HISTORICAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS IN FLANDERS

Wl tr r VaN oE N BU SS CHE, J E T J E D n G R o o r, EL IN E Va Ns Bcr s
Ro L AN D WI L L E M YN S
&
IN FLA NDERS:
HIST OR IC ALSOCIOLI NG UI STI CS
ReolscovE RI NG ru e, l gtt C ENTU RY
Introduction
Historical sociolinguisticsis a relatively young discipline (Rorvmnw
1982; MarrHuen 1988) which, until a decadeago, was mainly practiced
and elaboratedin Germany.t As a state-of-the-artoverview article of the
sociolinguisticactivity in the Dutch languagearearecentlyobserved(HacEN
/ VaN Hour 1998),the absenceof studieson the historical sociolingrristics
of Dutch was in line with the situationin the rest of the world. Yet, there
was, as they pointed out, one major exception,i.e. the so-called'Brugge
project' of the Centrefor Linguisticsof the Vrije UniversiteitBrussel.What
is referredto here is a project which startedin the early ninetiesofthe 20s
centuryas a sociolinguisticstudyof the linguistic situationin Bruggeduring
the 19ft century.Taking into accounta number of relevant sociolinguistic
variables for the languagesituation in 19* century Flanders- variables
which had often beenneglectedor misinterpretedin the past- researchwas
done into the linguistic behaviour of various actors in the language
community, mainly though not only from the town of Brugge in WestFlanders.This was doneexclusively* a novelty atlhat time as well - on the
basis of original sourcematerial,never used for linguistic researchbefore
(Wu.BnnNs / VeNrBNnusscHE2000).
I
An overview of the German production is given in Marnmnn (1998) and VeNosI'{
(2002a). Meanwhile, a number of consistent long-term projects in historical
BUSSCHE
sociolinguisticshave also been set up in other counkies. For English, for example, cf. the
projects of the 'sociolinguistics and language history' team in Helsinki (NevarenlnN /
Rc.LIMouN-BnuNIBrnc2003); for Norwegian, cf. Jann (2001); for Portuguese,cf. Cenvauro (2003). An introductory bibliography can be found on the homepage of the ejoumal
linguistics':
socio-historical
'Historical
and
sociolinguistics
www. let.leidenuniv. nl,/Enelish/staffltieken/tieken.htrnl.
WrM VANDENtsusscr{E.
JETJEDEGRooF.ELnrE VeN'lscrc, & RoraND WILLEMYNS
Shortly after, the project has been enlargedto encompassother aspects
and cover alarger geographicarea.All four authorsofthe presentarticleare
affiliated with the researchunit mentionedand have contributedto various
aspectsofpast andongoingresearchon the topic. Both detailedresultreports
and accountsofresearch-in-progress
havebeenpublishedover the pastyears
in a large number of intemational as well as domestic scientific
publications.2
The presentarticleis the first overviewin Englishsummarizingthe major
findings and challengesof all the various parts of this researchproject.
Although the researchtopics are interrelated,the paperhasbeensubdivided
in the following distinct paragraphsfor the sake of cleamess:'language
planning', 'language and ideology', 'languageand class', 'languageand
administration'and 'languageand the media'. An introductoryparagraph
focuseson the complex political history of Flanderswhich determinedits
linguisticmake-upduringthe 19mcentulyto a greatextent.
Although the link to Germanhistoricaldialectologymay not be obvious
right away, various sectionsof the project discussedhere have, to some
extent,been inspiredby Germanresearchprojectsconcerningthe linguistic
historiographyof 'das lange 19. Jahrhundert'.Both with regardto methodology and thematic focus, we profited from, among others, the German
experienceon the topics of 'Arbeitersprache'(KrnNr 1997, MarrrmIBn
1986, Mmv 1998, ScHxoRSKy 1990), 'btirgerlicheSprache'(CHerumna
1983,LINKE 1996) and.corpusdesign(Gnosse 1989,HUNECxE1997).In
(1998)overviewarticleof the impressivescholarlyproduction
MATTHEIER's
so far in thesedomainsfurther referencescan be found on studieswhich
have largely inspiredour own research.Also, it should be mentioned,that
therehasbeena continuousand intenseexchangeof views with a numberof
the aforementionedauthorsand their researchteams,for example in the
(BlsrEncontext of the'Arbeitskreis HistorischeStadtsprachenforschung'
BRoosEN 1999) and the 'GraduiertenkollegDynamik von Substandardvarietiiten'in Heidelbers.
' Cf. the referencesectionentriesfor the individualandjoint publicationsofDn Gnoor,
Vel'ueNsusscnn,Vauuncrn andWLlsMyNs.
50
the19-century
Rediscovering
in Flanders:
Historical
sociolinguistics
Historicql background
As the offrcial languageof Belgium and the Netherlands,Dutch may be
considereda pluricentriclanguage.As of todaythe pluricentricor peripheral
characterof Belgian Dutch is simply a matter of scientific calegorization.
This used to be different in the 19th century,when it was not always sure
processof Dutch in Flanderswas going
which directionthe standardization
to take.
From the very beginningof the Middle Dutch writing traditiona linguistic
contrastbetweenan easterlyand a westerlyshapedvariety canbe witnessed,
the main feature of the east-westoppositionbeing the presence(east) or
absence(west) of the secondaryumlaut and the completelydifferent inflectional systemsthat resultedfrom it, giving way to structurallydiffering languagevarieties.The overwhelmingmajority of all texts displayeddecidedly
westem languagefeaturesand the written languageof the Middle Dutch
periodwas firmly westem(specificallyFlemish)in its roots evenin the nonFlemishparts of the languageterritory. In the l6th century,though,the economic and political centreof gravity of the Dutch langrragearea shifted to
Brabant, and Antwerp, Mechelen and Brusselsdevelopedinto the more
important centres.During this period a standardvariety of the written
languagewas taking shape.It was mainly basedon the languagevarietiesof
FlandersandBrabant(VaN oENBnaloEN 1956).
process,though,would very soonchangeits course
This standardization
dramaticallyas a result of the revolt of the Low countries againsttheir Roman Catholic Spanishrulers, startingin the sixtiesof the 16* century.The
ofthat
political split ofthe languagearea,which occurredas a consequence
revolt, had a dramaticimpacton the evolutionof Dutch' From 1585onwards
the Low Countries were divided into two separateparts (more or less
present-dayHolland and Belgium), eachwith its specificpolitical, cultural,
religious, and social development.The centreof gravity of standardization
gradually passedto the North (more or less the present-dayNetherlands)
which had comeout victoriouslyand as an independentnation from the war
be found in Wtr-lr' A full accountof the sociolinguistichistory of Dutch in Flanderscan
Mrr{s (2003).
5l
WliI VewosNBusscrm. Jnrrn DE GRooF.ELrNEVANIDcKE & RoraNo Wnrruvtts
againstthe Spanishrulers. The large number of (mostly wealthy, influential
and highly educated)southern immigrants accountedfor a permanentlive
contact with SouthernDutch, which was, at that moment, still the prestige
variety of the language.Yet, it was gradually ruled out as far as its influence
on the evolution of StandardDutch was concemed.
As a result of the SpanishWar of Succession(1702-1713),the southem
'Belgian' territorieswere passedon from the Spanishto the Austrianbranch
of Habsburg,which ruled throughthe end of the 18thcentury.The consolidation of Frenchas the more socially acceptabletonguecontinued,and Dutch
lost most of its official statusand of its standardlanguagefunctions,except
at the local level.
In 1795 the 'Belgian' territories were annexed by France. Their
inhabitantswere consideredcitizensof the newly createdFrenchRepublic,
and for the first time in history therewas a massiveofficial attemptto change
the linguistic habits of the massesby suppressingthe Dutch language
(Dnxncrnne 1975).The northempart of The Netherlandswas ovemrn by
Frenchrevolutionarytroopsas well, yet, hereno consciouseffort was made
to rule out the vernacular language.After French troops had occupied
Utrecht in February 1795,a,,BataafscheRepubliek",a Frenchvassalstate,
was foundedthat sameyear. In 1806 it was replacedby the ,,Kingdomof
Holland" of which Louis Napoleon,one of Napoleon'sbrotherswas the
king. The political changesduring the Frenchtime were, as Ds,BoNtH e. a.
(1997:369) state,,,beneficialto the standardization
of Dutch". At any rate,it
was during the French time that two of the main instrumentsfor the standardization of Dutch were published, viz. SIEGpNeeBT'sspelling and
WEtr-AND'sgrafirmar.
