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 SOCIOLI NG UI STI CS FLA NDERS: HIST OR IC AL 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 overview article of the in and elaborated Germany.t As a state-of-the-art (HacEN arearecentlyobserved activity in the Dutch language sociolinguistic of Hour 1998),the absence studieson the historical sociolingrristics / VaN 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 studyof the linguistic situationin Bruggeduring centuryas a sociolinguistic the 19ft century.Taking into accounta number of relevant sociolinguistic variables for the languagesituation in 19* century Flanders- variables was in or which had often beenneglected misinterpreted the past- research done into the linguistic behaviour of various actors in the language community, mainly though not only from the town of Brugge in WestThis was doneexclusively* a novelty atlhat time as well - on the Flanders. before basis of original sourcematerial,never used for linguistic research (Wu.BnnNs / VeNrBNnusscHE 2000).
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 / 2003); for Norwegian, cf. Jann (2001); for Portuguese,cf. CenRc.LIMouN-BnuNIBrnc vauro (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. JETJEDE GRooF.ELnrE VeN'lscrc, & RoraND WILLEMYNS

other aspects Shortly after, the project has been enlargedto encompass presentarticleare area.All four authorsofthe and cover alarger geographic affiliated with the research unit mentionedand have contributedto various resultreports aspects ofpast andongoingresearch the topic. Both detailed on and accounts ofresearch-in-progress beenpublishedover the pastyears have in a large number of intemational as well as domestic scientific publications.2 the The present articleis the first overviewin Englishsummarizing major findings and challengesof all the various parts of this researchproject. the Although the research topics are interrelated, paperhasbeensubdivided in the following distinct paragraphs the sake of cleamess:'language for planning', 'language and ideology', 'languageand class', 'languageand administration'and 'languageand the media'. An introductoryparagraph its focuseson the complex political history of Flanderswhich determined linguisticmake-upduringthe 19m centulyto a greatextent. Although the link to Germanhistoricaldialectologymay not be obvious right away, various sectionsof the project discussed here have, to some projectsconcerning linguistic the extent,been inspiredby Germanresearch Both with regardto methodohistoriography 'das lange 19. Jahrhundert'. of logy 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 1997).In 1983,LINKE 1996) and. corpusdesign(Gnosse 1989,HUNECxE (1998)overviewarticleof the impressive scholarlyproduction MATTHEIER's so far in thesedomainsfurther references can be found on studieswhich that have largely inspiredour own research. Also, it should be mentioned, therehasbeena continuous and intenseexchange views with a numberof of authorsand their researchteams,for example in the the aforementioned (BlsrEncontext of the'Arbeitskreis HistorischeStadtsprachenforschung' BRoosEN 1999) and the 'GraduiertenkollegDynamik von Substandardvarietiiten'in Heidelbers.
ofDn Gnoor, section entries the individualandjoint publications for ' Cf. the reference Vel'ueNsusscnn, Vauuncrn andWLlsMyNs.

50

the Rediscovering19-century in Flanders: Historical sociolinguistics Historicql background Dutch may be of As the offrcial language Belgium and the Netherlands, As a considered pluricentriclanguage. 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 variety canbe witnessed, betweenan easterlyand a westerlyshaped contrast the main feature of the east-westoppositionbeing the presence(east) or (west) of the secondary umlaut and the completelydifferent inflecabsence that resultedfrom it, giving way to structurallydiffering lantional systems guagevarieties.The overwhelmingmajority of all texts displayeddecidedly westem languagefeaturesand the written languageof the Middle Dutch periodwas firmly westem(specificallyFlemish)in its roots evenin the nonterritory. In the l6th century,though,the ecoFlemishparts of the language area shifted to nomic and political centreof gravity of the Dutch langrrage Brabant, and Antwerp, Mechelen and Brusselsdevelopedinto the more important centres.During this period a standardvariety of the written varietiesof It was taking shape. was mainly basedon the language language and Flanders Brabant(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 area,which occurredas a consequence political split ofthe language revolt, had a dramaticimpacton the evolutionof Dutch' From 1585onwards the Low Countries were divided into two separateparts (more or less present-day Holland and Belgium), eachwith its specificpolitical, cultural, The centreof gravity of standardization religious, and social development. Netherlands) gradually passedto the North (more or less the present-day nation from the war which had comeout victoriouslyand as an independent
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. (1702-1713), southem the As a result of the Spanish War of Succession passed from the Spanish the Austrianbranch to 'Belgian' territorieswere on century.The consolidawhich ruled throughthe end of the 18th of Habsburg, tonguecontinued,and Dutch tion of Frenchas the more socially acceptable language functions,except lost most of its official statusand of its standard at the local level. In 1795 the 'Belgian' territories were annexed by France. Their inhabitants were considered citizensof the newly createdFrenchRepublic, and for the first time in history therewas a massiveofficial attemptto change the Dutch language the linguistic habits of the massesby suppressing (Dnxncrnne 1975).The northempart of The Netherlands was ovemrn by effort was made Frenchrevolutionarytroopsas well, yet, hereno conscious to rule out the vernacular language.After French troops had occupied Republiek",a Frenchvassalstate, Utrecht in February 1795,a,,Bataafsche was foundedthat sameyear. In 1806 it was replacedby the ,,Kingdomof Holland" of which Louis Napoleon,one of Napoleon'sbrotherswas the king. The political changes during the Frenchtime were, as Ds,BoNtH e. a. (1997:369) state,,,beneficial the standardization Dutch". At any rate,it of to was during the French time that two of the main instrumentsfor the standardization of Dutch were published, viz. SIEGpNeeBT'sspelling and grafirmar. WEtr-AND's coalition As a result of the political wish of the victoriousanti-Napoleon Belgium and Holland were reunited as one United Kingdom of the Nethermeantto be a fortresson France'snorthernborders(Dn lands (1814-1830), JoNcrm 1967).This union, althoughshortJived,was of the utmost importance to the Flemings, who suddenly rediscoveredtheir language for politics, the courtsand education, areaswhereit had but seladministration, Although the reunificationperiod dom been used for almosttwo centuries. a was too short for the official policy of 'Dutchification' to really succeed, <)

