ever beenucf.WueMYNs(1997)58


11/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he l9m century

discussedas a determiningforce behind an influential segmentof theparticularistmovement.The Guild's meetingminutesallow us, however, odescribe n greatdetail the underlying deological strategies,motives anddiscourseof its alleged inguistic actions,on the basis of original primarysources.It is remarkablehat most earliercontributionson the SaintLutgard Guildare nnocentof any referenceo the following statement f the Guild presi-dent conceming he essentialmotivationbehind the Guild's 'linguistic' ac-tions:

[.. ] why is it thatwe sodearlyove our WestFlemishanguage f old? tis becausee aredeeply onvincedhat o wrap hepureFlemishVirgin inthe robe of that languages the only possibility o saveher from thepoisoningnfluence f wickedgodlessnessndmoralcomrption.SLG1875: 7,hanslation rrrnvrrNs1997).Theproceedings rovideampleexplicit referenceso the identity of this

'comrpting' influence. t concemsno more or less han Protestantism s awhole and- by 'logical' extension any tool which can be associated iththe Protestantcommunity, including the langrrageof the ProtestantNether-lands.As such, he diphthongisationof Germanic andfi in Dutch and Ger-man (which doesnot occur n West-Flemish ialects)was condemned s aheathen eature, nflicted uponthose anguages y the followers of, respec-tively, Calvin and Luther (SLG 1877: 77-86).Pseudo-linguistic rgumentslike these itted within anencompassingampaign o diabolise he Northernvariantof Dutch: t was,Jhe anguage f Falseness"eflectingall the allegedintrinsic wickedcharacteristicsf Protestantism,s opposedo the CatholicWest-Flemish,language f Truth, which hasnothing o embellishor to hide,[which] is simple,natural, cordial and open-hearted"SLG 1876: 19-27,translationWu-rrvrrNs I 997).

So far, the picture is clear: adapting to the Northem Dutch standardwould allow the populationto understandhe 'heathen' message, riskwhich had to be avoidedat all cost. The strategyand the rhetorical umswhichwere used o achievehis isolation,however,are ascinating. s far asthediscourseowards he West-Flemish opulationwas concemed,he Guild


12/33

Wtr\4VANDENBusscHs. rrrE DE GRooF.ELn IEVaxrncrc & RoLANDWILLEMYNS

memberswent to greatefforts to convince heir 'flock' (manyof which wereilliterate) that the West-Flemishdialectwas a languageof its own whichcouldperformall the necessary ommunicativeunctions or goodcatholiccitizens. The famous West Waamschdioticon - a dictionary of the WestFlemish dialect- and a,,Flemish grammar", oth written by the prominentGuild memberLnoNAnous DEBo (1869,1873),providedpseudo-scientificsupport or this claim.This analysis s not basedon Hineininterpretierung as suggested yDBpnBz2000): someof the Guild's contemporarieslreadysaw hrough heGuild's strategy and described in great detail the ideological andpremeditated haracterof its activities. n a critical article n the magazine'RevueBrittanique', or example,t was speltout that:

The Flemish lergywaseffectively oo strictlydirected,oo intellectuallydisciplined,o persistn suchan adventurei.e.fighting he unificationofthe Dutch anguage hich hey consideredshostile o theirreligionandtheir identitylwithouta previouslywell designedlan [...].To firmlygroundts dominationn Flanders,t wasnecessaryor theclergy o isolatethe country...Thiscomplete, bsolutesolation asbeenachievedo alargeextenthankso thiscreation fa languagellegedo be special nd tis to that anguagehat heclergyowes or agoodpart tsomnipotencenthe Flemishrcgion.(RevaeBrittanique,January-February-March878,quotedn Arlosrnv I930:152, ranslationWILLEMYNS997)This type of criticism was typically counteredby the aforementioned

assertionhat heGuild only defendedherightsof West-Flemishn the crea-tion of a supra-regional lemishDutch. It would be naive to assume, ow-ever, that the Guild's local idiom was intendedas a contribution o thestruggleof the FlemishMovement,or as a powerfulnation-widealtemativefor the NorthernDutch standard.t was impossible or the Flemishpopula-tion to achievesocial,economicalandpolitical promotionwith the dialectalvariety the Guild advocated.Moreover, he Guild had no problemswhatso-ever with the leading unctionof French n Flemishsocietyand Guild presi-dent Duct-os explicitly denounceda supra-regionalvariant of Dutch in fa-vour ofFrench n 1879:


13/33

Historicalsociolinguisticsn Flanders:Rediscoveringhe 19' century

(D)o you really believethat we intend to abandonour language or a newso-calledmother tongue?Forget it! Ratherwe'll leam to read and writeFrench,French s what we prefer a thousand imes to this kind of Flemishor whateverone likes to call it. (letterquoted n AnossBnv 1930: 133'hanslationWnLEIvrn'{s 997)

At this stage, he Guild's double-speak appeafs n all clarity: towards themass of the population the locally powerful, but supra-regionally impotentFlemish dialect was propagated, whereas critical Flemish activists had to beconvinced of Guild's honourable linguistic intentions by the scientific workof DB BO and others, all the while making sure (in the words of the famouspoet GEZELLEwho was seen by the Guild's mernbersas their 'master') ,,thatwe conceal our real purposesand our priestly considerationsfrom the bulk ofthe population" (quoted in WBsrBnrwcr 1977 : 476).