As a result of the political wish of the victoriousanti-Napoleoncoalition
Belgium and Holland were reunited as one United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-1830),meantto be a fortresson France'snorthernborders(Dn
JoNcrm 1967).This union, althoughshortJived,was of the utmost importance to the Flemings, who suddenly rediscoveredtheir language for
administration,politics, the courtsand education,areaswhereit had but seldom been used for almosttwo centuries.Although the reunificationperiod
was too short for the official policy of 'Dutchification' to really succeed,a
<)
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ft century
small gfoup of cultural leadersand intellectualswere strongly influenced by
both the Dutch standardlanguageand the new linguistic opportunities- In
this way King Willem's relatively short reign was decisivefor the eventual
successof the FlemishMovement.
By 1830 Belgium had becomean independentconstitutionalmonarchy
with a parliamentarysystemdominatedby the bourgeoiselite, which secured
its position by adoptinga poll-tax system:out of 3.5 million people, only
46,000had the right to vote (Rws l98l: 47).For this bourgeoisie,French
was a natural choice as the language of the state and so doing the only
languageused in the administrationand indeedin public life in general.The
governmentappointedonly French-speakingcivil servantsand the discrimination of Dutch throughoutthe 19ft centuly was generalizedatrdvery delibe2002). Hence,despitethe
rate (WIrrnvrvNs / DE GRooF/ VANDENBUSSCHE
the population*, no legal
of
majority
the
constituted
factthatDutch speakers
Flemish Movement was
A
so-called
meanswere provided for their language.
startedup almost immediately and fought a long lasting battle for cultural
and linguistic rights for Dutch speakers.
It took until 1898, though, for the geliikheidswel('equality law') to
declareDutch and Frenchthe two official languagesof the country. It took a
completecenturyto finally achievethe so-called'Dutchification' of the university of Ghent (in 1930), meaning that, at last, Dutch speakinguniversity
studentswere taught in their own language.Afterwards things developed
considerablyfaster: two setsof laws in 1932 and 1963 guaranteedwhat had
beenthe ultimategoal of the FlemishMovement,i.e., the offrcial and complete .Dutchification' of Flanders.The walloons having been opposedto
widespreadbilingualism throughout the country, Belgium gradually tumed
to the territoriality principle model to accommodatethe various linguistic
groups.It is officializedthe languagefrontier as a domesticadministrative
border, made it virtually unchangeableand accomplishedthe linguistic homogeneityof the languagegroups and regions.Revisions of the constitution
in 1970and 1980provided for cultural autonomyand a considerableamount
of self-determinationfor the linguistically divided parts of the country. sub4
2.3 million Dutch speakersas opposedto 1.2 million French speakers@WS l98l: 47).
53
Wrrr,tV,qNom*nusscne. JeuE De Gnoon. ELtt'UVANIDCKE & RoLANDWILLEMYNS
sequentconstitutionalchangesin 1988 (Wnrn / CnaBvsBcKx / MEYNEN
2000) and in 1993 (Ar-rN / SwrBNs 1993)finally turned Belgium into the
federalcountryit is now.
Languageplannings
Given the historicalcontextsketchedabove,it comesas no surprisethat
languageplanning has been an important aspectof the standardizationof
Dutch in Belgium from the beginning of the ,,lange 19. Jahrhundert"onpolitical partiesandthe various
academies,
wards.Individuals,organizations,
to
influence
the languagesituationin
successivegovernmentshave all tried
accordancewith their own particularviews and agendas.Despiteacademic
interestfrom historiansandpolitical scientists,theseofficial and non-official
interventions have thus far hardly ever been analysed from a purely
(socio)linguisticperspective.The part of our project discussedin this paragraph tries to fill this gap,and servesas the backbonefor the evaluationof
the actual languageuse in the 19* century societyas found in the archive
sources(seebelow).
Before 1830
Up until the end of the Austrian rule over the SouthernLow Countries
(1794), no official languagelegislationwas imposedon the inhabitantsof
these territories. The Spanishand Austrian rulers did display a personal
preferencefor French,though,which was sharedby the highersocialclasses.
From 1795 onwards,the one nation, one languagepolicy from the French
rulers provokeda dramaticlanguage-politicalchange.After a failed attempt
in 1794to Frenchiff all court and administrativelife, a languagelaw of 1803
stipulatedthat from 1804onwards,all official documentswere to be written
in French.The press,literatureand theatrein Dutch, also graduallybecame
subjectto a directedlanguagepolicy, for the first time ever.
After the defeatof Napoleon,the Dutch monarchWilliam I tried to reimplementthe Dutch languagein education,administrationand the court
sCf.DeGnoop(2002).(2003).
54
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19* cenhrry
througha seriesof languagelaws. This new languagepolicy stirreda heavy
which
debate in which both the opponentsand advocatesused arguments
would later return at the centreof the Dutch-Frenchlanguagestruggleduring
the Belgianperiod.Adversariesreferredto the statusand prestigeof French,
to the poor developmentof the Flemish dialects,and continuouslyclaimed
that Dutch and Flemish were separateunrelated languages' They eagerly
the
usedthe supportfound in the alreadycited fact,,that our Flemingsfrom
at
all,
understand
not
do
or
difficulty,
Southemprovinces, understandwith
1829:7).
(Dennnnte
the Dutch of the Northernprovinces,which is mutual"
The advocates, on the contrary, underlined the common historical and
linguistic backgroundof both languages(the Northem and Southemvarieties
(its alleged
of butch) and praisedthe inherentgrammaticalfeaturesof Dutch
'structuralsimplicity', for example).
William's languagepolicy failed in the end. The reticentattitudeof the
heavily FrenchifiedLiberal group (who supportedhis economicpolicy) certainly contributedto this failure, as did the fierce opposition from the catholic ciergy who put Northern Dutch on a par with Protestantism.Both groups
joined fo.""r, organizedpetitionsagainstthe languagelegislation'and,eventually, forced the Dutch King to redraw his languagelaws on the brink of
Belgianindependence.
From lB30 onwards
Belgium emergedas a statewhich advocatedde iure full freedom of
larrguagechoice,but becamedefacto fully Frenchifiedin the offrcial administration, the court, the army and the educationalsystem'A new, emerging'
non-Frenchified middle class (trained during the time of the reunification
gave
with TheNetherlands)objectedto this Frenchificationof public life and
(its
harmless
perceived
as
rise to the FlemishMovementin the 1830s.First
gradually
initial main activities were literary, not political), the Movement
becamean influential political player from the 1840sonwards.Its leaders
demandedlaws which would guaranteethe basic right to use one's own
languagein the domainslistedabove.
etttrougtr the Movement reunited people who shared a longing for
linguistic emancipation,the group was far from monolithic from the very on-
Wn4VeNoBweusscnp, JBrrs Ds GnooF'.ETTNEVANTDCKE
& RoreNp WrrrsM\r.{s
set.As amalter of fact, it reflectedall the commonoppositionsof public life
at the time, most notably the ideologicaldivide betweenCatholicsand nonCatholics.This oppositionwould continueto determinemany of the discussionswithin the Movement up until the last quarterof the 20ft century.
The Movement'smain political aim (and,eventually,realisation)was the
introductionof the 'territoriality principle' in Flanders.Whereaspeopleused
to have the choice betweenspeakrngFrenchor Dutch in all spheresof public
life (i.e. the 'personalityprinciple'), the Movement accomplishedthat all
official administration,court and educationin Flandershad to be organized
in Dutch. This political and social (r)evolutionhas been describedin great
detail (cf. NEVB 1998)and neednot concemus frrther here.The 'extra-linguistic' languagelegislationhas most certainly contributedto the gradual
standardizationprocessof Dutch in Flanders,but we will mainly focus on the
'intemal-linguistic' planning activities that were used and implementedto
support this standardizationand the integration of Northern and Southem
Dutch. It will become clear that the government was only marginally
involved in this process.Especially where the attemptsto change the
attitudes towards the language issue were at stake, a large share of the
planningactivitieswas initiatedby non-offrcialactors.
L anguagep Ianning measures
As far as the orthographyissue was concemed,the govemmentdid
participate in the attempts to arrive at an official spelling system. The
paragraphsbelow on 'languageand ideology', 'languageand class' and
'language and govemment' each deal with detailed aspects of this
discussion;it may suffice here to say that the questionof orthographyhas
been a lively one from the very beginning of the existenceof Belgium,
dominatedby socialand ideologicalissues.The Belgiangovernmentadopted
its frst official spelling for Dutch in 1844 (the Committee-spelling),and
changedto the Dp VnrBs-TBWrNrcr-spelling in 1869;both choicescame
down to an approachtowardsthe spellingsystemfor Dutch which was used
in The Netherlandsat the time (cf. VaNleNBUsscHE 2002bfor an overview
of thesesystems).The integrationistfractionhopedthat this gradualadoption
56
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ft century
of the Northem spelling system would also convey the prestige of the
Northern Dutch languageto the written langrragein Flanders.
The wish to elevate the statusof Dutch was at the heart of all integrationist attemptsto reinforce the contactwith Northem Dutch. The bi-annual
'Dutch Congresses'on Dutch languageand literature,organizedfrom 1849
onwards,were seenas a further meansto this effect (WnrEIvm.{S 1993).
Philologistsfrom both Flandersand the Netherlandsdiscusseda variety of
linguistic and literary topics at these meetings,but the Flemish talks stood
out for their frequent statusplanning nature. For the integrationists,it was
vital to stressand spreadthe opinion that the languageused in Flandersand
Holland really was one and the same language. The fact that this was
achievedthrough lectureson corpusplanning issuesis very much in line
(1993:337) claimthat,,[...] at mostcongresses
with FIsHrvmN's
the corpusplanning emphasesmerely serve as rather transparentmasks for the statusplanningpassionsthat arejust a liule below the surface."
One of the few substantial projects that ever sprung from these
congresses
was the compilationof thejoint Flemish-DutchDictionary of the
Dutch Language from 1849 onwards.This crucial stepin the standardization
of Dutch (VeN SremrNeuRc 1992)involved discussionson the statusand
acceptability of typically Flemish (peripheral) vocabulary in what was to
becomethe ultimate directory of ,,correct" Dutch vocabulary.Typically Flemish words were, eventually,only marginally introduced.
The establishment
of a ,,FlemishAcademy'' for linguisticsand literature
in 1886 was a firther consecrationof the integrationistgoals. Besides
,,linguisticscience"and Dutch literature,the Academywas also supposedto
act for languagelegislation and to stimulatethe emancipationof the Flemish
people.As such,it calledfor a fully acceptedstandardlanguagein Flanders.
Yet, by underlining both the languageunion of North and South and, at the
same time, the vital respectfor the Flemish componentof this standard
language,the Academytried to find a compromiseposition ,,in the middle"
of the heatedlanguage-ideological
debates.
A critical evaluationof theselanguageplanning activities (Congresses,
Dictionary and Academy) revealsa discrepancybetweenthe ambitious goals
of the Flemish Movement (extending the functions and status of Dutch in
57
Wtr\4 VANDENBUSSCM, JNTTEDB GROOT, ETTNIEVANTDCKE & ROTENO WIITETNN'IS
Flanders) and the structural inadequacy of the everyday Flemish Dutch
languagein the 19ftcenturyfor this task.The endlessnorm debatesremained
very theoretical and never reachedthe necessarypoint of adopting and
spreadinga distinctcodifiednorm (apartfrom orthography)'Although it was
decided quite early that the nonn was to be the Northern Dutch one, the
causedtoo many ideologicaldiscussionsin
variousissuesof slandardization
the socially divided Flandersfor the standardto be implementedand used.
The impressive work by non-official actors in the debate (language
purificationmanuals,etc.)may - for lack of any offrcial support- at its best
have influenced the linguistic attitudes of a small part of the language
community.
Languageand ideology6
In the precedingparagraphreferencewas made to the great impact of
ideologicalfactorson the languagedebatein 19th centuryFlanders.One of
the most striking examplesin this respectconcemsthe SaintLutgard Guild
societywhich was activebetween
Gilde'), a Bruges-based
(.Sinte-Luitgaarde
an
1874 and1877.Although often definedas apogeeof particularistaction.the Guild defendedthe rights of the west Flemish languagewithin the
broader Dutch language' (courTENIER 1998) - close reading of the
society's annualproceedingsrevealedthat this organisationhad a political
and religious hidden agendawhich has rarely been observedin language
planning situations.Contraryto popularbelief, the SaintLutgard Guild was
not intendedto promote the prestigeof a dialectal languagevariety, nor
should its actions be understood as an effort to rcalize the goals of the
Flemish Movement (social, cultural and political promotion through
linguistic emancipation).The Guild was first and foremosta tool for the
spreadand sustainmentof ultramontanepower and the languageissuewas
exploitedas one of the meansto achievethat goal; over70Yoof its members
were clergymen.Despite our well-documentedknowledgeof the political
conflict between liberals, moderate Catholics and fanatic defendersof
ultramontanism at the time, the latter movement has hardly ever been
ucf. WueMYNs (1997)
58
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe l9m century
discussedas a determining force behind an influential segmentof the
particularistmovement.The Guild's meetingminutesallow us, however,to
describein great detail the underlying ideological strategies,motives and
discourseof its allegedlinguistic actions,on the basis of original primary
sources.
It is remarkablethat most earlier contributionson the Saint Lutgard Guild
are innocentof any referenceto the following statementof the Guild president concemingthe essentialmotivationbehind the Guild's 'linguistic' actions:
of old?It
[. . ] why is it thatwe sodearlyloveourWestFlemishlanguage
we aredeeplyconvincedthatto wrapthepureFlemishVirgin in
is because
the robe of that languageis the only possibilityto saveher from the
andmoralcomrption.(SLG
poisoninginfluenceof wickedgodlessness
WrrrnvrrNs1997).
1875:57,hanslation
The proceedingsprovide ampleexplicit referencesto the identity of this
'comrpting' influence.It concemsno more or less than Protestantismas a
whole and - by 'logical' extension- any tool which can be associatedwith
the Protestantcommunity, including the langrrageof the ProtestantNetherlands.As such,the diphthongisationof Germanici and fi in Dutch and German (which doesnot occur in West-Flemishdialects)was condemnedas a
heathenfeature,inflicted upon thoselanguagesby the followers of, respectively, Calvin and Luther (SLG 1877: 77-86).Pseudo-linguisticarguments
campaignto diabolisethe Northern
like thesefitted within an encompassing
variantof Dutch: it was ,Jhe languageof Falseness"reflectingall the alleged
as opposedto the Catholic
of Protestantism,
intrinsic wicked characteristics
West-Flemish,,languageof Truth, which hasnothingto 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 standard
would allow the population to understandthe 'heathen' message,a risk
which had to be avoidedat all cost. The strategyand the rhetorical tums
which were usedto achievethis isolation,however,are fascinating.As far as
the discoursetowardsthe West-Flemishpopulationwas concemed,the Guild
59
Wtr\4VANDENBusscHs.JrrrE DE GRooF.ELn IEVaxrncrc
& RoLANDWILLEMYNS
memberswent to great efforts to convincetheir 'flock' (many of which were
illiterate) that the West-Flemishdialect was a languageof its own which
could perform all the necessarycommunicativefunctionsfor good catholic
citizens. The famous West Waamschldioticon - a dictionary of the West
Flemish dialect- and a,,Flemish grammar",both written by the prominent
Guild memberLnoNAnous DE Bo (1869, 1873),providedpseudo-scientific
supportfor this claim.
This analysis is not based on Hineininterpretierung(as suggestedby
alreadysaw throughthe
DBpnBz2000): someof the Guild's contemporaries
great
the ideological and
in
detail
Guild's strategy and described
premeditatedcharacterof its activities.In a critical article in the magazine
'RevueBrittanique',for example,it was speltout that:
TheFlemishclergywaseffectivelytoo strictlydirected,too intellectually
disciplined,to persistin suchan adventure[i.e. fightingtheunificationof
ashostileto theirreligionand
the Dutchlanguagewhich they considered
plan [...]. To firmly
their identitylwithouta previouslywell designed
for theclergyto isolate
groundits dominationin Flanders,
it wasnecessary
to a
absoluteisolationhasbeenachieved
the country...This complete,
allegedto bespecialandit
largeextentthanksto thiscreationofa language
in
is to thatlanguagethattheclergyowesfor a goodpartits omnipotence
1878,
the Flemishrcgion.(RevaeBrittanique,January-February-March
I 997)
quotedin Arlosrnv I 930:152,translationWILLEMYNS
This type of criticism was typically counteredby the aforementioned
assertionthat the Guild only defendedthe rightsof West-Flemishin the creation of a supra-regionalFlemishDutch. It would be naive to assume,however, that the Guild's local idiom was intendedas a contribution to the
struggleof the FlemishMovement,or as a powerful nation-widealtemative
for the Northern Dutch standard.It was impossiblefor the Flemishpopulation to achievesocial,economicaland political promotionwith the dialectal
variety the Guild advocated.Moreover,the Guild had no problemswhatsoever with the leadingfunction of Frenchin Flemishsocietyand Guild president Duct-os explicitly denounceda supra-regionalvariant of Dutch in favour ofFrenchin 1879:
60
Historicalsociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19' century
(D)o you really believe that we intend to abandonour languagefor a new
so-called mother tongue? Forget it! Rather we'll leam to read and write
French,French is what we prefer a thousandtimes to this kind of Flemish
or whateverone likes to call it. (letter quotedin AnossBnv 1930: 133'
hanslationWnLEIvrn'{sI 997)
At this stage, the Guild's double-speak appeafs in all clarity: towards the
mass of the population the locally powerful, but supra-regionally impotent
Flemish dialect was propagated, whereas critical Flemish activists had to be
convinced of Guild's honourable linguistic intentions by the scientific work
of DB BO and others, all the while making sure (in the words of the famous
poet GEZELLEwho was seen by the Guild's mernbers as their 'master') ,,that
we conceal our real purposes and our priestly considerations from the bulk of
1977 : 47 6).
the population" (quoted in WBsrBnrwcr
Although GEZELLE's relation with the Guild was rather complex (he did
not believe in the artificial creation of a West-Flemish language, see
WTLLEMyNS(1997) for an extensive discussion), he did support their ideological agenda and their'concealed' views on the unnecessary supra-regional
Flemish standard:
The Fleming... whenever his native vemacular does not suffice, for
examplewhen addressingthe outsideworld... doesnot use an imposed
Flemish languageor highbrow Dutch as his brethrenin Holland do, no, he
simply switchesto French. [...] In Flandersan official Flemish language,a
language after the model of Dutch, which is usually called 'cultivated
Hollandic' nowadays,is not in useandwill neverbe used.(Grzrlrn 1885:
rr4-116)
Languageand classl
Corpusissues
Thus far, we have dealt with theoreticalnofins and ideological intentions
relatedto languageuse.How thesemetalinguistic discussionsrelatedto the
actual written languagein 19fr century Flanderswas unknown up until the
beginningof the presentproject. Descriptionsof the social stratificationof
7Cf.VaNoBNgusscm
(1999),(2004).
6l
WNAVANOEN'EUSSCI{E, JETJEDE GNOON,ETN*U,VANIIECKE & ROLAND WILLEMYNS
the languageat the time, for example,hardly ever went beyond the sketchy
oppositionbetween 'pauper Dutch' and 'highbrow French'. By analysing
original texts from, respectively,lower, middle and upper class scribesin
Bruges,we hopedto obtain a more preciseinsight in the actualquality and
variability of the written Dutch languagethat wasusedin everydaylife.
It should be stressedthat this comparativecorpusbasedapproachwas
new in the discussionof the evolutionof 19frcenturyDutch, not in the least
because,for the first time ever,original lower classdocumentsweretakeninto accountin this context.Two major methodologicalsetbacks- which will
soundfamiliar to many historicalsociolinguists- had to be dealtwith, however. The location of primary sourcesfrom the lower classesproved to be
problematic.To date,thereareno centralizedand editedcollectionsof lower
ilass documentsavailablein the Dutch languagearea;the 'Taalbank'project
of the Institute for Dutch Lexicology (Leiden, The Netherlands)should,
eventually,solvethis problem.Until the fairly recentinterestfor 'Alltagsgeschichte'many lower classdocumentswere not consideredto be of any historical importanceand were, accordingly,neglectedor destroyed'Although
doesnot file its documents
the municipalarchiveof Bruges(understandably)
type, we wefe able to
text
the
and
accordingto the class of the writers
collectionof handwrittenlower classmeeting
retrievea fairly homogeneous
reports in its vast collections. Similar volumes of formal minutes from
and upper class associationswere then located and transcribedin
-lAOt"
other archivesin Bruges, which finally resultedin a uniform and highly
comparabletext databasespanningthe whole 19thcenturyand representing
the town's threemain socialstrata.
The social identificationof the various scribeswas not always an easy
task, due to the constantchangesin the town's social structureduring the
by a 'medieval' artisan
long l9m century.The town also was characterised
economy until the 1890s,having 'missed' the industrial revolution. The
provenanceand the natureof the selectedarchivedocumentsfacilitatedthe
locationof scribeson the socialladder,however.The lower andmiddle class
corporastemfrom socialsecurityfundsfrom distinctprofessionalcategories
(apprenticesand mastersfrom varioustrades)- text intemal evidenceillustratesthe sharpfinancial and moral divide betweenboth associations'The
62
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe l9n century
upperclasscorpuspertainsto one of the most prestigiousarcher'sGuilds in
the town characterizedbyhigh financial and social status.
Orthographical and stylistic norms of the lower and middle classes
As far as orthogaphy is concemed,our corpusanalysisyielded results
which prompt us to reconsiderthe effect and importanceof some of the
languageplanning measuresdiscussedabove.None of the official spelling
reformswas everadoptedby the lower classscribes,for example.All scribes
used their own spelling system,instead.Each of these personal spelling
norns was apparentlyinconsistentand chaotic:it was commonto find the
sameword written in various different ways within the sametext and sen('association')next to ghemeensaemeiitand
tence (e.g. gemeenzaamheid
Yet, a comparisonof the various spellingforms for the
ghemeensaemheyt).
sameword in our corpora showedthat this extremevariability was anything
but chaotic:it wasnot only possibleto predictin which specificphonological
contextsspellingvariationwas likely to occur,but alsoto definethe limited
set of possiblespellingvariantsfor one and the samegrapheme(VamnNBUSSCHE2002b). It should further be noted that there was a gradual
tendencyover time to limit the toleranceof spellingvariability amonglower
classscribes.They neveradoptedan official spellingnorm, however,despite
the many corpus planning efforts at that time and the fact that the Belgian
stateofficially settledthe spellingissueby the adoptionof the De Vnms &
TB WfNrpr norm. To the lower classesin Bruges,conformingto the official
standardizedorthographyremaineda non-issueup until the end of the 19th
century.Similar commentscan be made about the stylistic quality of these
companiescontinuouslyproduced
lower classtexts: althoughthe assistance
an impressiveamountof meetingminutesand written rules and regulations,
many pauperscribeswere hardly able to control the stylistic propertiesof
these formal documents. Their texts are, accordingly, chatacteized by
zusammengebrochenerStil: after the introductory formula the scribe fails to
maintain the formal style of the text type and the texts disintegrate into
incoherentstructures(reminiscentof Middle Dutch) with unfinished sentences,missing verbs and conjunctionsand dislocatedconstituents.These
formal and stylistic non-standardfeaturesoccurredthroughoutthe 19s cen63
wnr,r vaNlslreusscm,
JETIEDE GRooF,ELI.{EVAN}fiCKE & ROLANDwrr-r,r'l,rvNs
tury in lower class texts (as nlrrch at the beginning as at the end) and were
apparently a generally accepted feature of formal writing in this group.
Stil andthe fact
Given the massiveproductionof this zusammengebrochener
that the scribesnever attemptedto correct their texts, it seemsthat the style
and grammarrules from the official languageplannersdid not reachthe poor
massof the populationin Brugesbeforethe 20frcentury'
Middle classwriting in Brugeswas characterisedby the orthographyand
style featuresof the lower classtexts until the middle of the l9u century.
This is a remarkablefinding in its own right, since German resealcherson
19th centgry languageuse have repeatedlycome to the conclusionthat the
Stil
combinationof extremespellingvariability andzusammengebrochener
distinct
a
in Germany at that time constituted a proper Arbeitersprache,
class-specificvariety as such (Merrunmn 1986, Krnu< 1997). Equally
interesting, however, is the striking qualitative improvement in the middle
classcorpusafter 1850 onthe levels of style and gfalnmar.As the,,shalgr"
text structuresgradually give way to neat and well-formed sentencesaround
1900, one gets the impressionthat the (economicaland social) rise of the
by a growingconcemwith intelligibility. The
middle classwas accompanied
improvementsin their written texts most certainly contributedto this effect,
although standardizedorthography was apparentlyconsideredto be of less
importance- idiosyncraticspellingscontinuedthrough 1900in middle class
texts.too.
From 1800 onwards,the upper classmeetingreports containedhardly
any tracesof spelling variation or stylistic breakdownanymore'The fact that
thesefeatures- typical of lower classwriting until 1900 and of lower and
middle classwriting until 1850- were alsoomnipresentin (Dutch language)
upper classreportsbetween 1750 and 1800 need not concemus in detail
here.It doesprovide reasonto believe,however,that our various corpuses
may reflect the gradual spreadthrough society of a growing concern with
stylistic and grammatical uniformity, from the highest towards the lowest
social classes.Future researchin historicalpedagogywill have to establish
the link betweenthe improved writing proficiency and the increasedquality
of writing education,especiallywhere the lowest social classesal:e concemed.Advancesin historicalsociologymight furtherprovideinsightsin the
64
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ff century
role of adoptingwriting standardsfor the creationof a 'respectable'social
identity.
