Transcript Sifting through the textual evidence: Linguistic variation

Sifting through the textual evidence:
Linguistic variation in 17th century
Amsterdam
Mike Olson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Introduction
• Text types used for linguistic evidence can affect
how we view language use in the past
• Formal texts: more standardized and less like
spoken
• Informal texts (e.g. personal writings): more
variation and closer to spoken
• Traditional histories of Dutch focuses on standard
language, especially for 17th century Amsterdam
• Only tells part of the story - more informal texts
can reveal language use in other domains
• Corpus of personal writings from Amsterdam in
17th century
• Establish criteria for text selection based on level
of orality, or closeness to spoken language
• Qualitative analysis of documents by Amsterdam
natives in different registers
Working Hypothesis
• More formal texts use more uniform spelling and
grammar and are less characteristic of spoken
language
– Formal texts often composed with a standard language
in mind
– Standards tend to discourage variation and retain
archaic features
• More informal texts tend to contain more variation
and represent spoken language more closely
– Spoken language is naturally more variable than written
– Personal writings often conform less to a standard
 Thus, informal, personal writings should reveal
changes in spoken language before they become
apparent in the formal written standard
Personal Writings
• Linguistic histories ‘from below’ (Elspass 2005;
Elspass et al. 2007)
– Writers that represent ‘normal’ people, not necessarily
part of an elite social classes
– Text types that reflect spoken language and variation as
closely as possible
– Search for patterns of variation in language change
– Observe changes in progress
Language of Proximity
•
‘Language of Proximity’ or ‘Conceptual Orality’
(Koch & Oesterreicher 1985)
– Language is encoded graphemically in texts and
phonically through spoken language
– Both media can represent more or less ‘proximity’ or
relative ‘orality’, e.g.
• Texts: legal document vs. transcribed interview
• Spoken: address before parliament vs. conversation
with a close friend
– Language that reflects more proximity or orality tends to
• adhere less to linguistic norms and show more
variation in spelling and punctuation
• contain fewer complex grammatical constructions
and less dense information structures
Language of Proximity/Distance
Variation and Change in Texts
• Texts should represent spoken language
as closely as possible (Schneider 2002)
– “the surface appearance of a text, including
criteria like the presence and frequency of
dialectal forms, the presence of variation, and
the overall impression of authenticity, plays a
role in assessing a text” (2002:85)
– Other factors include relationship between
writer and reader and general fit of text with
others from same speech community
Characteristics of Spoken Language
• Texts more representative of spoken
language
– are written by an author in a close relationship
with the reader
– include more variation in spelling and
punctuation
– contain more dialectal forms
– show less complex sentence/information
structures
Dutch Language Histories
• Histories of Dutch generally focus on standard language
(e.g. Van Bree 1987; Van Loey 1970; De Vooys 1967; Van der
Wal & Van Bree 2008)
• Numerous personal documents in Dutch archives from Early
Modern Period (e.g. Lindeman et al. 1993; Lindeman et al.
1994)
– Diaries and Journals, travelogues, family histories, and
personal letters
– Archives have documentation about writers of texts
– Primarily produced by members of higher social class
• ‘Sailing Letters’ in British National Archives (Van Gelder
2006)
– Thousands of personal letters captured by British starting in
1650s and lasting over several naval wars with the Netherlands
– Represent a wider range of people than found in archives
– Little is known about the writers
– Letters dated only from the mid 17th century on
• Personal documents can provide new sources for studying
the development of spoken Dutch (see Goss 2002; Hendriks
1998)
Amsterdam in the 17th century
• The studies of Dutch spoken in Amsterdam during
the 17th cent. largely based on more formal texts
• Vangassen (1965) uses texts from governmental,
civic, and religious institutes in Amsterdam, but
only focuses on a couple sound changes
• Weijnen’s (1975) Zeventiende-eeuwse Taal
includes data from several Amsterdam authors:
– more orality: Bredero and Coster’s Kluchten and
Vondel’s Hekeldichten
– less orality: Hooft, Vondel, Vos (Jan), Luyken, Brandt
• Comparison of personal writings with more formal
texts sheds light on different linguistic data
available for 17th century Amsterdam
Selection of Texts
More Formal / Less Orality
Title/
Description
Reference
Text Type
Author
Date
Formal Prose
P.C. Hooft
1642
Nederlandsche
Historien
(Hellinga &
Tuynman 1972)[1]
Official
Document
Schout/
Schepenen
1650
Justitieboek crimes in the city
(SA Amsterdam
5061, nr. 581)
Diary/
Travelogue
Joan
Huydecoper, Sr.
