Netherlandic language research

[p. 10]

Chapter Two
Works of Reference and Periodicals

A. Lexicology

Matthias de Vries (1820-1892) may be said to be the founder of modern Netherlandic philology. Originally a classicist, his aim was to raise the level of Netherlandics to that of classical philology as regards status and methods used. His work and influence are discussed in G. Karsten's Honderd jaar Nederlandse Philologie; M. de Vries en zijn school (Leyden, 1949), which also gives information about de Vries' most prominent pupils. We associate the name of de Vries, together with that of L.A. te Winkel (1809-1868), with the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (W.N.T., 1882 ff.). After de Vries and te Winkel others, some of them pupils of de Vries, have cooperated; we mention the names of A. Kluyver, A. Beets, G.J. Boekenoogen, J.W. Muller, J. Heinsius, J.A.N. Knuttel. Regular progress was assured when, in 1917, the Woordenboek began to receive Government sponsorship. In 1929 Jacoba H. van Lessen joined the editorial staff; from 1946 until her death, in 1951, she was chief editor. F. de Tollenaere is a Belgian member of the staff.

The volumes vary in method as well as in quality, as a result of the changing linguistic views and of the divergence in the abilities and personal interests of the editors. Of late years the unity of the work has benefited from closer collaboration and a better system of crosschecking. But the large scope of the Woordenboek and the pecuniary difficulties experienced during the first few decades, had a retarding influence and accentuated the differences of opinion among the editors; the first volumes are now out of date. A Supplement to the letter A, started in 1942 by Knuttel and finished by one of his co-editors, C.H.A. Kruyskamp, in 1956, brings out the incompleteness of the original. For the time being, no further additions to the supplement are to be expected, the present staff are applying themselves in the first place to the completion of the main work.

As regards unity of conception and regularity in progress, the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal is surpassed by the Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek (Mnl.Wb.) by E. Verwijs and J. Verdam, of which the first volume was completed in 1885. By far the greater part

[p. 11]

of the work was done by Verdam, who, however, chose to keep the name of Verwijs on the title-page, as the latter had co-operated with him during the preparations and had edited a part of the first volume. Verdam did not live to see his immense undertaking completed: after his death in 1919 F.A. Stoett finished the work, using the material collected by his predecessor.

This lexicological inventory of Middle Netherlandic exceeds, in size, method and value, everything comparable in the field of Germanic language research. The stupendous accomplishment, mainly the work of one man, naturally has its shortcomings. In 1941 A.A. Beekman edited Aanvullingen en verbeteringen, additions and corrections dealing with such typically Dutch matters as land and water, as the 11th volume of the work. The numerous text emendations suggested by Verdam in the Mnl.Wb. were registered by W. de Vreese in the 10th volume. The rest of this volume is taken up by Bouwstoffen, a carefully compiled list of the texts and editions used by Verdam, roughly arranged according to their place of origin. After 1941 the Bouwstoffen were continued by G.I. Lieftinck, who finished his task in 1952.

The word-material collected by Verdam covers the period up to about 1500, but in the later volumes we regularly come across quotations from the first half of the 16th century. The starting point for the material used in the W.N.T., at least in the later volumes, is usually ca. 1550. It cannot be denied that, as far as lexicography is concerned, the 16th century, in many ways an important period in the history of Netherlandic, has been treated very inadequately. We shall revert to this in Ch. V.

The Middelnederlandsch Handwoordenboek (Mnl. Handwb.) by J. Verdam (The Hague, 1911) is intended for a wider circle of readers, and was completed when the Mnl.Wb. had advanced as far as the word sterne. C.H. Ebbinge Wubben edited a Supplement (1929) based on the data of the later volumes of the Mnl.Wb.

A more concise dictionary of Modern Netherlandic, in one big volume, is van Dale's Nieuw Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, the 7th edition of which was prepared by C.H.A. Kruyskamp and F. de Tollenaere (The Hague, 1950). A new edition, revised and enlarged, has been appearing in instalments since 1958, and is intended to be complete in 1961.

The illustrated Modern Woordenboek by J. Verschueren (5th edition, 2 vols, Turnhout, 1945, 1950; 6th edition, n.d.) is not only an

[p. 12]

explanatory dictionary but also a concise encyclopaedia, modelled on the Petit Larousse illustré, which it may be considered to have surpassed.

The Etymologisch Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal by J. Franck has been excellently re-edited by N. van Wijk (The Hague, 1912). A Supplement (1936) by C.B. van Haeringen incorporates the publications that have appeared after 1912. J. Vercoullie composed a Beknopt Etymologisch Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (3rd edition, The Hague, 1925).