Variety choice ofthe upper classes
In the preceding paragraphwe briefly mentioned that the upper class
scribesin our corpususedDutch in formal meetingreports during the second
half of the 18ft century.Commonopinion has it that the Frenchificationof
the Flemish elite startedduring the sameperiod and camein full swing from
1794 onwnds,when the countrycameunder a2}-year Frenchrule. Our l9m
century datafirmly contradictthis receivedview, however: our sourcesshow
that the highest social circles of the town prominently usedDutch throughout
the whole 19ft century.As such, our findings call for a careful reinterpretation of the alleged sharp social divide between speakersof Dutch and
French. Although French most certainly figured as the most prestigious
variety in the society at that time, there seemsto have been an important
placefor Dutch, aswell, in the lives of upperclasscitizens.Their alternating
use of Dutch and French was determinedby both the pragmatic effect of
specificvarietiesin varioussocial contexts,and by the wish to createa distinct socialidentityof poweror solidaritythroughlanguagechoice.
Town politics in Brugeswas dominatedby membersof the upper classes
for the greaterpart of the 19mcentury. The preservedtranscriptions of the
town council meetingsillustrate how this elite frmly advocatedthe use of
French when respondingto the growing demand for the Dutchification of
public life by the FlemishMovement.As far asthe make-upof official documents is concemed,a fixed cluster of argumentsagainst the use of Dutch
wasrepeatedover andagain:
- The French part of the town population ,,that was unfortunate not to
masterboth French and Dutch" had rights of its own which should not
be attacked.Official censusdata show that this percentageof monolingual Frenchspeakersvariedbetween| ,72 oAand2,59 % of the populationin theperiod1880-1890.
- The town was said to be unableto pay for the translationcostsof all
Frenchdocuments.
65
WILLEM\NS
Wnr.rVAwpENnusscrfr , JETJEDn Gnoon, Ernu VANru'cKE & ROLAND
precise
- Frenchwords were allegedlybetterunderstoodand had a more
Dutch
the
that
meaning in offrcial matters.It was even put point blank
languagewas not elaboratedor refined enoughto serve any offrcial
purpose.
whenever the issue of the languageuse in the council meetingswas
even
addressed,however, most council members virtually refused to
language.
compulsory
the
considerthe possibility of introducingDutch as
told
The singlecouncil memberwho took the side of the Dutchificationwas
French
that he should,,wait a little longer" with his ,,radicalpersecutionof
new
present
to
able
be
would
young
and
speakers"since ,,he was still
attitude
reluctant
this
for
propositions at a later time." The main real reason
of his
iowards Dutch was voiced by a co'ncil memberwho chided one
colleaguesfor intentionallyusing Dutch ,Jo be understoodby the working
rally'''
class":,,Speakto the council,not to the people,this is not a political
tool
of
a
much
very
also
was
Apart from its evidentsocialprestige,French
isolationtowardsthe lower socialclasses.
Guild
our study of the archivesof the mentionedupper classarchers'
they
that
however,
well,
very
Dutch
revealed that the town elite did know
qualify
of
the
that
and
used this languagethroughout the nineteenthcentury
the
example,
their written languagewas far higher than they pretendedin, for
to have
town council. The main condition for using the languageappears
in a
himself:
found
writer
the
in
which
been the extra-linguisticsetting
lower
of
risk
the
without
,,amongequals"and
closedupperclassatmosphere
no problem whatsoeverwith the use of
nua
town
the
class contact,
"tit"
the
Dutch. A few figures may illustrate how Dutch never disappearedfrom
meeting
official
Guild's
the
archers
upper class's linguistic repertoire:all
."port. were written in Dutch until 1867,the financialregisterswith incomes
was in
and expenseswere kept in Dutch until 1925,theregisterof mernbers
1870. It
Dutch at least up until 1886 and the overview of debtsup until
was
dates
these
after
to
French
shouldbe noted,moreover,that the transition
remained
there
type,
far from consistent: for almost each document
knowoccasionalinstancesat which Dutch was used;this illustratesthat the
ledgeandthequalityoftheDutchlanguageneverdisappearedamongth
was
.o"iul groop. Although it is unclear when the Frenchificationmyth
66
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ft century
initiated, it was most certainly upheld by the Guild membersthemselves
during the twentieth century. Contrary to what was found in the archives,the
main printed history of the Guild (publishedin 1947)statesthat, from 1865
onwards,,,the spokeslanguageof our Guild is the French language.All
are held in the French
speeches,all discussions,almost all correspondence
language"(Golen 1947:396;our translation).
Furtherremarkableevidenceaboutthe upperclasses'linguisticrepertoire
was found in documentswhich are closely relatedto the elite's influential
political position. We were able to consult a large archive of election
propagandafrom the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury (i.e. at the height
of the allegedupper classFrenchification).Theseelectionnewspaperswere
explicitly directedat the richer citizensof Bruges(up until 1897,the right to
vote dependedon the amountof taxesone paid). Not one of the preserved
electionnewspapersand posterswas written in French.Somearticleswere
set in an intended Standard Dutch, instead, but the major part of these
sourcescontainedeither transliterateddialect or a languagewhich was
heavily dialektisch geprrigt. Apart from the fact that this variety has never
been associatedbefore with written upper classlanguageuse (it was even
entirely absent from previous discussionsof the overall written repertoire
during the nineteenthcentury),any dialectologistis bound to be struck by the
meticulouslyclosedialecttranscriptionsthe authorswere apparentlyable to
produce.
It appears, in sum, that both the composition of the written variety
continuum in 19n century Flanders and the distribution and use of the
General
variousvarietiesatplay at the time shouldbe carefullyreconsidered.
aboutHigh and Low prestigevarietiesshouldbe
sociolinguisticassumptions
complementedwith considerationsof power and solidarity, social in- and
exclusionandidiosyncratic(i.e. domain-specific)linguisticchoices.
Languageand administrat ions
It hasbeendemonstrated
abovethat Belgium becamea fascinatingarena
for Dutch languageplanning during the nineteenthcentury, both inducedby
tcf. VaNtncrB (2002),WrrrErvrrNs/ VaNmcre (2003),Dr Gnoon/ Ver'tlecKE(2004).
67
JETJEDr GRoon, Etnn vaNrmcxs & ROTANDwU,lrt"rrNs
wrM veNoBr.rBUSSCHE,
the state and individuals. Especiatlyin the field of orthographyone can
of variousofficial andnon-officialnormswhich
witnessthe rapid succession
extents by the different strata of Flemish
varying
were followed to highly
society.This evolutionstandsout, however,for the closeinterplaybetween
political changeandthe spellingpolicy of the respectiverulers'
Different regimescanbe linked to different norms and, as such,the use or
denial of certain orthographyconventionsmay be indicative of political
allegianceor opposition.Detailed analysesof contemporarycommentson
the various languagenofins have confirmed, namely, that orthographywas
viewed as far morethan a mereconvention:not only was spellingconsidered
as the very heart and soul of the language,it was also commonlyidentified
with the ideologicalbackgroundof the rulers which installedthe specific
system,to the extentthat there actually occurreda 'spelling war' betweenthe
assumed'Catholic' (i.e. proper Flemish) and 'heathen,Protestant' (i.e.
northem,Hollandic) spellingnorns. '.
ongoing researchis currently investigatingthe spelling behaviour(and
the possiblepolitical significancethereof) of the official chanceriesin the
towns of Antwerp and Brugesduring the French(until 1814),Dutch (18141830) and Belgian (from 1830 onwards)rule. A pilot study of the town
council recordsfrom the town of Willebroek,nearAntwerp, akeadyrevealed
a number of remarkableinsights in this respect,which wet the appetite for
the upcomingresults.
Traditional languagehistoriography holds it that the controversial issue
of the spelling of Dutch in 19fr centuryFlanderswas settledofficially in a
gradualsuccessionof govemmentdecisions,resultingin the adoptionof one
singleorthographynorm for Belgium and Holland in 1864.we know, however, that, as far as private languageuse is concemed,in Flanders(like in
many other countries,cf. MIrRoy 1999) the idea that spelling should be
invariant was not commonly acceptedby the larget part of the language
communitybefore the 19ft century.Thereis, in other words, a sharpdivide
between official languageplanning and the spreadand adoptionof these
by the languageusersin their personalcorrespondence'
measures
The statemade its first official attemptat regulatingspelling in 1777,
was officially introducedin the schoolsof
when the spellingby nrS ROCHES
68
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ft cenhrry
the Southern Low Countries. In the Northem Low Countries the first
officially consecratedcorpus planning instruments were created some 30
spelling
years later, during the time of the Napoleonicrule: STpCSNBBBT'S
(Dn
/
Vnrns
was published in 1804e,WEILAND's grarnmar in 180510
/ BuncBn 1995: 100, 155).Contraryto what has beenclaimed
WTLLEMrNS
present
day, this spelling systemwas effectively laid down as the
up until the
only offrcial norm by the Dutch rulers at the time: DE GROOFrecently
discoveredconclusive evidencefrom the offrcial state newspaper(in which
all laws and decreeswere published) which proves that the SIBGBNSBBT
systemwas to be regardedas the only offrcial norm from 1804 onwards for
Republicof The Netherlands,a decisionwhich was confirmedin 1821 (i.e.
after the reunion of the Low Countries) for both the Northem and Southem
Low Countries(DB GRoor /VeusBcxr 2004).