Although GEZELLE's relation with the Guild was rather complex (he didnot believe in the artificial creation of a West-Flemish language, seeWTLLEMyNS 1997) for an extensive discussion),he did support their ideolo-gical agenda and their'concealed' views on the unnecessarysupra-regionalFlemish standard:

The Fleming... wheneverhis native vemaculardoes not suffice, forexamplewhen addressinghe outsideworld... doesnot use an imposedFlemishlanguageor highbrow Dutch ashis brethren n Holland do, no, hesimply switches o French.[...] In Flandersan official Flemishlanguage,alanguageafter the model of Dutch, which is usually called 'cultivatedHollandic'nowadays,s not in useandwill neverbeused. Grzrlrn 1885:rr4-116)Languageand classlCorpus ssuesThus far, we havedealt with theoreticalnofins and ideological intentions

related o language se.How thesemetalinguisticdiscussionselated o theactual written language n 19frcenturyFlanderswas unknown up until thebeginningof the presentproject.Descriptionsof the socialstratificationof7Cf.VaNoBNgusscm1999),2004).


14/33

WNAVANOEN'EUSSCI{E,JETJEDE GNOON,ETN*U,VANIIECKE & ROLAND WILLEMYNS

the languageat the time, for example,hardly everwent beyondthe sketchyoppositionbetween pauperDutch' and 'highbrow French'.By analysingoriginal texts from, respectively,ower, middle and upper classscribes nBruges,we hoped o obtaina moreprecise nsight n the actualquality andvariabilityof the writtenDutch anguagehat wasused n everydayife.It shouldbe stressedhat this comparative orpusbasedapproachwasnew in the discussion f the evolutionof 19frcenturyDutch,not in the leastbecause,or the first time ever,original owerclassdocuments ere aken n-to accountn this context.Two majormethodological etbacks which willsound amiliar to manyhistoricalsociolinguists had o be dealtwith, how-ever.The locationof primary sourcesrom the lower classes roved o beproblematic.To date, hereareno centralized ndeditedcollections f lowerilass documents vailablen the Dutch anguagearea;he 'Taalbank'projectof the Institute for Dutch Lexicology (Leiden, The Netherlands)should,eventually,solve his problem.Until the fairly recent nterest or 'Alltagsge-schichte'many ower classdocumentswerenot consideredo be of anyhis-torical importanceandwere,accordingly,neglected r destroyed'Althoughthemunicipalarchiveof Bruges understandably)oesnot file its documentsaccording o the classof the writers and the text type, we wefe able toretrievea fairly homogeneousollectionof handwrittenower classmeetingreports in its vast collections.Similar volumes of formal minutes from-lAOt" and upper classassociations ere then located

and transcribednother archives n Bruges,which finally resulted n a uniform and highlycomparableext database panninghe whole 19th enturyandrepresentingthe town's threemainsocialstrata.The social identificationof the variousscribeswas not alwaysan easytask, due to the constantchangesn the town's socialstructureduring thelong l9m century.The town alsowas characterisedy a 'medieval'artisaneconomyuntil the 1890s,having 'missed' the industrial revolution.Theprovenance nd the natureof the selected rchivedocumentsacilitated helocationof scribeson thesocial adder,however.The owerandmiddleclasscorporastem rom socialsecurity unds rom distinctprofessional ategories(apprentices ndmastersrom various rades) text intemalevidencellus-trates he sharp inancialand moral divide betweenboth associations' he


15/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he l9n century

upperclasscorpuspertainso oneof themostprestigious rcher'sGuilds nthe town characterizedbyhigh financial andsocialstatus.

Orthographicaland stylistic norms of the lower andmiddle classesAs far as orthogaphy is concemed, ur corpusanalysisyielded resultswhich prompt us to reconsiderhe effect and importanceof someof thelanguage lanningmeasures iscussed bove.None of the official spellingreformswaseveradopted y the ower classscribes,or example.All scribesused their own spelling system, nstead.Each of thesepersonalspellingnorns was apparentlynconsistent nd chaotic: t was common o find thesameword written in various different ways within the same ext and sen-tence (e.g. gemeenzaamheid'association')next to ghemeensaemeiitndghemeensaemheyt).et, a comparison f the various spelling orms for thesameword in our corporashowed hat this extremevariability was anythingbut chaotic: t wasnot onlypossibleo predict n which specificphonologicalcontexts pellingvariationwas ikely to occur,but also o define he limitedsetof possiblespellingvariants or oneandthe samegraphemeVamnN-BUSSCHE 002b). It should further be noted that there was a gradualtendencyovertime to limit the tolerance f spellingvariabilityamong owerclassscribes.Theyneveradopted nofficial spellingnorm,however,despitethe many corpusplanning efforts at that time and the fact that the Belgianstateofficially settled he spelling ssueby the adoptionof the De Vnms &TB WfNrpr norm.To the lowerclassesn Bruges,conforming o the officialstandardizedrthographyemaineda non-issue p until the endof the 19thcentury.Similar comments an be madeabout he stylisticquality of theselower class exts: although he assistanceompanies ontinuouslyproducedan impressive mountof meetingminutesandwritten rulesand regulations,many pauperscribeswere hardly able to control the stylisticpropertiesofthese formal documents.Their texts are, accordingly, chatacteized byzusammengebrochener til: afterthe introductory formula the scribefails tomaintain the formal style of the text type and the texts disintegrate intoincoherentstructures reminiscentof Middle Dutch) with unfinishedsen-tences,missingverbsand conjunctionsand dislocatedconstituents. heseformal and stylisticnon-standardeaturesoccurredhroughout he 19s cen-