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 of success the FlemishMovement. constitutionalmonarchy By 1830 Belgium had becomean independent parliamentarysystemdominatedby the bourgeoiselite, which secured with a its position by adoptinga poll-tax system:out of 3.5 million people, only French 46,000had the right to vote (Rws l98l: 47).For this bourgeoisie, 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 civil servantsand the discrimigovernmentappointedonly French-speaking nation of Dutch throughoutthe 19ft centuly was generalizedatrdvery delibe2002). Hence,despitethe rate (WIrrnvrvNs / DE GRooF/ VANDENBUSSCHE constitutedthe majority of the population*, no legal factthatDutch speakers meanswere provided for their language.A so-calledFlemish Movement was 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 of declareDutch and Frenchthe two official languages 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 what had considerablyfaster: two setsof laws in 1932 and 1963 guaranteed and combeenthe ultimategoal of the FlemishMovement,i.e., the offrcial plete .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 and accomplishedthe linguistic hoborder, made it virtually unchangeable groups and regions.Revisions of the constitution mogeneityof the language in 1970and 1980provided for cultural autonomyand a considerableamount of self-determinationfor the linguistically divided parts of the country. sub4 as @WS l98l: 47). 2.3 million Dutch speakers opposedto 1.2 million French speakers

53

Wrrr,t V,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 above,it comesas no surprisethat Given the historicalcontextsketched of languageplanning has been an important aspectof the standardization Dutch in Belgium from the beginning of the ,,lange 19. Jahrhundert"onpolitical partiesandthe various academies, wards.Individuals,organizations, situationin to influencethe language governments have all tried successive Despiteacademic accordance with their own particularviews and agendas. theseofficial and non-official interestfrom historiansandpolitical scientists, interventions have thus far hardly ever been analysed from a purely in perspective. (socio)linguistic The part of our project discussed this parafor graph tries to fill this gap,and servesas the backbone the evaluationof use in the 19* century societyas found in the archive the actual language (seebelow). sources 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 by preference French,though,which was shared the highersocialclasses. for From 1795 onwards,the one nation, one languagepolicy from the French change. After a failed attempt rulers provokeda dramaticlanguage-political law life, a language of 1803 in 1794to Frenchiff all court and administrative were to be written stipulatedthat from 1804onwards,all official documents in French.The press,literatureand theatrein Dutch, also graduallybecame policy, for the first time ever. subjectto a directedlanguage 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

policy stirreda heavy laws. This new language througha seriesof language which debate in which both the opponentsand advocatesused arguments would later return at the centreof the Dutch-Frenchlanguagestruggleduring referredto the statusand prestigeof French, the Belgianperiod.Adversaries of to the poor development the Flemish dialects,and continuouslyclaimed and Flemish were separateunrelated languages' They eagerly that Dutch the usedthe supportfound in the alreadycited fact,,that our Flemingsfrom difficulty, or do not understandat all, Southemprovinces, understandwith which is mutual" (Dennnnte 1829:7). the Dutch of the Northernprovinces, The advocates, on the contrary, underlined the common historical and (the Northem and Southemvarieties linguistic backgroundof both languages grammaticalfeaturesof Dutch (its alleged of butch) and praisedthe inherent 'structuralsimplicity', for example). policy failed in the end. The reticentattitudeof the William's language his heavily FrenchifiedLiberal group (who supported economicpolicy) certhe fierce opposition from the cathotainly contributedto this failure, as did Both groups lic ciergy who put Northern Dutch on a par with Protestantism. legislation'and,eventhe petitionsagainst language joined fo.""r, organized tually, 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 choice,but becamedefacto fully Frenchifiedin the offrcial admilarrguage nistration, the court, the army and the educationalsystem'A new, emerging' non-Frenchified middle class (trained during the time of the reunification of to objected this Frenchification public life and gave with TheNetherlands) perceivedas harmless(its rise to the FlemishMovementin the 1830s.First initial main activities were literary, not political), the Movement gradually becamean influential political player from the 1840sonwards.Its leaders the laws which would guarantee basic right to use one's own demanded listedabove. in language the domains etttrougtr the Movement reunited people who shared a longing for the linguistic emancipation, 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 commonoppositions public life of at the time, most notably the ideologicaldivide betweenCatholicsand nonCatholics.This oppositionwould continueto determine many 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. peopleused Whereas to have the choice betweenspeakrng Frenchor Dutch in all spheres public of life (i.e. the 'personalityprinciple'), the Movement accomplished that all official administration, court and education Flandershad to be organized in in Dutch. This political and social (r)evolutionhas been described great in detail (cf. NEVB 1998)and neednot concemus frrther here.The 'extra-linguistic' languagelegislationhas most certainly contributedto the gradual processof Dutch in Flanders,but we will mainly focus on the standardization 'intemal-linguistic' planning activities that were used and implemented to 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 anguage Ianning meas es p ur As far as the orthographyissue was concemed,the govemmentdid participate in the attempts to arrive at an official spelling system. The paragraphs below on 'languageand ideology', 'languageand class' and 'language and govemment' each deal with detailed aspects of this discussion; may suffice here to say that the questionof orthography it has been a lively one from the very beginning of the existenceof Belgium, dominated socialand ideologicalissues. by The Belgiangovernment adopted 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 approach towardsthe spellingsystemfor Dutch which was used in The Netherlandsat the time (cf. VaNleNBUsscHE 2002bfor an overview of thesesystems). integrationist The fractionhopedthat this gradualadoption 56

Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ft century

of the Northem spelling system would also convey the prestige of the Northern Dutch language the written langrrage Flanders. to in 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' Dutch language on and literature,organized from 1849 onwards,were seenas a further meansto this effect (WnrEIvm.{S 1993). Philologistsfrom both Flandersand the Netherlands discussed variety of a 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 corpuswith FIsHrvmN's the planning emphases merely serve as rather transparentmasks for the statusplanningpassions arejust a liule below the surface." that One of the few substantial projects that ever sprung from these congresses the compilationof thejoint Flemish-Dutch was Dictionary of the Dutch Language from 1849 onwards.This crucial stepin the standardization of Dutch (VeN SremrNeuRc 1992)involved discussions the statusand on 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 a ,,FlemishAcademy'' for linguisticsand literature of in 1886 was a firther consecrationof the integrationistgoals. Besides to ,,linguisticscience"and Dutch literature,the Academywas also supposed act for languagelegislation and to stimulatethe emancipationof the Flemish people.As such,it calledfor a fully accepted standard language Flanders. in Yet, by underlining both the languageunion of North and South and, at the same time, the vital respectfor the Flemish componentof this standard position ,,in the middle" language, Academytried to find a compromise the of the heated language-ideological debates. planning activities (Congresses, A critical evaluationof theselanguage Dictionary and Academy) revealsa discrepancybetweenthe ambitious goals of the Flemish Movement (extending the functions and status of Dutch in 57

VANTDCKE & ROTENO WIITETNN'IS DB GROOT, ETTNIE Wtr\4 VANDENBUSSCM, JNTTE

Flanders) and the structural inadequacy of the everyday Flemish Dutch remained norm debates in language the 19ftcenturyfor this task.The endless point of adopting and the necessary very theoretical and never reached Although it was a spreading distinctcodifiednorm (apartfrom orthography)' decided quite early that the nonn was to be the Northern Dutch one, the in too caused many ideologicaldiscussions variousissuesof slandardization and used. to the standard be implemented the socially divided Flandersfor The impressive work by non-official actors in the debate (language etc.)may - for lack of any offrcial support- at its best purificationmanuals, have influenced the linguistic attitudes of a small part of the language community. Languageand ideology6 referencewas made to the great impact of In the precedingparagraph One of debatein 19th centuryFlanders. ideologicalfactorson the language the in the most striking examples this respectconcems SaintLutgard Guild societywhich was activebetween a Bruges-based Gilde'), (.Sinte-Luitgaarde actionof 1874 and1877.Although often definedas an apogee particularist .the Guild defendedthe rights of the west Flemish languagewithin the broader Dutch language' (courTENIER 1998) - close reading of the had a political revealedthat this organisation society's annualproceedings rarely been observedin language and religious hidden agendawhich has Contraryto popularbelief, the SaintLutgard Guild was planning situations. 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 The Guild was first and foremosta tool for the linguistic emancipation). issuewas power and the language of spreadand sustainment ultramontane of that goal; over70Yo its members meansto achieve exploitedas one of the knowledgeof the political were clergymen.Despite our well-documented 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 motives and describein great detail the underlying ideological strategies, of its allegedlinguistic actions,on the basis of original primary discourse sources. It is remarkablethat most earlier contributionson the Saint Lutgard Guild of to are innocentof any reference the following statement the Guild presimotivationbehind the Guild's 'linguistic' acdent concemingthe essential tions: language old?It of [. . ] why is it thatwe sodearlyloveourWestFlemish Virgin in that convinced to wrapthepureFlemish we is because aredeeply is the robe of that language the only possibilityto saveher from the (SLG and poisoning influence wickedgodlessness moralcomrption. of 1997). 57, WrrrnvrrNs 1875: hanslation provide ampleexplicit references the identity of this to The proceedings as 'comrpting' influence.It concemsno more or less than Protestantism a - by 'logical' extension any tool which can be associated with whole and the Protestantcommunity, including the langrrageof the ProtestantNetherlands.As such,the diphthongisationof Germanici and fi in Dutch and Geras dialects)was condemned a man (which doesnot occur in West-Flemish the followers of, respecby heathen feature,inflicted upon thoselanguages arguments tively, Calvin and Luther (SLG 1877: 77-86).Pseudo-linguistic campaign diabolisethe Northern to like thesefitted within an encompassing reflectingall the alleged of variantof Dutch: it was ,Jhe language Falseness" to as opposed the Catholic of intrinsic wicked characteristics Protestantism, of West-Flemish ,,language Truth, which hasnothingto embellishor to hide, (SLG 1876: 19-27, is simple, natural, cordial and open-hearted" [which] translation Wu-rrvrrNs I 997). So far, the picture is clear: adapting to the Northem Dutch standard a would allow the population to understandthe 'heathen' message, risk which had to be avoidedat all cost. The strategyand the rhetorical tums As this isolation,however,are fascinating. far as which were usedto achieve populationwas concemed, Guild the the discourse towardsthe West-Flemish

59

JrrrE DE GRooF.ELn IEVaxrncrc Wtr\4VANDENBusscHs.