Popular, but competently written, is the pocket Etymologisch Woordenboek by J. de Vries (2nd edition, Utrecht and Antwerp, 1959), which also contains Netherlandic toponyms.

B. History of the language

The Geschichte der niederländischen Sprache by J. te Winkel (2nd edition, Strassbourg, 1901) forms part of Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie. It was translated into Dutch by F.C. Wieder (Culemborg, 1901). In 1904 te Winkel followed this up with a work of wider scope, the Inleiding tot de geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche taal (Culemborg, 1904), an introduction to linguistics in general, and Indo-European and Germanic linguistics in particular. A similar work, but more suitable for didactic purposes, is the book by C. Lecoutere, 6th edition by L. Grootaers, Inleiding tot de Taalkunde en tot de Geschiedenis van het Nederlands (Louvain and Groningen, 1948). Successive editions of this book have gradually been revised and brought up to date by Grootaers, so that the book as it is today, is virtually his own work.

The Historische Grammatik der niederländischen Sprache by M.J. van der Meer, of which only the first part (Einleitung und Lautlehre, Heidelberg, 1927) appeared, was meant as a substitute for te Winkel's Geschichte, which was not reprinted after the 2nd edition. Van der Meer's extensive ‘Einleitung’ to ‘Die Entwicklung der niederländischen Sprache’ gives the ‘external’ history of Netherlandic, and the ‘Lautlehre’ is a history of sounds, working back from the present day. It was the author's aim to emphasize the individual character of Netherlandic as distinct from German, a distinction which he thinks is brought out especially by the very strong influence of French on Netherlandic; he deals separately with the sounds of

[p. 13]

French loanwords. Both ‘Einleitung’ and ‘Lautlehre’ are provided with elaborate bibliographical notes.

Of modest size is the Schets eener historische grammatica der Nederlandsche taal by J. Vercoullie (4th edition, Ghent, 1922). From the 3rd edition onwards the book includes a section on word formation and one on syntax, while the use of forms is discussed in the section on morphology.

The codification par excellence of historical phonology and morphology and, since the 2nd edition, also of word formation, is M. Schönfeld's Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands, the 5th edition of which (Zutfen, 1954) was compiled by A. van Loey, assisted by Schönfeld. After Schönfeld's death in 1958 the 6th edition is to be the sole responsibility of van Loey. This critical, comprehensive and carefully written book with its excellent bibliography froms the basis of all proper study of Netherlandic historical grammar. For didactical purposes, however, a shorter, more elementary book, like Vercoullie's, would be desirable.

C.G.N. de Vooys' Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal in hoofdtrekken geschetst (5th edition, revised and enlarged, Antwerp-Groningen, 1952) has a different object in view. This book does not enter into details of sound and form, but outlines the development of Netherlandic, paying much attention to the rise of a supra-regional language, the influence of important authors on general usage, grammatical views and earlier publications on grammar. It is not the smallest merit of the work that the author constantly makes us aware of gaps in our knowledge, and draws attention to subjects worthy of further investigation.

J. Verdam's Uit de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche taal (4th revised edition by F.A. Stoett, Zutfen, 1923) does not give a systematic description, but consists of separate chapters on the history of Netherlandic. It is intended for a wider reading public.

Grammatical handbooks of Modern Netherlandic will be mentioned and briefly discussed in Ch. VIII.

C. Periodicals

The Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde¹⁾ (Leyden; Ts.) started in 1881, is the Netherlandic counterpart of the German

1) The official orthography of Netherlandic has undergone a change, introduced in Belgium in 1946, in Holland in 1947. In the present book the authors' spelling has been retained in book titles. In the titles of periodicals that have conformed to the new spelling since 1947, the new orthography is also used for the older volumes. Up to 1947 the word Nederlandse in the title of the Tijdschrift was spelled Nederlandsche, but here the spelling with s has been adopted. Some steps towards a nationalized spelling of bastard words have been taken in the Woordenlijst van de Nederlandse Taal, published by the Dutch and Belgian Governments in 1954; this new spelling became operative in 1955. The somewhat hesitant character of the list, which aims at a compromise between tradition and reform, has met with objections, especially in educational circles.

[p. 14]

Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Like the Beiträge, it appears at irregular intervals, and its contents are philological and literary, with the accent on philology. Beginning with the 55th volume, the Tijdschrift has distinguished itself from the Beiträge by giving reviews of books selected by the editors. The reviews are usually extensive and well worth reading. The Tijdschrift, a publication of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde (Leyden), is edited by a regularly changing committee from the Maatschappij.