63


16/33

wnr,r vaNlslreusscm, JETIEDE GRooF,ELI.{EVAN}fiCKE& ROLANDwrr-r,r'l,rvNs

tury in lower classtexts (as nlrrchat the beginning as at the end) andwereapparently a generally acceptedfeature of formal writing in this group.Given he massive roductionof thiszusammengebrochenertiland he factthat the scribesnever attempted o correcttheir texts, it seemshat the styleandgrammar ulesfrom the official languageplannersdid not reach hepoormassof thepopulation n Brugesbefore he20frcentury'

Middle classwriting in Brugeswascharacterised y the orthographyandstyle featuresof the lower class extsuntil the middle of the l9u century.This is a remarkable inding in its own right, sinceGermanresealcherson19thcentgry anguage sehaverepeatedly ome o the conclusion hat thecombinationof extremespellingvariability andzusammengebrochenertilin Germany at that time constituted a proper Arbeitersprache, a distinctclass-specific ariety as such (Merrunmn 1986,Krnu< 1997).Equallyinteresting,however, is the striking qualitative improvement n the middleclasscorpusafter 1850onthe levelsof styleandgfalnmar.As the,,shalgr"text structuresgraduallygive way to neatandwell-formed sentences round1900,one gets the impressionhat the (economicaland social)rise of themiddleclasswasaccompaniedy a growingconcemwith intelligibility. Theimprovements n their written texts most certainly contributed o this effect,although standardizedorthographywas apparentlyconsidered o be of lessimportance idiosyncratic pellingscontinuedhrough1900 n middleclasstexts. oo.From 1800onwards, he upper classmeetingreportscontainedhardlyany tracesof spellingvariation or stylistic breakdownanymore'The fact thatthese eatures typical of lower classwriting until 1900andof lower andmiddleclasswriting until 1850 werealsoomnipresentn (Dutch anguage)upperclassreportsbetween1750and 1800neednot concemus in detailhere. t doesprovidereason o believe,however, hat our variouscorpusesmay reflect the gradual spread hrough society of a growing concernwithstylistic and grammaticaluniformity, from the highest towards the lowestsocialclasses. utureresearchn historicalpedagogywill haveto establishthe link between he improvedwriting proficiency andthe increasedqualityof writing education,especiallywhere the lowest social classesal:econ-cemed.Advancesn historicalsociologymight furtherprovide nsightsn the


17/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he 19ff century

role of adoptingwriting standardsor the creationof a 'respectable' ocialidentity.

Varietychoice ofthe upper classesIn the preceding paragraphwe briefly mentioned that the upper classscribes n our corpususedDutch in formal meetingreportsduring the secondhalf of the 18ft century.Commonopinionhas t that the Frenchificationofthe Flemish elite startedduring the sameperiod and came n full swing from1794 onwnds,when he countrycameundera2}-year French ule. Our l9mcentury data irmly contradict his receivedview, however:our sourcesshowthat thehighest social circlesof the town prominentlyusedDutch throughoutthe whole 19ft century.As such, our findingscall for a careful reinterpre-tation of the alleged sharpsocial divide betweenspeakers f Dutch andFrench. Although French most certainly figured as the most prestigiousvariety in the society at that time, there seems o have been an importantplace or Dutch,aswell, in the ivesof upperclasscitizens.Their alternatinguse of Dutch and French was determinedby both the pragmatic effect ofspecificvarieties n varioussocial contexts,and by the wish to createa dis-tinct social dentityof poweror solidarity hrough anguage hoice.

Town politics n Brugeswasdominated y members f the upperclassesfor the greaterpart of the 19mcentury. The preserved ranscriptionsof thetown council meetings llustrate how this elite frmly advocated he use ofFrench when responding o the growing demandfor the Dutchification ofpublic life by theFlemishMovement.As far as hemake-upof official docu-ments is concemed,a fixed cluster of argumentsagainstthe use of Dutchwasrepeated ver andagain:

- The French part of the town population ,,that was unfortunatenot tomasterboth French andDutch" had rights of its own which should notbe attacked.Official censusdata showthat this percentage f mono-lingual Frenchspeakersariedbetween ,72

oAand2,59% of thepopu-lation n theperiod1880-1890.

- The town was said o be unable o pay for the translationcostsof allFrenchdocuments.


18/33


19/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he 19ft century

initiated, t was most certainlyupheld by the Guild members hemselvesduring the twentieth century. Contraryto what wasfound in the archives, hemainprintedhistory of the Guild (publishedn 1947)stateshat, from 1865onwards, ,thespokes anguageof our Guild is the French anguage.Allspeeches,ll discussions, lmostall correspondencere held in the Frenchlanguage"Golen 1947:396;our translation).

Further emarkable vidence bout he upperclasses'inguistic epertoirewas found in documentswhich areclosely related o the elite's influentialpolitical position. We were able to consult a large archive of electionpropagandarom the last quarterof the nineteenthcentury(i.e. at the heightof the allegedupper classFrenchification). heseelectionnewspapers ereexplicitly directedat thericher citizensof Bruges upuntil 1897, heright tovote depended n the amountof taxesonepaid).Not oneof the preservedelectionnewspapersndposterswas written in French.Somearticleswereset in an intended StandardDutch, instead, but the major part of thesesourcescontainedeither transliterateddialect or a languagewhich washeavily dialektischgeprrigt. Apart from the fact that this variety has neverbeen associated efore with written upper class anguageuse (it was evenentirely absentfrom previous discussionsof the overall written repertoireduring the nineteenthcentury), any dialectologist s bound to be struckby themeticulouslyclosedialect ranscriptionshe authorswere apparentlyable oproduce.

It appears, n sum, that both the composition of the written varietycontinuum n 19n centuryFlanders and the distribution and use of thevariousvarietiesatplayat the time shouldbe carefully econsidered. eneralsociolinguistic ssumptionsboutHigh andLow prestige arietiesshouldbecomplemented ith considerations f power and solidarity, social in- andexclusionand diosyncratici.e.domain-specific)inguisticchoices.

Languageand admin st at onsIt hasbeendemonstratedbove hat Belgium becamea fascinatingarenafor Dutch languageplanning during the nineteenthcentury, both induced by

tcf. VaNtncrB (2002),WrrrErvrrNs VaNmcre (2003),Dr Gnoon Ver'tlecKE 2004).


20/33

wrM veNoBr.rBUSSCHE,ETJE r GRoon,Etnn vaNrmcxs & ROTANDwU,lrt"rrNs

the stateand individuals.Especiatly n the field of orthographyone canwitness he rapidsuccessionf variousofficial andnon-officialnormswhichwere followed to highly varying extentsby the different strataof Flemishsociety.This evolutionstandsout,however, or the close nterplaybetweenpoliticalchangeand he spellingpolicy of the respectiveulers'

Different regimescanbe linked to differentnormsand,as such, heuseordenial of certain orthographyconventionsmay be indicative of politicalallegianceor opposition.Detailedanalysesof contemporary ommentsonthe various languagenofins have confirmed, namely, that orthographywasviewedas ar more hana mereconvention: ot only was spellingconsideredasthe very heartand soulof the language,t wasalsocommonly dentifiedwith the ideologicalbackgroundof the rulerswhich installed he specificsystem, o the extent hat thereactuallyoccurreda 'spelling war' between heassumed Catholic' (i.e. proper Flemish) and 'heathen,Protestant'(i.e.northem,Hollandic)spellingnorns. .ongoing researchs currently nvestigatinghe spellingbehaviour andthe possiblepolitical significance hereof)of the official chanceriesn thetownsof Antwerp andBrugesduringthe French until 1814),Dutch(1814-1830)and Belgian (from 1830 onwards) ule. A pilot study of the towncouncilrecords rom thetown of Willebroek,nearAntwerp,akeady evealeda number of remarkable nsights in this respect,which wet the appetitefortheupcoming esults.Traditional languagehistoriographyholds it that the controversial ssueof the spellingof Dutch in 19frcenturyFlanderswas settledofficially in agradualsuccessionf govemment ecisions,esulting n the adoptionof onesingleorthography orm for BelgiumandHolland n 1864.we know, how-ever,that, as far asprivate anguage se is concemed,n Flanders like inmany other countries,cf. MIrRoy 1999)the idea that spellingshouldbeinvariant was not commonly acceptedby the larget part of the languagecommunitybefore he 19ft century.There s, in otherwords,a sharpdividebetweenofficial languageplanning and the spreadand adoptionof thesemeasuresy the anguage sersn theirpersonal orrespondence'The statemade ts first official attemptat regulatingspelling n 1777,whenthe spellingby nrS ROCHESasofficially introducedn theschoolsof


21/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he 19ft cenhrry

Low Countries. In the Northem Low Countries the firstconsecratedcorpus planning instrumentswere created some 30

ater, during the time of the Napoleonic ule: STpCSNBBBT'Spellingpublished in 1804e,WEILAND'sgrarnmar n 180510 Dn Vnrns /BuncBn 1995:100, 155).Contrary o what hasbeenclaimed

thepresentday,this spellingsystemwaseffectively laid down as theoffrcial norm by the Dutch rulers at the time: DE GROOF ecently

discoveredconclusiveevidence rom the offrcial statenewspaper in whichall laws and decreeswere published) which proves that the SIBGBNSBBTsystemwasto be regardedas the only offrcial norm from 1804onwards orRepublicof The Netherlands, decisionwhich was confirmed n 1821(i.e.after the reunionof the Low Countries)for both the Northem and SouthemLow Countries DBGRoor /VeusBcxr 2004).

After the founding of Belgium in 1830, a Royal Decree of 1844officialized the so-called,,committee-spelling", systemwhich closelyresembledhe SIEGENBEEKorm. In 1864,finally, the DB VruBs and Tswnu


22/33

WrM VANDENBUSSCT{E. ETJEDE GRooF. ELINE VaNrncr-e & RoLAND Wtr-LEMYNS

commissionedy the Dutch rulers). t shouldbe stressedhat the town clerkappears o have mastered his systemquite well (the irregularities are farfewer than the amount ound in personal orrespondences),nd hat he wasable to switch from the former systemwithout any noticeableproblems;changes n orthographyin the corpus ar:enever due to a change of townclerk. After the Belgian ndependence1830s),n the absence f any officialspelling noffns, there is an abrupt retum to the Dss RocuBs system,forreasonswhich remain unclear so far. Whether the SIBcBwSEEKormeffectivelyconveyed pro-Hollandicallegiancen the eyesof the scribe,andthe return o DESRocHESwas a markerof changed olitical circumstances,remains o be clarified by the ongoing researchn this domain.A similarrapid and full adoption of the official noffn occulredwhen the so-called'Commission-spelling'was madecompulsory n 1844.The clerks appearobe able o switch to the new normswithout anyproblems,a situationwhichrepeated tself when the Dn Vnrps & TB Wnu