After the founding of Belgium in 1830, a Royal Decree of 1844
officialized the so-called ,,committee-spelling",a system which closely
norm. In 1864, finally, the DB VruBs and Ts
resembledthe SIEGENBEEK
wnu<nr-systemwas madecompulsoryin Flanders;19 yearslater (in 1883),
TheNetherlandsequallyadoptedthis norm'll
How did city offrcials react to these language planning measuresand
spelling norn changes, and which conscious decisions regarding
orthography did they take when they wrote documents in Dutch? In the
Willebroek corpus (starting from the early 1820s)a cleartransition from the
systemto the SnCnNeEEKsystemhas been accomplishedby
DESROCHES
the end of 1824. Apart from some changesback and forth between both
systems,the latter is exclusively used fuom 1824 up until 1830 (as
e
M. SECsNtseSr: ,,Verhandeling over de spelling der Nederduitsche taal en bevordering
van eenparigheid in derzelve" [Treatise on the spelling ofDutch and on how to increase its
Uniformityl, 1804.
10
P. Wnn-nNl: ,Nederduitsche spraakkunst" [Dutch Grammar], 1805'
11In Holland the same spelling was introduced in education right away but its use was
only officialized by decree in 1883. ln 1947 both countries agreed that future new spelling
systems would only be allowed after they had been approved by parliament in both countries. Cunently it is the ,Nederlandse Taalunie" that takes care of the fact that the spelling
of Dutch will always be the same in both countries.
69
WrM VANDENBUSSCT{E.JETJEDE GRooF. ELINE VaNrncr-e
& RoLAND Wtr-LEMYNS
commissionedby the Dutch rulers).It shouldbe stressedthat the town clerk
appearsto have masteredthis system quite well (the irregularities are far
and that he was
fewer than the amountfound in personalcorrespondences),
able to switch from the former systemwithout any noticeableproblems;
changesin orthography in the corpus ar:enever due to a change of town
(1830s),in the absenceof any official
clerk. After the Belgianindependence
spelling noffns, there is an abrupt retum to the Dss RocuBs system, for
norm
reasons which remain unclear so far. Whether the SIBcBwSEEK
effectivelyconveyeda pro-Hollandicallegiancein the eyesof the scribe,and
the return to DESRocHESwas a markerof changedpolitical circumstances,
remainsto be clarified by the ongoing researchin this domain.A similar
rapid and full adoption of the official noffn occulred when the so-called
'Commission-spelling'was madecompulsoryin 1844.The clerks appearto
be able to switch to the new normswithout any problems,a situationwhich
repeated itself when the Dn Vnrps & TB Wnu<lr-system was made
compulsoryin 1864.
In all, corpusplanningappearsto havebeenquite successful,the scribes
appear to have been well informed about the many successivespelling
systemsand they appear to have had the capacity to adopt these systems
almost immediately.There, moreover,must have been a certainconsensus
about the consistentuse of a particular nofln acrossthe various scribes.
Whether thesechoicesshould be interpretedas a sign of political loyalty
remainsto be investigated.
Next to the adoption of languagenofins, however, the actual language
choice was equally controversialat the time. The intemal variation in the
Dutch language went hand in hand with the conflict between Dutch and
French.and all town scribesalsohad to makedeliberatechoicesaboutwhich
languageto use for their official documents.During the French rule, the
Frenchlanguagewas compulsoryfrom 1804onwards,duringthe Dutch rule
(startedin 1815)the Dutch languagehadto be usedexclusivelyasfrom 1823
only. After 1830,both languagescould be used,althoughit is commonly
assumedthat Dutch lost virtually all prestigein this respectand gaveway to
French.
70
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19* century
The willebroek chancery scribes clearly anticipated the French and
Dutch directives:in the recordsof birth and deathcertificates,Frenchwas
used earlier than expected(from 1796 onwards),and a radical switch to
Dutch alreadyoccurredin 1815 (i.e. right after the changein regime).The
minutesof the town council followed suit: the Frenchversionschangedto
Dutch from 1820onwards.The resultsfor the Belgianperiod,however,are
far more striking. common opinion has it that Dutch remained the ugly
duckling in administrativemattersup until 1898 when the 'Equality law'
declaredDutch to be equal to French in official administrative matters. In
Willebroek, however,Dutch was used next to French from 1830 onwards
public
akeadyand all administrativecommunicationdirected at the general
was exclusivelyDutch. The shareof Frenchgfaduallybecomessmalleruntil
the full Dutchificationfrom 1865 onwards,more than 30 yearsbefore the
EqualityLaw. ongoing spotchecksin the archivesof 30 Flemishtowns and
viliages will have to demonstratewhether this was the generalpattern in the
rest of Flandersaswell. For now, we can only refer to anotherdetailedcase
study in the East-Flemishtown of Grembergen,where similar language
choice patternswere followed, which equally defu the generallyaccepted
view on thesemattersso far.
Languageand media
Justlike many of the topics discussedearlierin this article,the influence
of the printed presson the standardizationprocessof Dutch in Flandersduring the 19ft century has never been analyzedbefore in a systematiccorpusbasedproject.l2We are,in otherwords,yet unableto sayto which extentthe
newspapersfunctioned as keepers and/or distributors of certain language
,ro**. We do not know, for example,if (and how) they respondedto the
successiveofficial spelling guidelines,nor how they dealt with the widespreadspelling variation at the time. Given the fairly generalpresenceof
(printedf media as significant standardizationactors in a large number of
2003)' however, we
siandardizationhistories (DpUl,mnr / VANDBNBUSSCHE
from
t' HasST(1982),however,dealtwith thespecificissueof 'gallicisms'in newspapers
Antwerpduringthe 19* century.
7l
Wnl VANDENBUSScHE.
JETJEDE GRooF.ELnIE Vaxsrcrc
& RoreNo WrrrernrrNs
believe that it may be worthwhile to look closely into the linguistic
behaviourof Flemish newspapersin the socio-historicalcontext described
above.
Our main convincingargumentfor this researchis found in l9h century
texts from language planners: one of the most commonly repeated
reproachesby the languagegardenersin the late 19tbcentury was the claim
that the professionalmedia scribeswere responsiblefor the degenerationof
the Dutch language in Flanders during the 19* century on the lexical,
morphologicaland syntacticallevel. This opinionwas mostexplicitly voiced
by one of the foremenof the languagepurifiers,HvppouBrMgpRr:
arethemostruinousof all for ourlanguage
feeling.They
,,Ournewspapers
give
dailydispose
ofcarriageloadsofannoyingblunders.
Theyincessantly
the most comicalproofsof the mosthelplessignoranceon the level of
languageknowledge[...] The most amusingof this is, that these
questions."
(Mnrnr
newspapers
areinvolvedin daily disputeson language
l9al [899]: l0).
It should be noted, moreover, that the same MEERT (1894a,b,c)
frequently used newspaperexcerpts in his languageadvice columns to
illustrate the ubiquitous ,phantasms from the pathology of language" in
Flemish Dutch. Even his fellow languagegardenersfrom the opposed
particularistside subscribedto this opiqionandreferredto their,,enemies"as
,,newspaper,chronicle and other gallic dish-cloths" (as the particularist
authority DBSTRB
Cress put it, quoted in WLrsMrNs / HaBssnyN 1998:
2937). Hensr (1982) found that there was reason to approach this firm
reprimandwith carefulness,
as far asthe specificissueof Frenchinterference
in the joumalists' languagewas concemed;the amountof Gallicismsfound
in her selectionof newspapersfrom the town of Antwerp between1700and
1900 was far smallerthan could be expectedfrom the languagegardeners'
criticism at the time.
There are,however,many other linguistic factorswhich may (or may not)
haveinfluencedthe quality of the newspaperlanguageat the time, andwhich
werediscussedin the precedingparagraphs:
- integrationismvs. particularism
72
Historical
sociolinguistics
in Flanders:
Rediscovering
the19-century
- extremevs. moderateintegrationism/particularism.