& RoLANDWILLEMYNS

memberswent to great efforts to convincetheir 'flock' (many of which were illiterate) that the West-Flemishdialect was a languageof its own which functionsfor good catholic communicative could perform all the necessary citizens. The famous West Waamschldioticon - a dictionary of the West both written by the prominent Flemish dialect- and a,,Flemish grammar", LnoNAnous DE Bo (1869, 1873),providedpseudo-scientific Guild member supportfor this claim. by This analysis is not based on Hineininterpretierung(as suggested alreadysaw throughthe DBpnBz2000): someof the Guild's contemporaries Guild's strategy and described in great detail the ideological and premeditated of character its activities.In a critical article in the magazine it 'RevueBrittanique',for example, was speltout that: too TheFlemishclergywaseffectivelytoo strictlydirected, intellectually of in to disciplined, persist suchan adventure fightingtheunification [i.e. as which they considered hostileto theirreligionand the Dutchlanguage plan [...]. To firmly well designed their identitylwithouta previously for ground domination Flanders, wasnecessary theclergyto isolate it its in to isolation beenachieved a has absolute the country...This complete, and alleged bespecial it to to ofa largeextent thanks thiscreation language in that is to thatlanguage theclergyowesfor a goodpartits omnipotence 1878, Brittanique,January-February-March the Flemishrcgion.(Revae I 997) WILLEMYNS quoted Arlosrnv I 930:152,translation in This type of criticism was typically counteredby the aforementioned in the assertion the Guild only defended rightsof West-Flemish the creathat howFlemishDutch. It would be naive to assume, tion of a supra-regional ever, that the Guild's local idiom was intendedas a contribution to the struggleof the FlemishMovement,or as a powerful nation-widealtemative It for the Northern Dutch standard. was impossiblefor the Flemishpopulaand political promotionwith the dialectal tion to achievesocial,economical Moreover,the Guild had no problemswhatsovariety the Guild advocated. ever with the leadingfunction of Frenchin Flemishsocietyand Guild president Duct-os explicitly denounceda supra-regionalvariant of Dutch in favour ofFrenchin 1879: 60

the Rediscovering 19' century in Historicalsociolinguistics Flanders: (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 the examplewhen addressing 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 is Hollandic' nowadays, not in useandwill neverbe used.(Grzrlrn 1885:

rr4-116)
Languageand classl Corpusissues Thus far, we have dealt with theoreticalnofins and ideological intentions relatedto the use.How thesemetalinguistic discussions relatedto language actual written languagein 19fr century Flanderswas unknown up until the beginningof the presentproject. Descriptionsof the social stratificationof
7Cf.VaNoBNgusscm (2004). (1999),

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 lower, middle and upper class scribesin original texts from, respectively, Bruges,we hopedto obtain a more preciseinsight in the actualquality and life. that variability of the written Dutch language wasusedin everyday that this comparativecorpusbasedapproachwas stressed It should be of new in the discussion the evolutionof 19frcenturyDutch, not in the least weretakeninfor because, the first time ever,original lower classdocuments setbacks which will to accountin this context.Two major methodological soundfamiliar to many historicalsociolinguists had to be dealtwith, howproved to be from the lower classes ever. The location of primary sources of and To problematic. date,thereareno centralized editedcollections lower the area; 'Taalbank'project availablein the Dutch language ilass documents for Dutch Lexicology (Leiden, The Netherlands)should, of the Institute eventually,solvethis problem.Until the fairly recentinterestfor 'Alltagsgeto were not considered be of any hisschichte'many lower classdocuments Although or torical importanceand were, accordingly,neglected destroyed' does of Bruges(understandably) not file its documents the municipalarchive accordingto the class of the writers and the text type, we wefe able to collectionof handwrittenlower classmeeting retrievea fairly homogeneous reports in its vast collections. Similar volumes of formal minutes from were then located and transcribedin and upper class associations -lAOt"archivesin Bruges, which finally resultedin a uniform and highly other spanningthe whole 19thcenturyand representing text database comparable the town's threemain socialstrata. The social identificationof the various scribeswas not always an easy in task, due to the constantchanges the town's social structureduring the by long l9m century.The town also was characterised a 'medieval' artisan economy until the 1890s,having 'missed' the industrial revolution. The facilitatedthe archivedocuments and the natureof the selected provenance however.The lower andmiddle class locationof scribeson the socialladder, categories corporastemfrom socialsecurityfundsfrom distinctprofessional and (apprentices mastersfrom varioustrades)- text intemal evidenceillusThe tratesthe sharpfinancial and moral divide betweenboth associations' 62

Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe l9n century

archer'sGuilds in upperclasscorpuspertainsto one of the most prestigious high financial and social status. the town characterizedby Orthographical and stylistic norms of the lower and middle classes our corpusanalysisyielded results As far as orthogaphy is concemed, which prompt us to reconsiderthe effect and importanceof some of the above.None of the official spelling discussed planning measures language All for by was everadopted the lower classscribes, example. scribes reforms instead.Each of these personal spelling used their own spelling system, and chaotic:it was commonto find the norns was apparentlyinconsistent sameword written in various different ways within the sametext and senand ('association')next to ghemeensaemeiit tence (e.g. gemeenzaamheid of the various spellingforms for the Yet, ghemeensaemheyt). a comparison sameword in our corpora showedthat this extremevariability was anything to but chaotic:it wasnot only possible predictin which specificphonological spellingvariationwas likely to occur,but alsoto definethe limited contexts (VamnNset of possiblespellingvariantsfor one and the samegrapheme 2002b). It should further be noted that there was a gradual BUSSCHE of tendencyover time to limit the tolerance spellingvariability amonglower an They neveradopted official spellingnorm, however,despite scribes. class the many corpus planning efforts at that time and the fact that the Belgian stateofficially settledthe spellingissueby the adoptionof the De Vnms & in TB WfNrpr norm. To the lower classes Bruges,conformingto the official up remaineda non-issue until the end of the 19th orthography standardized made about the stylistic quality of these can be century.Similar comments continuouslyproduced companies lower classtexts: althoughthe assistance amountof meetingminutesand written rules and regulations, an impressive pauperscribeswere hardly able to control the stylistic propertiesof many these formal documents. Their texts are, accordingly, chatacteized by Stil: zusammengebrochener 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 senThese tences,missing verbs and conjunctionsand dislocatedconstituents. 19s cenfeaturesoccurredthroughoutthe formal and stylistic non-standard 63

wnr,r vaNlslreusscm,

wrr-r,r'l,rvNs DE JETIE GRooF,ELI.{EVAN}fiCKE & ROLAND

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 productionof this zusammengebrochener andthe fact Given the massive 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' by Middle classwriting in Brugeswas characterised 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 come to the conclusionthat the use have repeatedly 19th centgry language Stil combinationof extremespellingvariability andzusammengebrochener a distinct in Germany at that time constituted a proper Arbeitersprache, variety as such (Merrunmn 1986, Krnu< 1997). Equally class-specific interesting, however, is the striking qualitative improvement in the middle classcorpusafter 1850 onthe levels of style and gfalnmar.As the,,shalgr" around text structuresgradually give way to neat and well-formed sentences 1900, one gets the impressionthat the (economicaland social) rise of the by middle classwas accompanied a growingconcemwith intelligibility. The improvementsin their written texts most certainly contributedto this effect, although standardizedorthography was apparentlyconsideredto be of less through 1900in middle class importance idiosyncraticspellingscontinued 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 in middle classwriting until 1850- were alsoomnipresent (Dutch language) need not concemus in detail upper classreportsbetween 1750 and 1800 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 will have to establish in Future research historicalpedagogy social classes. the link betweenthe improved writing proficiency and the increasedquality of writing education,especiallywhere the lowest social classesal:e conin cemed.Advances historicalsociologymight furtherprovideinsightsin the 64

Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19ff century

for role of adoptingwriting standards 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 reinterpreof tation of the alleged sharp social divide between speakers Dutch and French most certainly figured as the most prestigious French. Although 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 and by the wish to createa disspecificvarietiesin varioussocial contexts, choice. tinct socialidentityof poweror solidaritythroughlanguage of by Town politics in Brugeswas dominated members 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 over andagain: wasrepeated - The French part of the town population ,,that was unfortunate not to masterboth French and Dutch" had rights of its own which should not of be attacked.Official censusdata show that this percentage monovariedbetween| ,72 oAand2,59 % of the populingual Frenchspeakers lationin theperiod1880-1890. - The town was said to be unableto pay for the translationcostsof all Frenchdocuments. 65

WILLEM\NS Dn Wnr.rVAwpENnusscrfr , JETJE Gnoon, Ernu VANru'cKE & ROLAND

precise and - Frenchwords were allegedlybetterunderstood had a more that the Dutch meaning in offrcial matters.It was even put point blank or languagewas not elaborated 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 the compulsorylanguage. considerthe possibility of introducingDutch as told The singlecouncil memberwho took the side of the Dutchificationwas of French that he should,,wait a little longer" with his ,,radicalpersecution young and would be able to presentnew speakers"since ,,he was still propositions at a later time." The main real reasonfor this reluctant attitude of his iowards Dutch was voiced by a co'ncil memberwho chided one by for colleagues intentionallyusing Dutch ,Jo be understood the working to the people,this is not a political rally''' to class":,,Speak the council,not tool of Apart from its evidentsocialprestige,Frenchwas also very much a isolationtowardsthe lower socialclasses. Guild our study of the archivesof the mentionedupper classarchers' Dutch very well, however, that they revealed that the town elite did know qualify of used this languagethroughout the nineteenthcentury and that the example,the their written languagewas far higher than they pretendedin, for to have town council. The main condition for using the languageappears in which the writer found himself: in a been the extra-linguisticsetting equals"and without the risk of lower ,,among closedupperclassatmosphere nua no problem whatsoeverwith the use of class contact,the town "tit" from the Dutch. A few figures may illustrate how Dutch never disappeared the archersGuild's official meeting upper class's linguistic repertoire:all with incomes ."port. were written in Dutch until 1867,the financialregisters was in were kept in Dutch until 1925,theregisterof mernbers and expenses 1870. It Dutch at least up until 1886 and the overview of debtsup until to Frenchafter thesedateswas that the transition shouldbe noted,moreover, far from consistent: for almost each document type, there remained that the knowat instances which Dutch was used;this illustrates occasional

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 that, from 1865 main printed history of the Guild (publishedin 1947)states onwards,,,the spokeslanguageof our Guild is the French language.All are almost all correspondence held in the French all speeches, discussions, (Golen 1947:396;our translation). language" linguisticrepertoire aboutthe upperclasses' evidence Furtherremarkable which are closely relatedto the elite's influential was found in documents political position. We were able to consult a large archive of election propaganda from the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury (i.e. at the height were Theseelectionnewspapers of the allegedupper classFrenchification). explicitly directedat the richer citizensof Bruges(up until 1897,the right to on vote depended the amountof taxesone paid). Not one of the preserved and electionnewspapers 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 use (it was even before with written upper classlanguage been associated entirely absent from previous discussionsof the overall written repertoire during the nineteenthcentury),any dialectologistis bound to be struck by the able to the meticulouslyclosedialecttranscriptions authorswere apparently 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 sociolinguistic assumptions of with considerations power and solidarity, social in- and complemented (i.e. domain-specific) linguisticchoices. exclusionandidiosyncratic rat Languageand administ ions It hasbeendemonstrated abovethat Belgium becamea fascinatingarena for Dutch languageplanning during the nineteenthcentury, both inducedby
tcf. VaNtncrB (2002),WrrrErvrrNsVaNmcre (2003),Dr Gnoon/ Ver'tlecKE(2004). /

67

wU,lrt"rrNs Dr JETJE GRoon, Etnn vaNrmcxs & ROTAND wrM veNoBr.rBUSSCHE,

the state and individuals. Especiatlyin the field of orthographyone can of witnessthe rapid succession variousofficial andnon-officialnormswhich varying extents by the different strata of Flemish were followed to highly society.This evolutionstandsout, however,for the closeinterplaybetween rulers' and political change the spellingpolicy of the respective Different regimescanbe linked to different norms and, as such,the use or denial of certain orthographyconventionsmay be indicative of political commentson of allegianceor opposition.Detailed analyses contemporary the various languagenofins have confirmed, namely, that orthographywas not viewed as far morethan a mereconvention: only was spellingconsidered it and soul of the language, was also commonlyidentified as the very heart rulers which installedthe specific with the ideologicalbackgroundof the 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 in the possiblepolitical significancethereof) of the official chanceries 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 resultingin the adoptionof one decisions, of gradualsuccession govemment norm for Belgium and Holland in 1864.we know, howsingleorthography in use is concemed, Flanders(like in ever, that, as far as private language idea that spelling should be many other countries,cf. MIrRoy 1999) the 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 correspondence' usersin their personal by measures the language The statemade its first official attemptat regulatingspelling in 1777, in was when the spellingby nrS ROCHES officially introduced the schoolsof 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 / WTLLEMrNSBuncBn 1995: 100, 155).Contraryto what has beenclaimed presentday, 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 a Republicof The Netherlands, 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 a officialized the so-called ,,committee-spelling", system which closely norm. In 1864, finally, the DB VruBs and Ts the SIEGENBEEK resembled wnu<nr-systemwas madecompulsoryin Flanders;19 yearslater (in 1883), this equallyadopted norm'll TheNetherlands 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 by systemhas been accomplished systemto the SnCnNeEEK DESROCHES both the end of 1824. Apart from some changesback and forth between 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

that by commissioned the Dutch rulers).It shouldbe stressed the town clerk appearsto have masteredthis system quite well (the irregularities are far and fewer than the amountfound in personalcorrespondences), that he was 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 absence any official of 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 in a effectivelyconveyed pro-Hollandicallegiance the eyesof the scribe,and political circumstances, the return to DESRocHESwas a markerof changed 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' to was madecompulsoryin 1844.The clerks appear be able to switch to the new normswithout any problems,a situationwhich repeated itself when the Dn Vnrps & TB Wnu<lr-system was made compulsory 1864. in the to In all, corpusplanningappears havebeenquite successful, scribes spelling appear to have been well informed about the many successive 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 choicesaboutwhich alsohad to makedeliberate French.and all town scribes During the French rule, the languageto use for their official documents. was compulsoryfrom 1804onwards,duringthe Dutch rule Frenchlanguage (startedin 1815)the Dutch language to be usedexclusivelyasfrom 1823 had could be used,althoughit is commonly only. After 1830,both languages and gaveway to assumed Dutch lost virtually all prestigein this respect that French.

70

Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19* century

The willebroek chancery scribes clearly anticipated the French and Frenchwas Dutch directives:in the recordsof birth and deathcertificates, and a radical switch to used earlier than expected(from 1796 onwards), 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 mattersup until 1898 when the 'Equality law' duckling in administrative 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 smalleruntil was exclusivelyDutch. The shareof Frenchgfaduallybecomes the full Dutchificationfrom 1865 onwards,more than 30 yearsbefore the EqualityLaw. ongoing spotchecksin the archivesof 30 Flemishtowns and whether this was the generalpattern in the viliages will have to demonstrate rest of Flandersaswell. For now, we can only refer to anotherdetailedcase where similar language study in the East-Flemishtown of Grembergen, which equally defu the generallyaccepted choice patternswere followed, view on thesemattersso far. Languageand media earlierin this article,the influence Justlike many of the topics discussed processof Dutch in Flandersduof the printed presson the standardization ring the 19ft century has never been analyzedbefore in a systematiccorpusWe are,in otherwords,yet unableto sayto which extentthe project.l2 based newspapersfunctioned as keepers and/or distributors of certain language to ,ro**. We do not know, for example,if (and how) they responded the official spelling guidelines,nor how they dealt with the widesuccessive of spreadspelling variation at the time. Given the fairly generalpresence in a large number of actors (printedf media as significant standardization 2003)' however, we histories (DpUl,mnr / VANDBNBUSSCHE siandardization
from t' HasST in of issue 'gallicisms' newspapers dealtwith thespecific (1982), however, Antwerpduringthe 19* century. 7l

Wnl VANDENBUSScHE. JETJE GRooF.ELnIE Vaxsrcrc DE

& RoreNo WrrrernrrNs

believe that it may be worthwhile to look closely into the linguistic behaviourof Flemish newspapers the socio-historical in context described above. Our main convincingargumentfor this research found in l9h century is texts from language planners: one of the most commonly repeated reproaches the languagegardenersin the late 19tbcentury was the claim by that the professional media scribeswere responsible the degeneration for of the Dutch language in Flanders during the 19* century on the lexical, morphologicaland syntactical level. This opinionwas mostexplicitly voiced purifiers,HvppouBrMgpRr: by one of the foremenof the language are of feeling. They ,,Ournewspapers themostruinous all for ourlanguage give dailydispose ofcarriage loads ofannoying blunders. Theyincessantly the most comicalproofsof the mosthelpless ignorance the level of on language knowledge [...] The most amusingof this is, that these questions." (Mnrnr newspapers involvedin daily disputes language are on 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 subscribed this opiqionandreferredto their,,enemies" to as chronicle and other gallic dish-cloths" (as the particularist ,,newspaper, authority DBSTRB Cress put it, quoted in WLrsMrNs / HaBssnyN 1998: 2937). Hensr (1982) found that there was reason to approach this firm reprimand with carefulness, far asthe specificissueof Frenchinterference as in the joumalists' language the was concemed; amountof Gallicismsfound in her selection newspapers of from the town of Antwerp between1700and gardeners' 1900 was far smallerthan could be expected from the language criticism at the time. There are,however,many other linguistic factorswhich may (or may not) haveinfluencedthe quality of the newspaper language the time, andwhich at paragraphs: in the preceding werediscussed vs. - integrationism particularism 72

