1887
Volume 40, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919

Abstract

Abstract

Various non-standard language varieties in the Netherlands traditionally allow for the use of masculine personal subject pronouns (i.e. regionally distinct variants of ‘he’) in reference to women. While this practice is well-documented within Dutch dialectology, especially during the twentieth century, it is unclear to what extent this feature still exists nowadays. Moreover, the use of masculine subject forms for female reference has not previously been described for Limburgian dialects. This paper offers a start to filling these gaps, by providing insight into the contemporary use of ‘he’ for women in Dutch dialects, with a specific focus on occurrences in Dutch Limburg. We report on a Twitter query and three interviews, showing that the use of ‘he’ for women still exists in various Dutch dialects, and how native speakers of a Limburgian dialect use and perceive this feature of their dialect.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00087.pie
2023-11-03
2024-07-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/avt.00087.pie.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00087.pie&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2016How Gender Shapes the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723752.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723752.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill
    2005Dialect Change. Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486623 [Google Scholar]
  3. Backus, Ad & Jos Swanenberg
    2013 “The changing countryside: The need for innovation in dialectology.” Nederlandse Taalkunde18(2), 228–236. 10.5117/NEDTAA2013.2.BACK
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2013.2.BACK [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakker, Frens
    1992 “Wie me euver vrouwluuj sprik. Zeej of het, die of det.” Veldeke671, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloemhoff, Henk, Jurjen van der Kooi, Hermann Niebaum & Siemon Reker
    eds. 2008Handboek Nedersaksische Taal- en Letterkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. de Bont, Anton Petrus
    1962Dialekt van Kempenland. Meer in het bijzonder d’n Oerse Taol. Deel I. Klank- en vormleer en enige syntactische bijzonderheden. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Britain, David
    2009 “One foot in the grave? Dialect death, dialect contact, and dialect birth in England.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language196/1971, 121–155. 10.1515/IJSL.2009.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2009.019 [Google Scholar]
  8. Daan, Jo & Dirk Peter Blok
    1969Van Randstad tot Landrand; toelichting bij de kaart: Dialecten en Naamkunde. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Doleschal, Ursula & Sonja Schmid
    2001 “Doing gender in Russian: Structure and perspective.” InGender across Languages. The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men (Vol. 1), ed. byMarlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann, 253–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.9.16dol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.16dol [Google Scholar]
  10. Doreleijers, Kristel, Joske Piepers, Ad Backus & Jos Swanenberg
    2021 “Language Variation in Dialect-standard Contact Situations: Two Cases from Brabantish and Limburgish Dialects in the Netherlands.” InCognitive Sociolinguistics Revisited, ed. byGitte Kristiansen, Karlien Franco, Stefano De Pascale, Laura Rosseel & Weiwei Zhang, 175–185. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110733945‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733945-015 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferguson, Charles Albert
    1964 “Baby Talk in Six Languages.” American Anthropologist66(6), 103–114. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00060
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00060 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gerritsen, Marinel
    1978 “Het dialekt van vrouwen, nu eens ouderwets dan weer modern.” InVrouwentaal en mannenpraat. Verschillen in taalgebruik en taalgedrag in relatie tot de maatschappelijke rolverdelinged. byDédé Brouwer, Marinel Gerritsen, Dorian de Haan, Annette van der Post & Evelien de Jong, 40–68. Amsterdam: van Gennep.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hall, Kira
    2002 ““Unnatural” gender in Hindi.” InGender across Languages. The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men (Vol. 2)ed. byMarlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann, 133–162. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.10.12hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.10.12hal [Google Scholar]
  14. Hinskens, Frans
    1986 “Primaire en secundaire dialectkenmerken: een onderzoek naar de bruikbaarheid van een vergeten(?) onderscheid.” InWerk-in-uitvoering: momentopname van de sociolinguïstiek in België en Nederlanded. byJos Creten, Guido Geerts & Koen Jaspaert, 135–158. Leuven/Amersfoort: ACCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoppenbrouwers, Cor
    1990Het regiolect: van Dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Louden, Mark Laurence
    2020 “Minority Germanic Languages.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguisticsed. byMichael T. Putnam & B. Richard Page, 807–832. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108378291.035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108378291.035 [Google Scholar]
  17. Notten, Jan G. M.
    1974De Chinezen van Nederland: Opstellen over Limburgse Dialekten en een Bibliografie. Valkenburg: Uitgeverij Het Land van Valkenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Nycz, Jennifer
    2016 “Awareness and Acquisition of New Dialect Features.” InAwareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research, ed. byAnna M. Babel, 62–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139680448.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139680448.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Pet, Willem J. A.
    2011A grammar sketch and lexicon of Arawak (Lokono Dian). Dallas: SIL International.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Piepers, Joske, Ad Backus & Jos Swanenberg
    2021 “Ziej is a woman and het is a girl: A referent’s age guides pronominal gender variation in Limburgian.” Taal & Tongval73(1), 1–44. 10.5117/TET2021.1.PIEP
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TET2021.1.PIEP [Google Scholar]
  21. 2023 “‘It’ is not for everyone: Variation in speakers’ evaluation of sociopragmatic pronouns in Limburgian.” Manuscript in preparation. 10.3390/languages8040253
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8040253 [Google Scholar]
  22. Piepers, Joske & Theresa Redl
    2018 “Gender-mismatching pronouns in context: The interpretation of possessive pronouns in Dutch and Limburgian.” Linguistics in the Netherlands35(1), 97–110. 10.1075/avt.00007.pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00007.pie [Google Scholar]
  23. Royen, Gerlach
    1935Pronominale problemen in het Nederlands. Tilburg: Drukkerij van het R.K. Jongensweeshuis.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Røyneland, Unn
    2009 “Dialects in Norway: catching up with the rest of Europe?” International Journal of the Sociology of Language196/1971, 7–30. 10.1515/IJSL.2009.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2009.015 [Google Scholar]
  25. Stefan, Nika
    2022Spoken Frisian: language contact, variation and change. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Steriopolo, Olga
    2021 “Grammatical gender reversals: A morphosyntactic and sociopragmatic analysis.” Open Linguistics61, 136–165. 10.1515/opli‑2021‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2021-0008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Swanenberg, Jos
    2020 “Does dialect loss give more or less variation? On dialect leveling and language creativity.” InProceedings of Methods XVI. Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, ed. byYoshiyuki Asahi, 65–74. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2022 “Being one of them: Participating in an online community while researching cultural heritage.” Diggit Magazine. Retrieved fromwww.diggitmagazine.com
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tobin, Yishai
    2001 “Gender Switch in Modern Hebrew.” InGender across Languages. The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men (Vol. 1), ed. byMarlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann, 177–198. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.9.13tob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.13tob [Google Scholar]
  30. Weijnen, Antonius Angelus
    1966Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1968 “De aanduiding van vrouwelijke personen door mannelijke voornaamwoorden.” Mededelingen Nijmeegse Centrale Dialect- en Naamkunde71, 4–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1971Schets van de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Weiss, Daniel
    1993 “How many sexes are there? Reflections on natural and grammatical gender in contemporary Polish and Russian.” InStudies in Polish morphology and syntax, ed. byGerd Hentschel & Roman Laskowski, 71–105. Munich: Kubon & Sagner.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilmsen, David
    1999 “Cross-Addressing: Reverse Gender Reference in Spoken Cairene Arabic.” InArabic Grammar and Linguistics, ed. byYasir Suleiman, 203–221. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00087.pie
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00087.pie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Dutch dialects; female reference; interview; masculine subject pronoun; Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error