The Tijdschrift being, like the Beiträge, a ‘learned’ periodical, it contributes to scholarly research. Alongside the Tijdschrift there is, therefore, room for a periodical that tries to promote the interests of study and teaching.

To a certain extent this want was supplied by the periodical Noord en Zuid (Culemborg, 1877 ff), edited by Taco H. de Beer, intended especially for teachers in elementary and secondary schools. Of greater importance was Taal en Letteren (Zwolle, 1890-1906), of which J.H. van den Bosch, F. Buitenrust Hettema and R.A. Kollewijn were the mainstays. This periodical set itself the task of making known, in the Netherlands and Belgium, the new linguistic methods as propagated in particular by the German school of neo-grammarians. Furthermore, the men of Taal en Letteren protested vigorously against the hegemony of a more or less artificial written language in education, and vindicated the rights of living spoken Netherlandic. They crusaded for the abolition of case-endings, till then rigorously maintained in the written, but long extinct in the spoken language, and for the the simplification of some spellings based on etymological considerations but no longer corresponding to any real phonemic differences. The editor Kollewijn drafted a new spelling system, much of which was incorporated in the spelling reforms of 1946 and 1947 (see p. 13 note).

De Nieuwe Taalgids (N.Tg., Groningen, 1907 ff), founded by C.G.N. de Vooys and J. Koopmans, and after Koopmans' decease con-

[p. 15]

tinued by de Vooys alone, may be looked upon as a continuation of Taal en Letteren. Just as the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde may be compared with the Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, the Nieuwe Taalgids is comparable with the Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift. No long-winded essays or detailed philological investigations are to be found in this periodical, both in size and in vocabulary the articles are designed for a fairly wide reading-circle. In theory, literary subjects have equal rights with linguistic ones, but in practice linguistic matters tend to prevail, especially since Koopmans' death. The more didactic kind of article has grown scarcer after de Vooys himself, in 1915, was appointed a professor and said farewell to secondary school teaching. The N.Tg. contains many book reviews and regular surveys of the contents of periodicals. After de Vooys' death in 1955 the N.Tg. has been edited by his two successors in the University of Utrecht, C.B. van Haeringen and W.A.P. Smit. An Index to volumes I-L, compiled by L. Koelmans, is coming out shortly.

Didactic aims are more directly pursued by the Levende Talen (Lev. T., Groningen), which appears five times a year, and by the Belgian bilingual Tijdschrift voor Levende Talen (Ts. v. Lev. T., Brussels, 1935 ff), but in these periodicals the space is shared equally between Netherlandic, French, German and English.

Originally, the Leuvense Bijdragen (Leuv. Bijdr., Louvain), appearing since 1896, was devoted exclusively to dialect study, and this has continued to be one of its main subjects, first under the editorship of the dialectologist L. Grootaers, and after his death in 1956 under J.L. Pauwels.

The Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde was founded in Belgium in 1886. The Verslagen en Mededelingen published by this society (V.M.V.A.) contains important contributions to Netherlandic linguistics.

The Tijdschrift voor Taal en Letteren (T.T.L.), published by the Rooms-Katholieke Leergangen (‘Roman Catholic courses of instruction’), (Bois-le-Duc, 1913-1941), covered a wider range of subjects. The periodical contained literary and historical contributions, but also linguistic ones, by L.C. Michels (who for many years was one of the editors) and G. Royen, among others.

In the third and fourth decades of this century we find two short-lived but rather remarkable periodicals. The monthly review Onze

[p. 16]

Taaltuin (O. Tt.; ‘Our Language-garden’), edited by J. van Ginneken and G.S. Overdiep, later by van Ginneken alone, first appeared in 1932 and ceased publication in the course of its 10th year. It has many articles by van Ginneken, on a great variety of subjects within and outside the sphere of Netherlandics, personal, often provocative, but always fascinating and instructive. Overdiep contributed several essays dealing with syntactic-stylistic matters. If we may say of those Netherlandists who agreed with the endlessly disputed spelling-reform, that they belonged to the ‘left’ wing in linguistic politics, then Onze Taaltuin belongs to the ‘right’.

Taal en Leven (T. en Lev., 1937-1943), on the other hand, - edited by E. Kruisinga and A.J. Schneiders - was extremely ‘left’. Kruisinga, a brilliant and original Anglicist, also showed a great interest in his native language. His lucid essays, often highly polemic and at times hostile, contain valuable material, particularly on Modern Netherlandic.