(1599-1661)
1635
Travelogue of a
diplomatic mission
(Utrechts A 67,
Inv. 41)
Personal
Letters
Joan
Huydecoper, Jr.
(1625-1704)
1648
Kopieboek of
personal letters
while travelling
(UA 67, Inv. 53)
Sailing Letter
Amsterdammers
1664
Personal letters by
‘normal’ people
(Van Vliet 2007)[2]
Less Formal / More Orality
[1]
[2]
The digitized version in the DBNL: http://www.dbnl.nl/tekst/hoof001nede01_01/
Letter numbers: 5, 17, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51
Qualitative Analysis of the Texts
• Texts that are more representative of spoken
language
– Context: Relationship between author and intended
audience
– Spelling & Punctuation: variation in orthographic
conventions
– Dialectal Forms: non-standard forms that reveal dialectal
traits
– Sentence Structures: complexity and density
• Morphological variation
– Pronouns: mij vs. mijn
– Verb forms: Subject-Verb Agreement and helping verb
with geweest
– Case markers: Determiners, Adjectives, Nouns
Formal Prose:
P.C. Hooft, Nederlandsche Historien 1642-47
• Recounts history of young Republic starting in mid 16th
century
• Early influence on standardization of Dutch (Van der Wal &
Van Bree 2008:221)
Formal Prose:
Characteristics of Spoken Language
• Context: published text, edited to standardize
spelling and punctuation
• Spelling & Punctuation: very little variation,
standard punctuation
– Mainly z in onset and s in clusters, but small var. versierdt vs.
verziert
– Small variation in g and gh: teegens vs. teeghens; kreeg vs.
kreegh
• Dialectal forms: one example
– Unrounding: ten algemeenen Landbestier
• Sentence structures: complex and compact with
numerous embedded clauses and extended
participial phrases
– Al 't welk gâa geslaaghen en ooverwooghen by de
geenen, die, in zoodaanighe stoffe wel 't zuiverste
gezicht hadden, genoomen werd voor teeken van 't
genaaken eenigher groote en zwaarlyk stilbaare
ontsteltenis; rollende dit werk op 't zelve spoor, waar
langs de tweedraght en beroerten van Vrankryk waaren
aangeheeven.
Formal Prose:
Morphological Variation
•
•
Pronouns: relatively infrequent, always mij (never mijn)
Verb Forms:
– Subject-Verb Agreement: Primarily conforms to modern standard with
small variation in 1st sg. forms; no apocope of -n in other forms
• dat ik zyn'af koomst, aardt en fortuyn in 't kort ten toon stelle
• dien ik zelf gezien heb
– zou~zoude variation: singular zou-forms are fairly infrequent, while
plurals forms are always zouden
• en ondertussen zou men arbeiden
• dat hy zich, anders, luttel met haar bekreunen zouw
• dat hy zeekere plaatzen, t'onderpandt inhouden zoude
– Helping Verb with geweest : always form of zyn
• dien 't doch, ... , te min mooghelyk geweest was
•
Case-Marking:
– Archaic genitives: not in spoken Dutch varieties (Weijnen 1975:43)
• Des Konings breedstrekkende maght; in 't groenste zijner jeught
– Regular use of inflection: Sing. objects often end with -e and plurals
show no apocope of -n
• in bekooring van koninglyken naame; als een welverknocht, en gevolghzaam
Ryk; veele voeten in der aarde; gedreeven tot de waapenen
• but also with some reduced forms: van de maate zyner maght
• Graphemic abbreviated forms: zyn' armen van zelf jookende
Official Document:
Schout en Schepenen, Justitieboek 1650
• Justitieboek contains descriptions of crimes in Amsterdam
• Formulaic language in many short, self-contained texts
Official Document:
Characteristics of Spoken Language
• Context: Written by different authors for public
record
• Spelling & Punctuation: formulaic comma use /
regular spelling with small variation in and
between different writers: s vs. z; g vs. gh
• Dialectal forms:
– ar~er variation: dartigh; dartien
– ft~cht variation: verkoft for ‘verkocht’
• Sentence structures: complex and compact
clauses, embedded subclauses and extended
participial phrases (typical legal speech)
– Jannitge gerrits van Vlaenderen oud omtrent 21 jaeren,
hebbende haer la{ten} misbruijcken van een jode, sijnde
een getrouwt man, bij wien sij {is} beswangert en sij wel
drij jaeren bij geslaepen heeft, is bij schepenen
gebannen uijt dese stede, hare vrijheijd, een mijl int
ronde den tijd van twee jaeren, ...