- variousofficial orthographyguidelines
- unofficial metalinguisticliteratureand spelling/grammar/stylenorns
- ideologicalandpolitical stratificationof the norm debate
It is important to point out that the integrationist orientation of the
debateson the norns for Dutch was far from being commonly acceptedat
that time. The discussionon the languageissuewas, on the contrary,in full
swing during the 19ft century.It is, accordingly,extremelylikely that the
different standardizationviews and practiceswill be reflectedto a certain
extent in the corpus,especiallysince(as remarkedby Mnnnr) the issueof
languagestandardization- and the direction it was supposedto take - was
fiercelydiscussedby variousnewspapers
at the time.
prepare
We thereforeintend to
a digital corpusof original newspapers
from Flanders, covering the whole 19'o century and compromisingthe
variousdominantideologicalpositionsat the time (seefigure below). In line
with our earlierresearch.we will limit this casestudv to the situationin the
town of Bruges.
Gazettevan Brugge
Journal de la Lys
De Nieuwe Gazeftevan Brugge (cath.)
Standaerdvan Vlaenderen(cath.)
I
I
i
i
Het Burgerblad
Gazettevan Brugge (cath.)
Het Brugsche Vrye (lib.)
Peper en zout (soc.)
@t
ffi
Brugsche Beiaard (lib.)
Het Brugsche VrUe(cath.)
We intendto analyzeto which extentthesenewspapersfollowed one or
more of the official language noffns, whether they changed their writing
73
WIVI VANDENtsusscm,JETJEDEGRooF,EL['{EVaNmcrB & RoreNoWnrsvrvNs
policy when the norns changed,or if they useda differentnorm of their own
altogether.The easiestlevel to checkthis is spelling,but we alsohaveaccess
to a-numberof style guideswritten in the ,,don't write... but write" tradition
which provideprescriptiveadvice.
We will further try to describethe breadthof the stylistic continuumin
the newspapers.we know (as discussedabove)from limited checksin the
election press that certain joumalists were able to diversifu their sfyle
accordingto subjector the readingpublic. How shouldthe newspaperstyle
Did
be defined on the continuumbetweendialect and intendedstandard?r3
of
a
signs
they use a regionally flavoured variety? can one distinguish
with
We will comparethis writing praxis
growing ,,noffn consciousness"?
theoreticalclaimson the topic of standardization.
the newspaper,s
we will, finally, equally try to provide conclusiveevidenceabout the
influenceof the frequentlycited ideologicalaspectsof the linguistic debate
on the actualwriting behaviourof the heavily politicizedpress.comparing
andthe views of the
the differentideologicalbackgroundsof the newspapers
practicesshould
writing
politicians they supportedwith the newspaper's
b which extentlanguagepolitical views were implementedin'their'
"r*iry
newspapers.
whether newspapershave played an active and authoritative role in the
diffusion of the standardnorm in 19mcenturyFlandersis yet still unclear'It
is hoped,however,that our ongoing researchwill allow us to answerthis
question in the near future, and thus contribute to a better understandingof
the fascinatinghistory of Dutch, in the line of the projectsdiscussedin this
article. As for all other domains discussedabove, this will once more
a returnto the original archivesourcesin orderto checkand- if
necessitate
necessary- correctour traditionalconceptionsof this periodof our language
history (Wrrrnrrn'Ns 2002). We do hope that this overview has illustrated
did not
that the languageuseandqualrtyofcertain traditional,,standardizers"
13The notion of intendedstandard'- as usedby Mrnr 1998 (,,intendiertesHochdeutsch")
, is used to refer to a variety which does not meet the formal requirements of a standard
nevertheless
language(e. g. consequentspelling and grammaticalsoundness),but which is
(e.g' supravariety
a
standard
to
attributed
the
functions
to
fulfil
writer
intended by ihe
regional communication,prestigevariety).
74
Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19- century
conform to the presentday scholarly ,,communisopinio". Other groups,
discussion,seemto have
which were neglectedso far in the standardization
playeda specificrole in the process,instead(VaxlexnusscHE 1999,2002b,
2004).It was also found that the effect of official standardizationactions
(which are traditionally presentedas highly important and influential) was
anything but straightforward: in certain domains, they only had a minimal
impact on certain parts of the languagecommunity and were even neglected
by the majority of the writing population; in others,they seemto have been
followed andevenanticipatedin an exemplaryfashion.
It is our convictionthat we will, onceagain,be ableto draw supportand
inspirationfrom Germanresearchfor our ongoingprojectsin this domain.It
is also our hope that our projectsmay servea similar purposefor our German
colleaguesfrom historicalsociolinguisticsand- dialectology.
Bibliography
(Hgg.)(1993):Het federaleBelgi€na de
AtrN, ANonn/ SwrsNs, LoUIS-PAUL
Brugge.
vierdestaatshervorming.
ALossERy,Pew (1830):Kan. Adolf Duclos(1841-1925)met eenkijk op den
Brugge.
taalparticularistenstrijd.
zoogenaamden
StadtsprachenHELGA(Hg.) (1999):Beitragezur historischen
BIsTBR-BnoosEN,
Wien.
forschung.
CARVALHo,MARrA Jose (2003): The kansition from early to modem
In: Barry Blake/
An approachfrom historicalsociolinguistics.
Portuguese:
Kate Burridge(Hg.): HistoricalLinguistics2001.Selectedpapersfrom the
13-17
15thIntemationalConferenceon HistoricalLinguistics(I\4elbourne,
59-69.
1).
Amsterdarn,
200
August
His(1983):Zur btirgerlichenSprachedes19.Jahrhunderts.
DIETER
CIDRUBIM,
Skizze.In: WirkendesWort 33,398-422.
torisch-pragmatische
In: NieuweEncyclopedie
CourrENIEn,Pmr (1998):Gildevan SinteLuitgaarde.
TielI,1320-132I.
Beweging.
vandeVlaamse
voor Vlamingen.
(1869):KleineNederduitsche
spraakkunst
Dn,Bo, LEoNARDUS
Brugge.
idioticon.Brugge.
DBBo, LBoNenous(1873).Westvlaamsch
Wtr-LEM\r'{s
& ROLAND
Wn\rVeNppwsusscm,JrrrB Ds Gnoor',ErnIEVANIDCKE
DE BoNrFI, ROLANDu. a. (1997): Nieuwnederlands(circa 1650-1880).In: Maurits c. van den Toom u. a. (Hg.): Geschiedenisvan de Nederlandsetaal.
Amsterdam, 361-453.
Defrenne, J. (1829): Quelques id6es sur l'usage de la langue dite nationale, au
royaumedes Pays-Bas,paf un Belge ami 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 the
Germanic languages.Amsterdar4 ll7 -134.
Dn Gnoor, Jerre (2003): Mit gezucktem schwert die sprache ausbauen?Die
Rechtschreibreformin Belgien 1836-1844.In: Sociolinguistica17.
DE GRooF, JsuE / VANHECKE,Euue (2004): 1830 als taalpolitiek keerpunt, de
jure en de facto. In: Wim Vandenbussche(IIg.): Terug naar de bron(nen)'
Gent.
DE JoNGHE,A. (1967): De taalpolitiek van Willem I. Sint-Andries/Brugge.
M. (1975): Fransetaalpolitiek 1796-1814.In: Encyclopedievan de
DENECKERE,
Vlaamse Beweging, Tielt, 1593-1594.
KAS (2000): Waarom de taal van Gezellehet niet gehaaldheeft. In: Piet
DEPREZ,
Couttenier(Hg.): Een eeuw Gezelle,Leuv en' 75-82.
Wrvr (2003) Germanic Standardizations,
DeuuBRr, ANe / V4NIENBUSSCHE,
Past to Present.Amsterdam.
De Vrues, J,cN/ WrlreNtlr{s, R9LAND / Buncen, PETER(1995): Het verhaal
van een taal: negeneeuwenNederlands.Amsterdam.
FtsrueN, Josnue (1993): The earliest stage of language planning: The ,,first
congress" phenomenon.Berlin, New York.
GEZELLE,Gutoo(18S5): Etudes de philologie n6erlandaise.Les flaminguistes.
In: Le Mus6on IV, I 14-116.
GoDAR,Hrwnr (1947): Histoire de la Gilde des Archers de Saint S6bastiende la
Ville de Bruges.Bruges.
GRossE. SmcFnrEo / Gruuernc, ManrrN / H6rscsr'R, THoMAS / KARWEICK,
.Denn das Schreibengehort nicht zu meiner taglichen
Jonc (Hgg.) (1989):
Beschtiftigung.' Der Altag kleiner Leute in Bittschriften, Briefen und Berichten aus dem 19. Jahrhundert.Ein Lesebuch.Bonn.