Historical sociolinguistics in Flanders: Rediscovering 19-century the - extremevs. moderateintegrationism/particularism. guidelines - variousofficial orthography norns - unofficial metalinguisticliteratureand spelling/grammar/style of - ideologicalandpolitical stratification 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 issuewas, on the contrary,in full that time. The discussion the language on swing during the 19ft century.It is, accordingly,extremelylikely that the views and practiceswill be reflectedto a certain different standardization extent in the corpus,especiallysince(as remarkedby Mnnnr) the issueof languagestandardization and the direction it was supposedto take - was fiercelydiscussed variousnewspapers the time. by at preparea digital corpusof original newspapers We thereforeintend to from Flanders, covering the whole 19'o century and compromisingthe variousdominantideologicalpositionsat the time (seefigure below). In line with our earlierresearch. will limit this casestudv to the situationin the we 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.) Brugsche Beiaard (lib.) Het Brugsche VrUe(cath.)

@t
ffi

followed one or We intendto analyze which extentthesenewspapers to more of the official language noffns, whether they changed their writing 73

GRooF,EL['{EVaNmcrB & RoreNoWnrsvrvNs WIVI VANDENtsusscm,JETJEDE

or policy when the norns changed, if they useda differentnorm of their own level to checkthis is spelling,but we alsohaveaccess The easiest altogether. of to a-number style guideswritten in the ,,don't write... but write" tradition advice. which provideprescriptive We will further try to describethe breadthof the stylistic continuumin above)from limited checksin the we the newspapers. know (as discussed election press that certain joumalists were able to diversifu their sfyle style accordingto subjector the readingpublic. How shouldthe newspaper Did and intendedstandard?r3 be defined on the continuumbetweendialect signs of a they use a regionally flavoured variety? can one distinguish We growing ,,noffn consciousness"? will comparethis writing praxis with claimson the topic of standardization. theoretical the newspaper,s we will, finally, equally try to provide conclusiveevidenceabout the of influenceof the frequentlycited ideologicalaspects the linguistic debate writing behaviourof the heavily politicizedpress.comparing on the actual and of the differentideologicalbackgrounds the newspapers the views of the writing practicesshould politicians they supportedwith the newspaper's in'their' political views were implemented b which extentlanguage "r*iry newspapers. have played an active and authoritative role in the whether newspapers is centuryFlanders yet still unclear'It norm in 19m diffusion of the standard will allow us to answerthis is hoped,however,that our ongoing research question in the near future, and thus contribute to a better understandingof in the fascinatinghistory of Dutch, in the line of the projectsdiscussed this above, this will once more article. As for all other domains discussed in a necessitate returnto the original archivesources orderto checkand if of necessary correctour traditionalconceptions this periodof our language We do hope that this overview has illustrated history (Wrrrnrrn'Ns 2002). did use that the language andqualrtyofcertain traditional,,standardizers" not
13The notion of intendedstandard'- as usedby Mrnr 1998 (,,intendiertes Hochdeutsch") , is used to refer to a variety which does not meet the formal requirements of a standard nevertheless but language(e. g. consequentspelling and grammaticalsoundness), which is writer to fulfil the functions attributed to a standard variety (e.g' supraintended by ihe regional communication,prestigevariety).

74

Historical sociolinguisticsin Flanders:Rediscoveringthe 19- century

conform to the presentday scholarly ,,communisopinio". Other groups, seemto have discussion, so which were neglected far in the standardization instead(VaxlexnusscHE 1999,2002b, playeda specificrole in the process, actions 2004).It was also found that the effect of official standardization (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 fashion. in followed andevenanticipated an exemplary It is our convictionthat we will, onceagain,be ableto draw supportand for inspirationfrom Germanresearch our ongoingprojectsin this domain.It is also our hope that our projectsmay servea similar purposefor our German and from historicalsociolinguistics - dialectology. colleagues

Bibliography Belgi de na (Hgg.)(1993):Het federale AtrN, ANonn/ SwrsNs, LoUIS-PAUL Brugge. vierdestaatshervorming. met Pew (1830):Kan. Adolf Duclos(1841-1925) eenkijk op den ALossERy, Brugge. taalparticularistenstrijd. zoogenaamden Stadtsprachen(Hg.) (1999): Beitrage historischen zur HELGA BIsTBR-BnoosEN, Wien. forschung. CARVALHo,MARrA Jose (2003): The kansition from early to modem In: from historicalsociolinguistics. Barry Blake/ An Portuguese: approach papers from the 2001.Selected Kate Burridge(Hg.): HistoricalLinguistics 13-17 on Conference HistoricalLinguistics(I\4elbourne, 15thIntemational 59-69. 2001).Amsterdarn, August Hisdes (1983):Zur btirgerlichen Sprache 19.Jahrhunderts. DIETER CIDRUBIM, In: Wort 33,398-422. Skizze. Wirkendes torisch-pragmatische In: Pmr (1998):Gildevan SinteLuitgaarde. NieuweEncyclopedie CourrENIEn, TielI,1320-132I. Beweging. vandeVlaamse voor (1869):KleineNederduitsche spraakkunst Vlamingen. Bo, Dn, LEoNARDUS Brugge. Brugge. (1873). idioticon. Westvlaamsch DBBo, LBoNenous