23/33

Historical sociolinguisticsn Flanders:Rediscovering he 19* century

The willebroek chancery scribes clearly anticipated the French andDutchdirectives: n the recordsof birth and deathcertificates,Frenchwasusedearlier than expected from 1796 onwards),and a radical switch toDutch alreadyoccurredn 1815(i.e. right afterthe changen regime).Theminutesof the town council followed suit: the FrenchversionschangedoDutch from 1820onwards.The results or the Belgianperiod,however,arefar more striking. common opinion has it that Dutch remainedthe uglyduckling in administrativemattersup until 1898when the 'Equality law'declaredDutch to be equal to French in official administrativematters. InWillebroek,however,Dutch was usednext to Frenchfrom 1830onwardsakeadyand all administrativecommunicationdirectedat the generalpublicwasexclusivelyDutch.The shareof Frenchgfaduallybecomes malleruntilthe full Dutchification rom 1865onwards,more than 30 yearsbeforetheEqualityLaw. ongoing spotchecksn the archivesof 30 Flemish ownsandviliageswill haveto demonstratewhetherthis was the generalpattern n therestof Flandersaswell. For now,we canonly referto anotherdetailedcasestudy in the East-Flemishown of Grembergen,where similar languagechoicepatternswere followed, which equally defu the generallyacceptedview on thesematters ofar.

LanguageandmediaJust ike manyof the topicsdiscussedarlier n this article, he influence

of the printedpresson the standardizationprocessof Dutch in Flandersdu-ring the 19ftcenturyhasneverbeenanalyzedbefore in a systematiccorpus-basedproject.l2We are, n otherwords,yet unable o say o which extent henewspapers unctioned as keepersand/or distributors of certain language,ro**. We do not know, for example, f (andhow) they respondedo thesuccessive fficial spellingguidelines,nor how they dealt with the wide-spreadspellingvariationat the time. Given the fairly generalpresence f(printedf media as significant standardizationactors in a large number ofsiandardizationhistories(DpUl,mnr / VANDBNBUSSCHE003)' however,wet' HasST1982), owever, ealtwith thespecificssue f 'gallicisms'n newspapersromAntwerpduring he 19*century.


24/33

Wnl VANDENBUSScHE.ETJE E GRooF. ELnIE Vaxsrcrc & RoreNo WrrrernrrNs

believe that it may be worthwhile to look closely into the linguisticbehaviourof Flemish newspapersn the socio-historical ontext describedabove.

Our main convincingargument or this researchs found n l9h centurytexts from language planners: one of the most commonly repeatedreproachesby the languagegardenersn the late 19tbcenturywas the claimthat the professionalmedia scribeswereresponsibleor the degenerationfthe Dutch language in Flanders during the 19* century on the lexical,morphologicaland syntacticalevel. This opinionwas mostexplicitly voicedby one of the foremenof the anguage urifiers,HvppouBrMgpRr:

,,Ournewspapersre hemost uinous f all for our anguageeeling.Theydailydisposefcarriageoads fannoying lunders.hey ncessantlyivethe most comicalproofsof the most helplessgnorance n the leveloflanguage nowledge...] The most amusingof this is, that thesenewspapersre nvolved n daily disputes n anguageuestions."Mnrnrl9al [899]: 0).It should be noted, moreover, that the same MEERT (1894a,b,c)frequently used newspaperexcerpts n his languageadvice columns toillustrate the ubiquitous ,phantasmsfrom the pathology of language" inFlemish Dutch. Even his fellow languagegardeners rom the opposedparticularist ide subscribedo this opiqionandreferred o their,,enemies" s

,,newspaper, hronicle and other gallic dish-cloths" (as the particularistauthority DBSTRBress put it, quoted n WLrsMrNs / HaBssnyN 1998:2937). Hensr (1982) found that there was reason to approachthis firmreprimandwith carefulness, s ar as he specific ssueof French nterferencein the oumalists' languagewas concemed;he amountof Gallicisms oundin her selectionof newspapersrom the town of Antwerp between1700and1900 was far smaller han could be expected rom the language ardeners'criticism at the time.

Thereare,however, manyotherlinguistic factorswhich may(or may not)have nfluenced hequalityof the newspaperanguage t the time, andwhichwerediscussedn thepreceding aragraphs:

- integrationism s.particularism


25/33

Historicalociolinguisticsn Flanders:ediscoveringhe19-century- extremevs. moderate ntegrationism/particularism.- variousofficial orthography uidelines- unofficial metalinguistic iterature and spelling/grammar/style orns- ideologicalandpolitical stratification f the normdebateIt is important to point out that the integrationist orientation of the

debateson the norns for Dutch was far from being commonly acceptedatthat time. The discussion n the languagessuewas, on the contrary, n fullswing during the 19ft century. t is, accordingly,extremely ikely that thedifferent standardizationiews and practiceswill be reflected o a certainextent n the corpus,especiallysince(asremarkedby Mnnnr) the issueoflanguage standardization and the direction it was supposedo take - wasfiercelydiscussed y variousnewspapers t the ime.We therefore ntendto preparea digital corpusof original newspapersfrom Flanders, covering the whole 19'o century and compromising hevariousdominantdeologicalpositionsat the time (see igurebelow).In linewith our earlier esearch. e will limit this casestudv o the situation n thetown of Bruges.

Gazettevan BruggeJournal de la Lys

De Nieuwe Gazeftevan Brugge (cath.)Standaerdvan Vlaenderen cath.)

Het BurgerbladI Gazettevan Brugge (cath.)I Het Brugsche Vrye (lib.)i Peperen zout (soc.)i Brugsche Beiaard(lib.)

Het Brugsche VrUe cath.)

@tffi

We intend o analyze o which extent hesenewspapersollowed one ormore of the official language noffns, whether they changed their writing


26/33

WIVIVANDENtsusscm,JETJEDEGRooF,EL['{EVaNmcrB & RoreNoWnrsvrvNs

policy when henorns changed, r if theyuseda differentnormof theirownaltogether. heeasiestevelto check his is spelling,but we alsohaveaccessto a-number f styleguideswritten in the ,,don'twrite... but write" traditionwhichprovideprescriptive dvice.We will furthertry to describehe breadthof the stylisticcontinuum nthe newspapers. e know (as discussed bove) rom limited checks n theelection press that certain oumalists were able to diversifu their sfyleaccording o subjector the readingpublic.How should he newspaper tylebe definedon the continuumbetweendialectand intendedstandard?r3idthey use a regionally flavouredvariety? can one distinguishsigns of agrowing ,,noffnconsciousness"? e will compare his writing praxiswiththenewspaper,sheoretical laimson the opicof standardization.

we will, finally, equally try to provide conclusiveevidenceabouttheinfluenceof the frequentlycited ideologicalaspects f the linguisticdebateon the actualwriting behaviourof the heavilypoliticizedpress.comparingthe different deologicalbackgrounds f the newspapersnd he viewsof thepoliticians they supportedwith the newspaper'swriting practicesshould"r*iry b which extent anguage olitical viewswere mplementedn'their'newspapers.

whether newspapershaveplayed an active and authoritativerole in thediffusionof the standard orm in 19m enturyFlanderss yet still unclear' tis hoped,however, hat our ongoingresearchwill allow us to answer hisquestion n the near future, and thus contributeto a betterunderstandingofthe fascinatinghistoryof Dutch, n the line of the projectsdiscussedn thisarticle. As for all other domainsdiscussedabove, this will once morenecessitate return o the originalarchivesourcesn order o checkand- ifnecessary correctour traditionalconceptions f thisperiodof our languagehistory (Wrrrnrrn'Ns 2002).We do hope that this overview has illustratedthat he anguage seandqualrtyofcertaintraditional ,standardizers"id not13The notion of intendedstandard' asusedby Mrnr 1998(,,intendiertesHochdeutsch"), is used to refer to a variety which does not meet the formal requirements of a standardlanguage e. g. consequent pellingand grammaticalsoundness), ut which is neverthelessintended by ihe writer to fulfil the functions attributed to a standard variety (e.g' supra-regional communication,prestigevariety).74


27/33

Historical sociolinguistics n Flanders:Rediscovering he 19- century

conform to the presentday scholarly ,,communisopinio". Other groups,which wereneglected o far in the standardizationiscussion, eem o haveplayeda specific ole in theprocess,nsteadVaxlexnusscHE 1999,2002b,2004).It was also found that the effect of official standardization ctions(which are traditionally presentedas highly important and influential) wasanything but straightforward: n certain domains,they only had a minimalimpact on certainpartsof the languagecommunityandwere evenneglectedby the majority of the writing population; in others, hey seem o have beenfollowedandevenanticipatedn an exemplaryashion.

It is our conviction hatwe will, onceagain,be able o drawsupportandinspiration rom German esearchor our ongoingprojects n this domain. tis also our hope hat ourprojectsmay servea similar purpose or our Germancolleaguesrom historicalsociolinguisticsnd dialectology.

BibliographyAtrN, ANonn SwrsNs,LoUIS-PAULHgg.) 1993):Het federale elgina devierdestaatshervorming.rugge.ALossERy, ew (1830):Kan.Adolf Duclos 1841-1925)met eenkijk op den

zoogenaamdenaalparticularistenstrijd.rugge.BIsTBR-BnoosEN,ELGAHg.)(1999):Beitrage urhistorischen tadtsprachen-

forschung.Wien.CARVALHo,MARrA Jose (2003): The kansition from early to modem

Portuguese:n approachrom historicalsociolinguistics.n: BarryBlakeKate Burridge Hg.):HistoricalLinguistics 001.Selectedapers rom the15th ntemationalConferencen HistoricalLinguistics I\4elbourne, 3-17August2001).Amsterdarn,9-69.

CIDRUBIM,IETER1983):Zur btirgerlichen prachees19.Jahrhunderts.is-torisch-pragmatischekizze.n: WirkendesWort 33,398-422.

CourrENIEn, mr (1998):Gildevan SinteLuitgaarde.n: NieuweEncyclopedievandeVlaamse eweging. ielI,1320-132I.Dn,Bo, LEoNARDUS1869):KleineNederduitschepraakkunstoorVlamingen.Brugge.

DBBo,LBoNenous1873).Westvlaamschdioticon.Brugge.


28/33

Wn\rVeNppwsusscm, rrrBDs Gnoor',ErnIEVANIDCKE ROLAND tr-LEM\r'{s

DE BoNrFI,ROLAND . a. (1997):Nieuwnederlands circa 1650-1880). n: Mau-rits c. van den Toom u. a. (Hg.): Geschiedenisvan de Nederlandse aal.Amsterdam,361-453.

Defrenne, J. (1829): Quelques d6es sur l'usage de la langue dite nationale,auroyaumedesPays-Bas, af un Belgeami de la justice et de la v6rit6.Brussel.De Gnoor, Jrrrn (2002): 200 years of language plaruring in Belgium' In:

Andrew Linn / Nicola Mclelland (Hg.): Standardization. Studies from theGermanic anguages.Amsterdar4 ll7 -134.