76
Historicalsociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19' cenhrry
HAEsr, RETNHILDE(1982). Gallicismen in het Zuidnederlands. Een onderzoek
naar interferentieverschijnselen in Antwerpse krantentaal van 1700 tot 1900.
Diss. Gent.
HAGEN.ANroN / VaN Hour, RosrAND (1993): De sociolingui'stiekvan TaaJ&
Tongval. In: Taal en tongval, themanummer11,44-64.
& Urrure (1991): Ich, die unterzeichneteWittwe... Frauen
HUNECKE,RATNER
aus Tharandts Geschichte schreiben an die Obrigkeit. Tharandt.
JaHn, EnNst HAKON (2001): Historical sociolinguistics. The role of Low
German language contact in the Scandinavian typological shift. In: Lingua
Posnaniensis43, 95-104.
KLENK,MaruoN (1997): Sprache im Kontext sozialer Lebenswelt. Eine Untersuchung zur Arbeiterschriftsprache im 19' Jahrhundert. Tiibingen.
(i996): Sprachkultur und Btirgertum. Zur MentalitiitsLTNKE, ANcsrrre
geschichte des I 9. Jahrhunderts.Stuttgart/Weimar.
MerrHerBn, KLAUSJ. (1986): 'Lauter Borke um den Kopp.' Uberlegungenzur
Sprache der Arbeiter im 19. Jahrhirndert. In: Rheinische Vierteljahrsbldtter
s0,222-252.
KLAUS J. (1988). Historische Soziolinguistik: Das verhaltnis von
MATTHETER,
sozialem und sprachlichem Wandel. In: Ulrich Arnmon / Norbert Dittmar /
Klaus J. Mattheier (Hgg.): Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. Berlin, New
York, 1430-1452.
KLAUSJ. (1998): Kommunikationsgeschichtedes 19. Jahrhunderts.
MATTHEIER,
uberlegungen zum Forschungsstandund zu Perspektiven der Forschungsentwicklung. In: Dieter Cherubim / SiegfriedGrosse/ Klaus J. Mattheier (Hgg'):
Spracheund biirgerliche Nation. 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 taalzuivering. Tumhout.
WnaVexormusscrrE. JErJEDp Gnoor. Ernrs Varvmcrn & RoLANDWILLENTT'IIS
M[n{, AREND (1998): Arbeiterspracheund gesprocheneSprache im 19. Ja}trhundert. In: Dieter Cherubim / Siegfried Grosse/ Klaus J. Mattheier (Hgg.):
Spracheund btirgerlicheNation. Berlin, New York, 282-316.
MtLRoy, Javes (1999): The consequencesof standardizationin descriptive linguistics. In: Tony Bex / Richard Watts (Hgg.): StandardEnglish. The widening debate.London, New York, 16-39.
HELENA (2003): Historical
Nnv.q.r,q.rxpN,TERrru / RAUMoLTN-BRLTNBERG,
Sociolinguistics: Language changein Tudor and Stuart England. London.
NEVB (1998): Nieuwe Encyclopedievan de VlaamseBeweging.Tielt.
RoMATNE,SuzanNs (1982): Socio-historicallinguistics. Its statusand methodology. Cambridge.
Scmonsrv, Ise (1990): Private Schriftlichkeit im 19. Jahrhundert.Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des alltiiglichen Sprachverhaltens'kleiner Leute'.
Tiibingen.
Ruys, MANU (1981): Die Flamen. Ein Volk in Bewegung, eine werdende
Nation. Tielt.
SLG (1875): Gilde van Sinte Luitgaarde.Handelingenvan de eerstevergadering
der werkende leden.Brugge.
SLG (1876): Gilde van Sinte Luitgaarde. Handelingen van de tweede
vergaderingder werkendeleden.Brugge.
SLG (1877): Gilde van Sinte Luitgaarde.Handelingenvan de derdevergadering
der werkende leden.Brugge.
VeN oBN BRANDEN,L. (1956): Het strevennaar verheerlijking, zuivering en opbouw van het Nederlandsin de 16deeeuw. Gent [Neudruck: Amhem 1967].
WIM (1999): ,uArbeitersprache"in Bruges during the 19ft
VANDENBUSSCHE,
Century. In: Helga Bister-Broosen (Hg.): Beitraege zur historischen Stadtsprachenforschtng.Wien, 2I-47 .
Vexosxeusscm, WIM (2002a): Van'Arbeitersprache' naar'Bildungsstil'. Het
Duitse onderzoek naar sociale taalstratificatie in de 19d"eeuw. In: Roland
Willemyns (Hg.): De taal in Vlaanderen in de l9d" eeuw. Historisch-sociolinguistischeonderzoekingen.Gent, 57 5-599.
VewooxeusscHE, WIM (2002b): Dutch orthography in lower, middle and upper
class texts in 19ft century Flanders. In: Andrew Linn / Nicola Mclelland
78
the 19'century
Rediscovering
in Flanders:
Historicalsociolinzuistics
(Hgg.): standardization.Studies from the Germanic languages.Amsterdam,
29-42.
WIM. (2004): Triglossia and pragmatic variety choice in 19*
VANDENBUSSCHE,
cenhlry Bruges: a casestudy in historical sociolinguistics.In: Journal of HistoricalPragmatics5.1.,27-47.
VANHECKE,Ernre (2002): Een eeuw ambtelijk taalgebruik'. taal, spelling en
woordenschatin de verslagen van het willebroekse schepencollege(18181900)' In: Roland WillemlT rs (Hg'): De taal in Vlaanderen in de 19"' eeuw'
Historisch-sociolinguistischeonderzoekingen.Gent, 47 | -488.
Petrus Gijsbertus Jacobus (1992): Het woordenboek der
VAN STERKENBUnG,
Nederlandschetaal: portret van een taalmonument. 's-Gravenhage'
WrsrenrrNcK, ALBERT(1977):De innerlijke wereld van Guido Gezelle.Nijmegen, Brugge.
WnrsMytts, ROLAND(1993): Integrationsim vs. particularism. The gndeclared
issue at the first ,,Dutch congress" in 1849. In: JoshuaFishman (Hg'); The
earliest stage of language planning: the ,,First Congress" phenomenon'
Berlin. New York, 69-83.
WrrLENm.rS, RoreNo (1997): Religious Fundamentalism and Language
Planning in 19mcentury Flanders. In: Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic
Linguistics and SemioticAnalysis 2.2, 28I -302.
WTLLEMrNS,RoraNo Q002):,,Liever Hollandsch dan Fransch": taalcontacten
Vlaanderen. In: Roland Willemyns
taalconflict in het negentiende-eeuwse.
(Hg.): De taal in vlaanderen in de 19d"eeuw. Historisch-sociolinguistische
onderzoekingen.Gent, 381-425.
ROLAND(2003): Het verhaal van het Vlaams. De geschiedenisvan
WTLLEM\'IIS,
hetNederlandsin de Zuidelijke Nederlanden.Antwerpen.
WIM (2002): Die
WnrsruvNs ROLAND/ De GnooF', JBTJE/ VANDENBUSSCHE,
des Niederlandischenim 18. und 19. JahrhunStandardisierungsgeschichte
In: JannisAndroutsopoudert. Einige Ergebnisseund Forschungsdesiderate.
Perspektiven
Soziolinguistische
(Hgg.):
Standardfragen.
los / Evelyn Ziegler
27 -38
Frankfurt,
auf Sprachgeschichte,Sprachkontakt und Sprachvariation.
r1|/TLLEMyNS,
RSNO(1998): Taal. In: Nieuwe Encyclopedie
ROLAND/ HAESERyN,
van de VlaamseBeweging. Tielt,293l-2946.
79
Wnr4VaNoBwsusscm. Jnrrn DB Gnoor. Ernqe VANfficKE & RoLANDWtr LEMYNS
WILLEM\NS,Roraxo / VelronxeusscHE,Wm (2000): Historischesociolingui'stiek:het 'Brugge-project'.In: Taal en Tongval 52 1:Hrld.utbrrrn to
Daan).258-276.
WrLLErvryNS,
RoLAND/ VaNnecKE,ELnIE (2003): Corpus planning in 19ft
on public languageusagein the admicenturyFlandersand its consequences
nistration. In: Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and
SemioticAnalysis8, l-14.
Wrrrr, Ers / CnesyBECKx,JAN/ Mr.rtrN, Aranr (2000):Political history of
Belgiumfrom 1830.Brussel.
80
Dialekt, Regiolektund Standardspracheim
sozialenund zeitlichen Raum