Official Document:
Morphological Variation
• Pronouns: no use of mij due to nature of the text
• Verb Forms:
– Subject-Verb Agreement: Relatively few inflected verb forms
due to the nature of the text, but standard norms of agreement
– zou~zoude variation: rarely used, but a couple soude
– Helping Verb with geweest : always form of zyn
• Case-Marking:
– Archaic genitives: a few in common phrases
• int’ spinhuijs deser stad
• van de dood haers mans
– Determiners: some in common phrases, often just de, dese, ...
• Except for time adverbials: den tijd van twee jaeren; den 10e
feburarij
• And common phrases: t’ sijnen huijse
– Nouns:
• sing. objects with/without -e: uijt de hechtenisse / hechtenis
• uijt deser stad vs. uijt dese stad vs. uijt deser stede vs. uijt dese
stede
• plurals usually with -n but sometimes not: op aenclachte
Diary/Travelogue:
Joan Huydecoper, Sr., 1635
• Composed during a trip to Poland and Sweden in
1635 as member of a diplomatic mission from the
Netherlands
Diary/Travelogue:
Characteristics of Spoken Language
• Context: may represent more formal speech, ‘official’
context
– Written with entries for each day in ‘diary’ style, omitting first
element: 19. ditto sijn wij omtrent Dansick verder gecoomen
• Spelling: shows little variation except in few specific words
– No use of letter z, instead all words have s
• Punctuation: fairly sparse, lacking periods, but with some
commas for subclauses and lists
• Dialectal forms: in only a few words
–
–
–
–
reflex of WGmc *î : always we sijn but once we sien
Unrounding: stijcken vs. sticken vs. stijck for ‘stuk’
Always uses doen for ‘toen’
Loss of -d(en)/-d- : Edelluijden vs. Edelluij vs. Edellij vs. Edelly
• usually wederom, but a couple times weerom
• gereeden but one time gereen
• soo wij naer marien[burch] reeden doch de Secretaris ree voorts
• Sentence structures: not as complex with fewer embedded
clauses and fewer extended participial phrases
– logeerden jnt gulde vlies alwaer Monsieur vanden honert ende
jck de burgemeester Bicker, die met het Jacht van hoochcamer
quam, opden middach te gemoet gingen
– was hij daer ouer soo gestoort dat hij gegeten hebbende van
tafel gingent daer naer sijn vader klaechde
Diary/Travelogue:
Morphological variation
•
•
Pronouns: standard use - only mij
Verb Forms:
– Subject-Verb Agreement:
• Very regular forms like Hooft (no -n apocope)
• sou~soude Variation: none, sou is singular and souden is plural
– Helping Verb with geweest : usually form of sijn but once
• wij hadden hier weijnich vreijheijt soo dat jck niet eens jnde staet of door
geweest heb om se te sien
– Other non-standard verb forms:
• Instead of ligt : fredrix[burch] leijt omtrent 3 mijl van Elseneur
• Loss of -n- : dat men naeulijckx aende Carossen kost coomen
•
Case-Marking:
– No use of genitive beyond time references: des smiddags, smorgens
– No apocope of -n in plurals
– Fairly regular usage of (d)en before masc. objects
•
•
•
•
met den brandenb[urger]; wt den naem
But with ‘leakage’ to
Neuter: naerden Eeten
Nominative: den Duijtsen Cancelier antwoorde voor sijn Magesteijt
– Time adverbials:
• voorden middach, but naerde middach
• But with ‘leakage’ to Feminine: ende logeerden daer dien nacht
Personal Letters:
Joan Huydecoper, Jr., Kopieboek 1648
• Copies of personal letters during a trip to France,
Switzerland and Italy when he was still fairly
young, around age 23
Personal Letters:
Characteristics of Spoken Language
• Context: Written to close family members and
personal friends
• Spelling: very regular spelling not differing much
from standard
– Sparse use of the letter z, instead most words have s
• Punctuation: fairly regular, but lacking periods as
in the travelogue
• Dialectal forms:
– ar~er variation: varstaen, vartreck, varkeerken,
parsuaderende, but versoeke, vertrock, vereijste
– Loss of -d(en)/-d- : koopluij; weer vs. weder; bestemoer;
groote kou
– ft~cht variation: gekoft for ‘gekocht’
– Always uses doen for ‘toen’
• Sentence structures: similar complexity to
travelogue but with slightly more parataxis
– Omission of subordinating conjunction:
• ick geef U Ed[ele] te considereren 500 mijn swager mijn had
betaelt
Personal Letters:
Morphological variation
•
Pronouns: constant use of mijn instead of mij
– het sou mijn seer aengenaem sijn
•
Verb Forms:
– Subject-Verb Agreement: more variation than travelogue, apocope of -e