Dn Gnoor, Jerre (2003): Mit gezucktem schwert die sprache ausbauen?DieRechtschreibreformn Belgien 1836-1844. n: Sociolinguistica17.

DE GRooF,JsuE / VANHECKE, uue (2004): 1830 als taalpolitiek keerpunt,dejure en de facto. In: Wim VandenbusscheIIg.): Terug naar de bron(nen)'Gent.

DEJoNGHE, . (1967): De taalpolitiekvan Willem I. Sint-Andries/Brugge.DENECKERE,. (1975): Franse aalpolitiek 1796-1814.In: Encyclopedievan de

VlaamseBeweging,Tielt, 1593 1594.DEPREZ,AS (2000):Waarom de taalvan Gezellehetniet gehaaldheeft. n: Piet

Couttenier(Hg.): EeneeuwGezelle,Leuven' 75 82.DeuuBRr, ANe / V4NIENBUSSCHE,Wrvr (2003) Germanic Standardizations,Past to Present.Amsterdam.

De Vrues, J,cN WrlreNtlr{s, R9LAND / Buncen, PETER 1995): Het verhaalvan eentaal: negeneeuwenNederlands.Amsterdam.

FtsrueN, Josnue (1993): The earliest stageof languageplanning: The ,,firstcongress"phenomenon.Berlin, New York.

GEZELLE,Gutoo 18S5): Etudesde philologie n6erlandaise.Les flaminguistes.In: Le Mus6on V, I 14-116.

GoDAR,Hrwnr (1947): Histoire de la Gilde desArchers de Saint S6bastien e laVille de Bruges.Bruges.

GRossE. SmcFnrEo / Gruuernc, ManrrN / H6rscsr'R, THoMAS/ KARWEICK,Jonc (Hgg.) (1989): .Denn das Schreibengehort nicht zu meiner taglichenBeschtiftigung.'Der Altag kleiner Leute in Bittschriften,Briefen und Berich-ten aus dem 19. Jahrhundert.Ein Lesebuch.Bonn.


29/33

Historicalsociolinguisticsn Flanders:Rediscoveringhe19' cenhrry

HAEsr, RETNHILDE1982). Gallicismen in het Zuidnederlands. Een onderzoeknaar interferentieverschijnselenin Antwerpse krantentaal van 1700 tot 1900.Diss. Gent.

HAGEN.ANroN / VaN Hour, RosrAND (1993): De sociolingui'stiek an TaaJ&Tongval. In: Taal en tongval, themanummer11,44-64.HUNECKE, ATNER Urrure (1991): Ich, die unterzeichneteWittwe... Frauen

ausTharandtsGeschichteschreibenan die Obrigkeit. Tharandt.JaHn, EnNst HAKON (2001): Historical sociolinguistics. The role of Low

German language contact in the Scandinavian typological shift. In: LinguaPosnaniensis 3, 95-104.

KLENK,MaruoN (1997): Sprache m Kontext sozialerLebenswelt. Eine Untersu-chung zur Arbeiterschriftsprache im 19' Jahrhundert.Tiibingen.

LTNKE, ANcsrrre (i996): Sprachkultur und Btirgertum. Zur Mentalitiits-geschichte des I 9. Jahrhunderts.Stuttgart/Weimar.

MerrHerBn, KLAUSJ. (1986): 'Lauter Borke um den Kopp.' UberlegungenzurSprache der Arbeiter im 19. Jahrhirndert. In: Rheinische Vierteljahrsbldtters0,222-252.

MATTHETER,LAUSJ. (1988). Historische Soziolinguistik: Das verhaltnis vonsozialem und sprachlichem Wandel. In: Ulrich Arnmon / Norbert Dittmar /Klaus J. Mattheier (Hgg.): Sociolinguistics/ Soziolinguistik. Berlin, NewYork, 1430-1452.

MATTHEIER,LAUSJ. (1998): Kommunikationsgeschichte es 19. Jahrhunderts.uberlegungen zum Forschungsstandund zu Perspektivender Forschungsent-wicklung. In: Dieter Cherubim SiegfriedGrosse Klaus J. Mattheier (Hgg'):Spracheund biirgerlicheNation. Berlin, New York, 1-45.

Meenr, HlPporrer (1894a): Uit de pathologie der taal. Taalphantasmen1-7.Gent.

MEERT,HtppolrEr (1894b): Uit de pathologie der taal. Taalphantasmen8-16.Gent.

MEERT,Hrppormr (1894c): Taalpolitie.Gent.Mennr, HppoLmr (1941 [1399]): Onkruid onder de tarwe. Proeve van taal-zuivering. Tumhout.


30/33

WnaVexormusscrrE. JErJE pGnoor.Ernrs Varvmcrn & RoLANDWILLENTT'IIS

M[n{, AREND(1998): Arbeiterspracheund gesprocheneSprache m 19. Ja}tr-hundert. In: Dieter Cherubim / SiegfriedGrosse Klaus J. Mattheier (Hgg.):Spracheund btirgerlicheNation. Berlin, New York, 282-316.

MtLRoy, Javes (1999): The consequences f standardizationn descriptive in-guistics. In: Tony Bex / Richard Watts (Hgg.): StandardEnglish. The wide-ning debate.London, New York, 16-39.

Nnv.q.r,q.rxpN, ERrru / RAUMoLTN-BRLTNBERG,ELENA (2003): HistoricalSociolinguistics: Languagechange n Tudor and StuartEngland. London.

