Advertisement

Resistance to erosion in American Dutch inflection

  • Caroline Smits
Part of the Yearbook of Morphology book series (YOMO)

Abstract

In the second half of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century a relatively large number of Dutchmen emigrated to the United States. In general, these people came in groups and they founded their own settlements, particularly in the Midwest. The majority of these immigrants were orthodox Protestants, a fact which has been of major importance to the maintenance (as well as the development, cf. Van Marle and Smits in press b) of Dutch in the New World. For many of the immigrants — and their descendants — Dutch was the language of communication, at least within the family, until the first decades of this century. However, as soon as the immigrants settled in the United States they came in contact with English as well, especially through school. For many decades, then, there has been a bilingual situation. At first, Dutch was the mother tongue and the linguistically dominant language, whereas in later years English became more and more prominent. It was during and after the second World War that the number of domains in which Dutch was spoken rapidly decreased and a shift from Dutch to English took place. At this moment Dutch is no longer in regular use and, consequently, on the verge of extinction. However this may be, even nowadays there are descendants of these Protestant settlers who have some — be it often rather imperfect — knowledge of Dutch, mostly acquired through parents and (particularly) grandparents. Henceforth, I will call the language as it is spoken by these immigrants American Dutch (AD).

Keywords

Plural Form Irregular Verb Paradigmatic Form Prototypical Feature Translation Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, R.W. 1982. “Determining the Linguistic Attributes of Language Attrition”. In R.D.Google Scholar
  2. Lambert and B.F. Freed (eds), The Loss of Language Skills Rowley: Newbury House, 83–118. Boogaart, P.C. Uit den (eds.). 1975. Woordfrequenties in geschreven en gesproken Nederlands Utrecht: Oosthoek.Google Scholar
  3. Booij, G.E. 1993. “Against Split Morphology”. This volume.Google Scholar
  4. Bosman, G.E. 1937. “n Ondersoek na die gevelariseerde -ing in Afrikaans. De Nieuwe Taalgids 31, 58–70.Google Scholar
  5. Bouman, A.C. and E.C. Pienaar. 1933. Afrikaanse Spraakkuns. Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia, 3rd ed.Google Scholar
  6. Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, L. and M.C. Muntzel. 1989. “The Structural Consequences of Language Death”. In N.C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence. Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haeringen, C.B. van 1944. “Afleidingen en samenstellingen van doen, gaan, slaan, staan en zien”. Reprinted in: C.B. vanGoogle Scholar
  9. Haeringen, Neerlandica. Verspreide Opstellen The Hague: Daamen, 2nd ed., 1962, 237–246.Google Scholar
  10. Haeringen, C.B. van 1947. “De meervoudsvorming in het Nederlands”. Reprinted in: C.B. van Haeringen, Neerlandica. Verspreide Opstellen. The Hague: Daamen, 2nd ed., 1962, 186–209.Google Scholar
  11. Haeringen, C.B. van 1951. “Merkwaardige vormen van de werkwoorden doen, gaan, slaan, staan en zien”. Driemaandelijkse Bladen 3, 89–95.Google Scholar
  12. Jong, E.D. de 1979. Spreektaal. Woordfrequenties in gesproken Nederlands. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema and Holkema.Google Scholar
  13. Marie, J. van 1990. Over de ongelijksoortigheid van synchronie en diachronie. Inaugural Lecture, Free University. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Marie, J. van (in press). “Oppervlakte-gelijkvormigheid als conditionerende factor bij taalverandering. (Iets over de resten van het gerundium in het Middelnederlands en de Nederlandse streektalen.)”. To appear in Taal en Tongval.Google Scholar
  15. Marte, J. van and C. Smits. 1989. “Morphological Erosion in American Dutch”. In N. Boretzky, W. Enninger and T. Stolz (eds.), Vielfalt der Kontakte. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 37–65.Google Scholar
  16. Marie, J. van and C. Smits. 1993. “The Inflectional Systems of Overseas Dutch”. In Proceedings of the IXth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Rutgers, New Brunswick). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Marie, J. van and C. Smits. (in press a). “On the Impact of Language Contact on Inflectional Systems: The Reduction of Verb Inflection in American Dutch and American Frisian”.Google Scholar
  18. Marie, J. van and C. Smits (in press b). “American Dutch: An Attempt at a General Characterization”.Google Scholar
  19. Mougeon, R. and E. Beniak. 1981. “Leveling of the 3 sg/pI Verb Distinctions in Ontarian French”. In J.P. Lantolf and G.B. Stone (eds), Current Research in Romance Languages. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 126–144.Google Scholar
  20. Royen, G. 1941. “Verbale grilligheid”. De Nieuwe Taalgids 35, 256–269.Google Scholar
  21. Scholtz, J. du P. 1958. “Die ontstaan van die Afrikaanse werkwoordelike vormstelsel”. Reprinted in: J. du P. Scholtz, Taalhistoriese Opstelle. Voorstudies tot `n geskiedenis van Afrikaans. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 1963, 9–51.Google Scholar
  22. Seliger, H.W. and R.M. Vago. 1991. “The Study of First Language Attrition: An Overview”. In H.W. Seliger and R.M. Vago (eds). First Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smits, C. (in prep.). “American Dutch Inflection in Translations and Conversations”. Stemberger, J.P. and B. MacWhinney. 1986. “Frequency and the Lexical Storage of Regularly Inflected Forms”. Memory and Cognition 14, 17–26.Google Scholar
  24. Stemberger, J.P. and B. MacWhinney. 1988. “Are Inflected Forms Stored in the Lexicon?”. In M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds), Theoretical Morphology. Approaches to Modern Linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 101–116.Google Scholar
  25. Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Smits
    • 1
  1. 1.P.J. Meertens-InstituteRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and SciencesAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations