Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T10:48:27.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Modal Particles in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch Imperatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2019

Carol Fehringer  and
Leonie Cornips
Carol Fehringer*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
Leonie Cornips*
Affiliation:
Meertens Instituut & Maastricht University
*
School of Modern Languages Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RUUK [carol.fehringer@ncl.ac.uk]
Meertens Instituut Oudezijds Achterburgwal185 1012 DK AmsterdamThe Netherlands [leonie.cornips@meertens.knaw.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of modal particles in spoken Dutch imperatives. Two types of particles are differentiated: mitigating, which are often used as a politeness strategy, and reinforcing, which add extra force to the utterance (Vismans 1994). Our findings show that in Netherlandic Dutch, the use of mitigating particles is determined by the type of occupation that the speaker has: Speakers in service-oriented occupations use mitigating particles significantly more often than speakers in nonservice-oriented occupations, and it is argued that this is a function of their need to be more polite in their role as a service provider. Since the data do not come from the speakers’ workplace interactions but from informal conversations with friends and family, it is suggested that speech patterns of speakers’ professional and private language practices influence each other. The effect of occupation is not observed in Belgian Dutch, however, where mitigating particles are significantly less frequent. Moreover, an important methodological consideration arises from this analysis: There is the need for researchers to examine the data beyond the standard sociolinguistic categorizations made available by large corpora.

Keywords

modalparticlemitigatingpolitenessimperativeDutch

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 323 - 362
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We are extremely grateful to Ton van der Wouden of the Meertens Instituut Amsterdam and Leiden University for his substantial contribution to this paper. We would also like to thank Angela Medendorp and Elijne van der Starre for their valuable input, and also the two anonymous reviewers of this paper.

References

References

Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Andriessen, Mara. 2018. Verduidelijk dat nou toch maar eens even! De functie van modale partikelcombinaties in imperatieve uitingen. Leiden, the Netherlands: Leiden University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Bamman, David, Eisenstein, Jacob, & Schnoebelen, Tyler. 2014. Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18. 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard, & Schwenter, Scott. 2013. Pragmatics and variationist sociolinguistics. The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. by Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard, & Lucas, Ceil, 464–483. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9. 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie, & Gregersen, Frans. 2016. The impact of Labov’s contribution to general linguistic theory. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20. 498–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piet van de, Craen, & de Vriendt, Sera. 1995. Hoe gewoon is gewoon? Lingua Theodisca: Beiträge zur Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft für Jan Goossens zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Cajot, José, Kremer, Ludger, & Niebaum, Hans, 831–838. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2014. The problem with binaries: Coding for gender and sexuality. Language and Linguistics Compass 8. 529–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1984. Maar als modaal partikel in imperatieve zinnen. Studies over Nederlandse partikels (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 35), ed. by van der Auwera, Johan& Vandeweghe, Willy, 65–75. Antwerp: UIA.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1993. De betekenis van partikels: een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek, met bijzondere aandacht voor ‘maar’. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
Friginal, Eric, & Jack, A. Hardy. 2014. Corpus-based sociolinguistics. A guide for students. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geerts, Guido, & Hans, Heestermans (eds.). 1992. Van Dale: Groot woordenboek der Nederlandse taal [Van Dale’s great dictionary of the Dutch language], 12th edn. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Berna, & Le Pair, Rob. 2004. Conventionaliteit en beleefdheid in Nederlandse verzoeken. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 26. 21–43.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack, & Zwarts, Frans. 1991. Some remarks on focus adverbs. Journal of Semantics 8. 51–70.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, Lotte, Ramachers, Stefanie, & Wottrich, Verena. 2011. ‘Doch’, ‘toch’ and ‘wel’ on the table. Linguistics in the Netherlands 28, ed. by Nouwen, Rich & Elenbaas, Marion, 50–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Helen de, Hoop, Klatter, Jetske, Mulder, Gijs, & Schmitz, Tijn. 2016. Imperatives and politeness in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 33, ed. by Audring, Jenny & Lestrade, Sander, 41–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jansen, Frank. 1992. Politeness phenomena in Dutch direct mail. Studies of functional text quality, ed. by Maat, Henk Pander & Michael Steehouder, 57–72. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey Neil. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McLelland, Nicola, & Braber, Natalie. 2010. Combining modal particles in German and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22. 461–482.Google Scholar
Olmen, Daniel van. 2009. De imperativische infinitief in het Nederlands. Een corpusgebaseerde benadering. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14. 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke. 2000. The spoken Dutch corpus. Overview and first evaluation. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000), vol. 2, ed. by Gavrilidou, Maria, Carayannis, George, Markantonatou, Stella, Piperidis, Stelios, & Stainhauer, Gregory, 887–893. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Risselada, Rodie. 1990. Illocutionary function and functional illocution. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 34. 1–28.Google Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, Ina. 1984. De betekenis van het woord TOCH in samenhang met de rol van intonatie. Forum der Letteren 25. 208–219.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Harald Baayen, R.. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24. 135–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy. 2010. Modale partikels en vertaling. Internationale Neerlandistiek 48. 18–29.Google Scholar
Vismans, Roel. 1994. Modal particles in Dutch directives: A study in functional grammar. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Sera de, Vriendt, & van de Craen, Piet. 1984. Maar als modaalpartikel. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 35: Studies over nederlandse partikels, ed. by van der Auwera, Johan & Vandeweghe, Willy, 49–63. Antwerp: UIA.Google Scholar
Sera de, Vriendt, Vandeweghe, Willy, & van de Craen, Piet. 1991. Combinatorial aspects of modal particles in Dutch. Multilingua 10–12. 43–59.Google Scholar
Westheide, Henning. 1986. Routinisering bij het gebruik van hulpwerkwoorden van modaliteit en schakeringspartikels in Nederlandse en Duitse “conversational routines”. TTT 6. 153–167.Google Scholar
Ton van der, Wouden. 2002a. Partikels: Naar een partikelwoordenboek voor het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7. 20–43.Google Scholar
Ton van der, Wouden. 2002b. Particle research meets corpus linguistics: On the collocational behaviour of particles. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16. 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ton van der, Wouden, & Caspers, Johanneke. 2010. Nederlandse partikelbeschrijving in internationaal perspectief: Waar zijn we eigenlijk en waar moet het toch naar toe? Internationale Neerlandistiek 48. 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Data Sources

ANS (Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [The General Dutch Grammar]). E-ANS; electronic version). Available at http://ans.ruhosting.nlGoogle Scholar
CGN (Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [Corpus of Spoken Dutch]). Available at http://lands.let.ru.nl/cgn/ehome.htm.Google Scholar
WNT (Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal [Dictionary of Dutch Language]). Historisch Wetenschappelijk Beschrijvend Woordenboek van het Nederlands van 1500 tot 1976. Available at http://ivdnt.org/onderzoek-a-onderwijs/lexicologie-a-lexicografie/WNT.Google Scholar