NEVB (1998):Nieuwe Encyclopedievan de VlaamseBeweging.Tielt.RoMATNE, uzanNs (1982): Socio-historical inguistics. Its statusand methodo-

logy. Cambridge.Scmonsrv, Ise (1990): Private Schriftlichkeit im 19. Jahrhundert.Untersu-chungen zur Geschichtedes alltiiglichen Sprachverhaltenskleiner Leute'.Tiibingen.

Ruys, MANU (1981): Die Flamen. Ein Volk in Bewegung, eine werdendeNation. Tielt.

SLG (1875): Gilde van SinteLuitgaarde.Handelingenvan de eerstevergaderingder werkende eden.Brugge.

SLG (1876): Gilde van Sinte Luitgaarde. Handelingen van de tweedevergaderingder werkende eden.Brugge.

SLG (1877): Gilde van Sinte Luitgaarde.Handelingenvan de derde vergaderingder werkende eden.Brugge.

VeN oBN BRANDEN, . (1956): Het strevennaar verheerlijking,zuivering en op-bouw van het Nederlands n de 16deeeuw.Gent [Neudruck:Amhem 1967].VANDENBUSSCHE,IM (1999): ,uArbeitersprache"n Bruges during the 19ftCentury. In: Helga Bister-Broosen(Hg.): Beitraege zur historischen Stadt-sprachenforschtng.Wien, 2I-47 .

Vexosxeusscm, WIM (2002a):Van'Arbeitersprache' naar'Bildungsstil'. HetDuitse onderzoeknaar sociale taalstratificatie n de 19d"eeuw. In: RolandWillemyns (Hg.): De taal in Vlaanderen n de l9d" eeuw. Historisch-socio-linguistischeonderzoekingen.Gent, 57 5-599.VewooxeusscHE, WIM (2002b): Dutch orthography in lower, middle and upperclass texts in 19ft century Flanders. In: Andrew Linn / Nicola Mclelland


31/33

Historical ociolinzuisticsn Flanders: ediscoveringhe19'century

(Hgg.): standardization.Studies rom the Germanic anguages.Amsterdam,29-42.

VANDENBUSSCHE,IM. (2004): Triglossia and pragmatic variety choice in 19*cenhlryBruges:a casestudy in historical sociolinguistics. n: Journalof His-toricalPragmatics .1.,27 47

VANHECKE,Ernre (2002): Een eeuw ambtelijk taalgebruik'. taal, spelling enwoordenschat n de verslagenvan het willebroekse schepencollege1818-1900)' In: Roland WillemlTrs (Hg'): De taal in Vlaanderen n de 19"' eeuw'Historisch-sociolinguistischenderzoekingen.Gent,47 -488.

VAN STERKENBUnG,etrus Gijsbertus Jacobus (1992): Het woordenboek derNederlandsche aal: portret van eentaalmonument. 's-Gravenhage'

WrsrenrrNcK, ALBERT 1977):De innerlijke wereld van Guido Gezelle.Nijme-gen,Brugge.

WnrsMytts, ROLAND 1993): Integrationsimvs. particularism.The gndeclaredissueat the first ,,Dutch congress" n 1849. In: JoshuaFishman(Hg'); Theearliest stage of language planning: the ,,First Congress" phenomenon'Berlin. New York, 69-83.

WrrLENm.rS, RoreNo (1997): Religious Fundamentalism and LanguagePlanning in 19m entury Flanders. In: Interdisciplinary Journal for GermanicLinguisticsand SemioticAnalysis 2.2, 28I -302.

WTLLEMrNS, oraNo Q002):,,Liever Hollandschdan Fransch": taalcontactentaalconflict in het negentiende-eeuwse.laanderen. In: Roland Willemyns(Hg.): De taal in vlaanderen in de 19d"eeuw. Historisch-sociolinguistischeonderzoekingen.Gent, 381-425.WTLLEM\'IIS, OLAND2003): Het verhaalvan het Vlaams.De geschiedenis anhetNederlands n de Zuidelijke Nederlanden.Antwerpen.

WnrsruvNs ROLAND De GnooF', JBTJE VANDENBUSSCHE,IM (2002): DieStandardisierungsgeschichtees Niederlandischen m 18. und 19. Jahrhun-dert. Einige Ergebnisseund Forschungsdesiderate.n: JannisAndroutsopou-los / Evelyn Ziegler (Hgg.): Standardfragen. oziolinguistischePerspektivenauf Sprachgeschichte,Sprachkontaktund Sprachvariation.Frankfurt, 27-38r1|/TLLEMyNS,ROLAND HAESERyN, SNO1998): Taal. In: Nieuwe Encyclopedievan deVlaamseBeweging.Tielt,293l-2946.


32/33

Wnr4VaNoBwsusscm. Jnrrn DB Gnoor. Ernqe VANfficKE & RoLANDWtr LEMYNS

WILLEM\NS,Roraxo / VelronxeusscHE,Wm (2000): Historischesocio-lingui'stiek:het 'Brugge-project'. n: Taal en Tongval 52 1:Hrld.utbrrrn toDaan).258-276.

WrLLErvryNS,oLAND VaNnecKE,ELnIE (2003): Corpusplanning in 19ftcenturyFlanders nd ts consequencesnpublic language sage n the admi-nistration. In: Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics andSemiotic nalysis8, l-14.

Wrrrr, Ers / CnesyBECKx,AN Mr.rtrN, Aranr (2000):Political history ofBelgium rom 1830.Brussel.


33/33

Dialekt, Regiolektund Standardsprachemsozialenund zeitlichenRaum

Documents

Wim Vandenbussche - Historical Sociolinguistics in Flanders