ELL: Re: Flemish

[Gerd Jendraschek]

I didn't intend to open a new discussion on Flemish by mentioning it, but I
must say that the issue is quite interesting. The controversy about Dutch
vs. Flemish seems quite comparable to other poly-standardized languages such
as:

English (British vs. American)
French ( vs. Canadian French/Quebecois)
Spanish (vs. Latin American Spanish)
Portuguese (vs. Brasilian)
Serbo-Croatian (vs. Croation, Bosnian)
German (vs. Austrian, Swiss German)
Malaysian (vs. Indonesian)
etc.

The difference between the varieties is always the same, because the
speakers' impression regarding them is located between two poles:

a) Communication is always possible between speakers of different varieties
and you don't find grammar workbooks or dictionaries of variety A for
speakers of variety B (just lists of differences, but these are too tiny to
justify an own dictionary or grammar) --> same language;

b) When a speaker of variety A hears a speaker of variety B, he almost
immediately recognizes that he speaks a different variety, that they don't
speak the same way. The differences between A and B may cause
misunderstandings --> different languages.

Let me give an example: on CNN Europe you have British and American
speakers. It just takes seconds to recognize from which side of the Atlantic
one comes from, so the difference is easily perceptible and learners have to
choose one among the varieties. But both can be presented on the same
channel.

Recently I spoke to Brasilians who told me that they have sometimes
difficulties to understand European Portuguese. I showed them some written
sentences in European Portuguese: for most of the examples they told me "you
wouldn't say like that in Brasil". However, the official language of Brasil
is Portuguese, not Brasilian.

Am I right to say that the situation is comparable for Dutch vs. Flemish?
Moreover, the sociolinguistic situation of both varieties is not the same.
As for Dutch in the Netherlands, it is official and standardized for
centuries, with no language "attacking" it (except for English in modern
times). Flemish on the other hand, has been officialized more recently, has
been more exposed to French (although I have the impression that there are
surprisingly many French words in Northern Dutch as well) and this is why it
is mentioned among the positive cases of language revitalization: from an
unofficial, stigmatized, fragmented dialect group to an official,
modernized, standardized language. If we go back in time we can find a
similar evolution for Dutch. It origininated from Germanic varieties spoken
along the North Sea coast, right? When the border between Germany and the
Netherlands was drawn, the varieties on the left of the map developped to a
standardized language called Dutch, whereas the varieties on the right
became Low German, which was soon to be supplanted by official standard
German -- maybe I've simplified a bit, but remember that until the beginning
of the 20th century Dutch was often considered a German "dialect", and
anyway, _Dutch_ and _Deutsch_ are essentially the same word. Today, Dutch
and Low German are still genetically close varieties, but their
sociolinguistic status is quite different: you can discuss any topic in
Dutch, but the remaining active speakers of Low German borrow almost
everything modern from Standard German.

Hope I could clarify a bit,

Gerd JENDRASCHEK

Equipe de Recherche en Syntaxe et Semantique
Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail
France




----- Original Message -----
From: "Niels Wijnen" <niels at koekoek.cjb.net>
To: <endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 6:13 PM
Subject: ELL: Flemish (was: Wall Street Journal editorial)


>
> > There's a great misunderstanding about Flemish amongst foreigners:
> > Flemish is NOT a language, it's not even regarded as such in Flanders,
>
> Well, I am flemish. And here is a huge discussion if Flemish is a language
or
> not (if you understand Dutch (or Flemish): look at
>
http://www.standaard.be/archief/reeksen/index.asp?dosID=303&DocType=dossier.
asp
> at the bottom under 'opiniebijdragen'). Some say it is, others say it
isn't.
> Flemish has OFFICIALY the same dictionary and grammar as the standard
Dutch.
> But there are quite a few things that are used everywhere in Flanders,
above
> the many local Flemish dialects, but not in the Netherlands. The last
years the
> gap between the 'languages' spoken in the Netherlands and in Flanders has
grown.
>
> Note that Flemish words and expressions do exist in the dictionary. Those
are
> marked with ZN (Zuid-Nederlands) which means Southern Dutch (the Dutch
spoken
> in the Southern part of the Dutch language area = Flemish). Those
> words/expressions (and there are quite a lot of them) you can't use in the
> Netherlands, but in Flanders it is no problem. You can even use them in
> official texts.
>
> If Flemish a language? There always will be a discussion. But certain is
that
> Flemish is not the same as standard Dutch. As a last example I can give
the
> literature. Dutch and Flemish books are readable and are read by both the
Dutch
> and the Flemish people. But there is certainly a difference. A difference
in
> style, in usage of words. And the difference goes beyond the regional
> differences of dialects.
>
>
> Niels,
>
> ----
> Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
> Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> ----
>
----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
----