Over the centuries, the French language has had a lot of influence on the Dutch language. Thousands of words from French entered Dutch and apart from that, Dutch has borrowed morphological... Show moreOver the centuries, the French language has had a lot of influence on the Dutch language. Thousands of words from French entered Dutch and apart from that, Dutch has borrowed morphological elements such as suffixes from French. Moreover, it is assumed that the popularity of certain Dutch morphosyntactic constructions can be attributed to language contact with French. Despite the fact that histories of Dutch often speak of so-called ‘Frenchification’ because of these French influences, hardly any empirical research has been carried out so far on the actual influence of French on Dutch. The aim of this thesis is to provide insight into the influence that French had on the Dutch language between 1500 and 1900. This is done by means of corpus analyses with the diachronic Language of Leiden corpus, which comprises texts from Leiden from different social domains. The corpus analyses aim to trace the language changes in Dutch as a consequence of language contact with French on three language levels: lexicon, morphology, and morphosyntax. In this way, this thesis aims to contribute to a better understanding of the historical language contact between Dutch and French. Show less
In linguistic research, present-day Dutch has been characterized as a pluricentric language, meaning that there are multiple centers from where language norms spread. Within the Dutch language area... Show moreIn linguistic research, present-day Dutch has been characterized as a pluricentric language, meaning that there are multiple centers from where language norms spread. Within the Dutch language area, we can discern a center in the Northern Netherlands (the Randstad area) and the Southern Netherlands (around the province of Brabant). Traditional histories of the language suggest that pluricentricity for Dutch is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. However, based on findings from empirical historical-linguistic research, we could expect to situate pluricentricity at least 100 years earlier in time. This dissertation therefore provides an in-depth study in which pluricentricity is put into a broader historical perspective.Through systematic corpus analyses, this dissertation aims to assess the usefulness of the modern concept of pluricentricity in Dutch language history. A total of six linguistic features is examined in the Historical Corpus of Dutch (HCD), a new multi-genre, diachronic corpus, involving central and peripheral regions in both the North and the South. Moreover, by integrating Northern and Southern varieties of Dutch in the study, and by mapping the interactions between the different regions, we want to lay the foundation for an integrated history of Dutch. Show less
How did common people write in the late eighteenth century? Little is yet known on this topic, since our knowledge is mainly based on printed texts written by a small part of the (male) elite... Show moreHow did common people write in the late eighteenth century? Little is yet known on this topic, since our knowledge is mainly based on printed texts written by a small part of the (male) elite population. This dissertation __ written from a sociolinguistic point of view __ gives us new insights into late-eighteenth-century language use. For this purpose a large number of Dutch private letters has been used. These letters were captured by the English in times of warfare between the Dutch and the English and are still preserved at the National Archives in Kew (London). The research is based on a selection of approximately 400 letters, written between 1776 and 1784 by Dutch male and female letter writers from all social ranks. This study into late-eighteenth-century language variation can be regarded as a first broad exploration of this valuable material. Therefore various linguistic phenomena have been examined: forms of address, negation, reflexivity and reciprocity, schwa-apocope, deletion of final -n, diminutives and the genitive and alternative constructions. The case studies clearly establish more variety in eighteenth-century written language than previous studies suggested. Almost every linguistic feature under discussion appears to show social variation, and gender and social class, in particular, are influential factors. Show less
The American-born Quaker Lindley Murray (1745–1826) arguably was the most influential English language grammarian; undeniably he was the best-selling one. Murray was the author of the English... Show moreThe American-born Quaker Lindley Murray (1745–1826) arguably was the most influential English language grammarian; undeniably he was the best-selling one. Murray was the author of the English Grammar (1795), and between 1795 and the middle of the nineteenth century millions of copies were sold of this grammar alone, while several of his other textbooks were no less popular. In my dissertation, I paint a comprehensive portrait of this prolific writer, and I investigate how Murray’s Quakerism influenced his language use, by analysing a corpus of 262 of his unpublished private letters. In addition, I compared his own usage to the rules that he compiled for his English Grammar, to see whether Murray practiced what he preached. Show less
The eighteenth century was a key period in the establishment of standard modern English. This period, referred to as the Late Modern English period, witnessed the publication of an unprecedented... Show moreThe eighteenth century was a key period in the establishment of standard modern English. This period, referred to as the Late Modern English period, witnessed the publication of an unprecedented number of normative works aiming to define ‘correct’ English. Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) is best known as a scientist and theologian, but his Rudiments of English Grammar, first published in 1761 is an important work in the wave of English normative grammars of the late eighteenth century. Using a multi-disciplinary approach, this book investigates Priestley’s role as a codifier of the English language. The author demonstrates that the influence of Priestley’s grammar on the language has been underestimated and merits re-evaluation. Priestley’s ideas on grammar are related to his broader philosophical thinking. It is shown that, although Priestley is usually seen as one of the few descriptive grammarians of the period, his grammar also contains decidedly prescriptive elements, and that his adherence to the force of usage should be qualified. In addition, Priestley’s usage is compared to the rules in his grammar using a corpus of Priestley’s personal correspondence, created for this study. Show less