Wtr-LEM\r'{s & JrrrB Ds Gnoor',ErnIEVANIDCKE ROLAND Wn\rVeNppwsusscm, u. DE BoNrFI, ROLAND 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 paf royaumedes Pays-Bas, 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 Amsterdar4 ll7 -134. Germanic languages. Die Dn Gnoor, Jerre (2003): Mit gezucktem schwert die sprache ausbauen? in Rechtschreibreform Belgien 1836-1844.In: Sociolinguistica17. Euue (2004): 1830 als taalpolitiek keerpunt, de JsuE / VANHECKE, DE GRooF, jure en de facto. In: Wim Vandenbussche(IIg.): Terug naar de bron(nen)' Gent. A. DE JoNGHE, (1967): De taalpolitiek van Willem I. Sint-Andries/Brugge. M. DENECKERE, (1975): Fransetaalpolitiek 1796-1814.In: Encyclopedievan de 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. de GoDAR,Hrwnr (1947): Histoire de la Gilde des Archers de Saint S6bastien 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 BerichEin Lesebuch.Bonn. ten aus dem 19. Jahrhundert.

76

the Rediscovering 19' cenhrry in Historicalsociolinguistics Flanders: (1982). Gallicismen in het Zuidnederlands. Een onderzoek HAEsr, RETNHILDE naar interferentieverschijnselen in Antwerpse krantentaal van 1700 tot 1900. Diss. Gent. ANroN / VaN Hour, RosrAND (1993): De sociolingui'stiekvan TaaJ& HAGEN. Tongval. In: Taal en tongval, themanummer11,44-64. & RATNER Urrure (1991): Ich, die unterzeichneteWittwe... Frauen HUNECKE, 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 43, Posnaniensis 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. des 19. Jahrhunderts. KLAUSJ. (1998): Kommunikationsgeschichte 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. Hrppormr (1894c): Taalpolitie. Gent. MEERT, Mennr, HppoLmr (1941 [1399]): Onkruid onder de tarwe. Proeve van taalzuivering. Tumhout.

Dp WILLENTT'IIS WnaVexormusscrrE. JErJE Gnoor. Ernrs Varvmcrn & RoLAND 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. in MtLRoy, Javes (1999): The consequences standardization descriptive linof guistics. In: Tony Bex / Richard Watts (Hgg.): StandardEnglish. The widening debate.London, New York, 16-39. HELENA (2003): Historical TERrru / RAUMoLTN-BRLTNBERG, Nnv.q.r,q.rxpN, 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.Untersu'kleiner Leute'. chungen zur Geschichte des alltiiglichen Sprachverhaltens 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. L. VeN oBN BRANDEN, (1956): Het strevennaar verheerlijking, zuivering en opbouw van het Nederlandsin de 16deeeuw. Gent [Neudruck: Amhem 1967]. in WIM (1999): ,uArbeitersprache" Bruges during the 19ft VANDENBUSSCHE, Century. In: Helga Bister-Broosen (Hg.): Beitraege zur historischen StadtWien, 2I-47 . sprachenforschtng. 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 Rediscovering 19'century in sociolinzuistics Flanders: Historical (Hgg.): standardization.Studies from the Germanic languages.Amsterdam, 29-42. WIM. VANDENBUSSCHE, (2004): Triglossia and pragmatic variety choice in 19* cenhlry Bruges: a casestudy in historical sociolinguistics.In: Journal of His5.1.,27-47. toricalPragmatics (2002): Een eeuw ambtelijk taalgebruik'. taal, spelling en VANHECKE,Ernre (1818woordenschatin de verslagen van het willebroekse schepencollege 19"' eeuw' 1900)' In: Roland WillemlT rs (Hg'): De taal in Vlaanderen in de Gent, 47 | -488. onderzoekingen. Historisch-sociolinguistische 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. RoraNo Q002):,,Liever Hollandsch dan Fransch": taalcontacten WTLLEMrNS, Vlaanderen. In: Roland Willemyns taalconflict in het negentiende-eeuwse. (Hg.): De taal in vlaanderen in de 19d"eeuw. Historisch-sociolinguistische Gent, 381-425. onderzoekingen. van (2003): Het verhaal van het Vlaams. De geschiedenis ROLAND WTLLEM\'IIS, Zuidelijke Nederlanden.Antwerpen. hetNederlandsin de WIM (2002): Die / WnrsruvNs ROLAND/ De GnooF', JBTJE VANDENBUSSCHE, des Standardisierungsgeschichte Niederlandischenim 18. und 19. JahrhunIn: dert. Einige Ergebnisseund Forschungsdesiderate. JannisAndroutsopouSoziolinguistischePerspektiven (Hgg.): Standardfragen. los / Evelyn Ziegler auf Sprachgeschichte,Sprachkontakt und Sprachvariation. Frankfurt, 27 -38 r1|/TLLEMyNS, (1998): Taal. In: Nieuwe Encyclopedie RSNO / ROLAND HAESERyN, van de VlaamseBeweging. Tielt,293l-2946.

79

Wnr4VaNoBwsusscm. Jnrrn DB Gnoor. Ernqe VANfficKE & RoLANDWtr LEMYNS

Wm (2000): HistorischesocioRoraxo / VelronxeusscHE, WILLEM\NS, lingui'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 usage the admiin on centuryFlanders its consequences public language and nistration. In: Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Analysis8, l-14. Semiotic JAN Wrrrr, Ers / CnesyBECKx, / Mr.rtrN, Aranr (2000):Political history of 1830. Brussel. Belgiumfrom

80

im Dialekt, Regiolektund Standardsprache sozialenund zeitlichen Raum