& Hypercorrections in sing. but with little apocope of -n in plural forms
•
•
•
•
•
ick heb; versoeke vs. versoek;
But dat staen ick toe vs. die ick ten naesten bij varsta
doen ick te Leijden studeerden
mijn swager, ... , 300 guld. beloofden
but oock spreek men hier al eenen tael
– sou~soude Variation: Both forms occur with soude better represented
• het sou mijn seer aengenaem sijn
• het geen hier soude mogen passeren
– Helping Verb with geweest : usually form of sijn
– Loss of -n- : dat ick geen progres koste doen
•
Case-Marking:
– No real use of genitive but with analytic construction:
• wensende dik mael U E[dele] en, neef tol sijn compani
– Rarely apocope of -n in plurals
– Some use of (d)en before objects but often not masc. :
• een eerlijken penninck; bij desen versoeck; inden tijt
• But vande beste taback
Sailing Letters:
Amsterdammers, 1664
•Personal letters among sailors in De Ruyter’s fleet
and their family
•Follow a popular model and at times were written by
professional letter writers, so authenticity is difficult
(Brouwer 2007)
Sailing Letters:
Characteristics of Spoken Language
• Context: Written to close family members and personal
friends
• Spelling: high variation with different spellings for individual
words in and among speakers
• Punctuation: relatively little with a few commas and periods
• Dialectal forms: Some of many examples
– ar~er variation: herte vs. harten vs. haert; starken vs. sterft
– ie~ee variation: breef vs. brief; neit vs. niet; heir vs. hier
– o~u variation: untvangen vs. ontvangen; gesturven vs.
gestorven
– o~eu variation: mocht vs. meucht
– g~k variation: keen vs. geen
– Loss of -d- : verminert vs. vermyndert,
– Always doen for ‘toen’
– Reduction: min/men vs. mijn; wet vs. weet; heft vs. heeft
• Sentence structures: a lot of parataxis, some subclasses but
no extended participial phrases
– Common parataxis:
• En Susanna en Fransyntje dye bennen peeten van ons kynt.
Sailing Letters:
Morphological variation
•
•
Pronouns: mostly mijn with mij in one speaker
Verb Forms:
– Subj-Verb Agreement: variation within and across writers
•
•
•
•
•
als dat ick u l[ieder] breefe untvangen heeft
verleden week is heir maer gestorven 445 dooden
Wij kan Godt neyt genoch voor bedancken
Paulus Somer met sijnen huysvroue noch kloeck ende gesondt ben
wij noch altemael noch reedelick cloek ende gesont bennen
– sou~soude variation: Both forms occur with slightly more soude
• soude vs. sout vs. sou
– Helping Verb with geweest : often hebben with some sijn
• En de swaricheijt dye heeft hyer al vrij groot geweest
•
Case-Marking:
– Genitives: some analytic constructions
• En Yan sijn vrijster Jannetjen ys noch gesont.
• Some synthetic from scriptures: in de handt des Heeren
– Determiners / Adjectives: variation with/without endings
• mijn seer eerwardigh ende beminde man; mijn seer eerwardige man; mijne
seer beminde man; voor sijne genade; voor sijnen genadigh
– Some apocope of -n in plurals:
• als dat ick u l[ieder] breefe untvangen heeft
Implications of Text Types from Amsterdam
• Formal, standard, published texts can serve as
baselines for non-spoken
• Institutional texts offer slight variation but with
formulaic text intended to preserve information
for a public audience
• Ego-documents and personal letters from
educated writers reveal some variation
• Personal letters written by more ‘normal’ people
with less education and from a lower social class
such as the Sailing Letters provide probably
represent the spoken language in Amsterdam in
the 17th century
Workging Hypothesis
 Personal writings should reveal changes in spoken
language before they become apparent in the
formal written standard
Text Type
Formal
Prose
Official
Document
Diary /
Travelogue
Personal
Letters
Sailing
Letter
mij /
mijn
Subj-Verb
Agree
Hebben
/ zijn
geweest
mij
standard
zijn
many, old
mij
standard
zijn
mij
standard
mijn
variation
mijn
high
variation
zijn
(hebben)
zijn
(hebben)
hebben
(zijn)
frequent
phrases
time
adverbials
analytic
constr.
analytic w/
synth. from
Bible
Genitives
Inflection
dets, adjs,
nouns
frequent
phrases
masc nouns,
w/ leakage
some masc
nouns, var.
sparse w/
variation
Future Plans / Discussion
• Construct more quantitative tests for
assessing orality of texts/comparing them
with more formal texts
• Where do the Kluchten fit in?