{"title":"Historical Diaglossia and the Selection of Multiple Norms: Mij and Mijn as 1st Person Singular Object Pronouns in 17th- and 18th-Century Dutch","authors":"G. Rutten","doi":"10.1017/S1470542721000076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that the Dutch sociolinguistic situation in the 17th and 18th centuries should be analyzed as diaglossic, that is, involving a wide spectrum of variation in between localized spoken dialects and the supposed written standard. In fact, multiple instances of norm selection for writing render this diaglossic situation even more complex. The paper shows that multiple norm selection even occurred in cases when a strict and simple norm was selected early on, that is, in the late 16th–early 17th century. The case study is based on the Letters as Loot Corpus comprising private letters from the 1660s–1670s and the 1770s–1780s and focuses on the object form of the 1st person singular personal pronoun, namely, mij or mijn. Despite the early selection of mij, some language users in the late 17th and 18th century adopted mijn in writing. The analysis shows a normative split in written Dutch of the time, with most language users either converging to or diverging from the supposed standard form mij.*","PeriodicalId":42927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Germanic Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Germanic Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542721000076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper argues that the Dutch sociolinguistic situation in the 17th and 18th centuries should be analyzed as diaglossic, that is, involving a wide spectrum of variation in between localized spoken dialects and the supposed written standard. In fact, multiple instances of norm selection for writing render this diaglossic situation even more complex. The paper shows that multiple norm selection even occurred in cases when a strict and simple norm was selected early on, that is, in the late 16th–early 17th century. The case study is based on the Letters as Loot Corpus comprising private letters from the 1660s–1670s and the 1770s–1780s and focuses on the object form of the 1st person singular personal pronoun, namely, mij or mijn. Despite the early selection of mij, some language users in the late 17th and 18th century adopted mijn in writing. The analysis shows a normative split in written Dutch of the time, with most language users either converging to or diverging from the supposed standard form mij.*
本文认为,17世纪和18世纪的荷兰社会语言学状况应该被分析为双向的,即涉及本地化口语方言和假定书面标准之间的广泛差异。事实上,写作规范选择的多个实例使这种诊断性的情况变得更加复杂。论文表明,在16世纪末至17世纪初,在早期选择严格和简单范数的情况下,甚至会出现多重范数选择。该案例研究基于《Letters as Loot语料库》,该语料库包括1660-1670年代和1770-1780年代的私人信件,重点关注第一人称单数人称代词的宾语形式,即mij或mijn。尽管早期选择了mij,但17世纪末和18世纪的一些语言使用者在写作中采用了mijn。分析显示,当时的荷兰语书面语存在规范分歧,大多数语言使用者要么倾向于或偏离所谓的标准形式mij*