Netherlandic language research

[p. 107]

Conclusion

In the foregoing pages we have tried to give a sketch of Netherlandic linguistic activity in the last four decades. It may be of some use to summarize in broad outlines those matters that have lost their cohesion as a result of being distributed over separate chapters.

The good old tradition of historical language research has been continued not without honour. In the domain of lexicology a work of high standard, the monumental Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek, has been completed, and will serve as a lasting reminder to younger generations of the name of its eminent maker, J. Verdam. Making steady progress is the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, which may be classified under historical linguistics in so far as it presents the development of the vocabulary since the second half of the 16th century, although it also provides a detailed and accurate lexicological description of contemporary Netherlandic, both standard and dialectal.

In the 19th century the sources for the history of the language, especially those of medieval times, were edited essentially for philological and literary purposes. In the period this book deals with, editors have aimed more at making their texts suited for purely linguistic research, and have scrupulously respected the manuscript tradition. Much remains to be done in this field, and we may expect that new editions, presenting the old linguistic material in a new form, will lead Middle Netherlandic grammar to be arranged in an, in many respects completely new, way. The dialectal nuances of Middle Netherlandic in particular will be brought out more clearly than before. A. van Loey's Middelnederlandse Spraakkunst, based for the most part on non-literary texts that can be dated and localized, is one pointer in the way things will develop.

The 16th century, an important period of transition in the history of Netherlandic, has been treated only superficially from a lexicological point of view, and the grammatical aspects, too, have been insufficiently investigated as yet. One of the many merits of C.G.N. de Vooys lies in his having stimulated several pupils to bridge the gap between Middle and Modern Netherlandic by producing reliable editions of 16th century texts.

The more prominent 17th century authors were and are being inter-

[p. 108]

preted through many carefully annotated editions of separate texts. Here, the name of F.A. Stoett should be gratefully mentioned. Our period has seen a standard edition of Vondel's works, and a similar edition of Hooft's prose and poetry is in preparation.

Meanwhile, a great deal of work has still to be done on the purely grammatical description of the 17th century Netherlandic. A comprehensive study of the language of Hooft, Cats and Huygens, to mention only those authors who have so far received no more than incidental attention, would be a promising and rewarding task. Popular speech, too, as it appears in the numerous 17th century farces, sorely needs systematical investigation along the lines of the conscientious detail-work done on this subject by A.A. Verdenius.

In view of these gaps in the description of the older stages of the language, it is rather remarkable that the last few decades should have witnessed a lively activity in what is generally called ‘historical grammar’, especially in the history of sounds and forms, the results of which are accurately reported in the successive editions of Schönfeld's historical grammar, both in the text itself and in the references. Paradoxical as it may seem, these historical studies have been strongly stimulated by the investigation of modern dialects. Research into dialect geography, initiated in the Northern Netherlands by J. van Ginneken, J. Schrijnen and the energetic G.G. Kloeke, and in the Southern Netherlands by L. Grootaers and E. Blancquaert, brought about a rejuvenation in linguistic activities. When it comes to foreign influences and relations we think of Th. Frings in the case of Kloeke, of J. Gilliéron in that of Blancquaert. The two Netherlandic scholars, however, went their own way to such a degree that it would be gravely unjust to represent them as imitators.

Of the younger generation of dialectologists we should mention, for the North K. Heeroma, several of whose rather sweeping but always absorbing publications have been mentioned; further A. Weijnen, more restrained than his great teacher, van Ginneken, and who, after L.C. Michels, was van Ginneken's successor at Nimeguen University. In Belgium, J.L. Pauwels, pupil and successor of Grootaers, is showing great activity, while W. Pée may be considered to have continued the work of his teacher Blancquaert.

With Grootaers, Blancquaert and A. van Loey, to whom may be added the much regretted R. Verdeyen, we are in the presence of men who blazed new trails. It is due to their enterprise that the

[p. 109]

period since 1920 has witnessed the rise of Netherlandics in Flemish Belgium to a level that, in some respects, surpasses that of Holland. The co-operation that has existed between North and South in this period has been of enormous benefit, and demonstrates that the political frontier is no barrier to scholarly interchange.

Flemish scholars were pioneers and leaders in onomastics as well. Holland can boast of a first rate investigator in this field in the person of M. Schönfeld, but in the Southern Netherlands, where Jan Lindemans dedicated his life's work to these studies, onomastic activity has been spurred on by the founding of a centre under the direction of H.J. van de Wijer, which is fast gaining in international reputation. This branch of linguistics, in which much progress has been made, and which promises still more, has, by compensating to a certain extent for the paucity of direct Old Netherlandic sources, deepened and enlarged the study of Netherlandic as a whole. The tradition instituted by van de Wijer has been worthily kept up by H. Draye and K. Roelandts.

From about 1930 onwards a new trend has shown itself, one that has been christened ‘structural linguistics’, and one that consciously opposes historical linguistics. It is phonemics in the first place that has given the most visible and lasting results. The names of phonemists like J. van Ginneken, N. van Wijk and A.W. de Groot are well-known by all cultivators of general linguistics, and deserve mentioning in this book because these scholars often took Netherlandic as their starting point or considered the phonemic treatment of Netherlandic their main aim.

So much ground has been gained by structural linguistics that the time seems favourable for a renewal of modern grammar, since structuralism is chiefly concerned with the synchronistical treatment of the language. Some preparatory work is already being done in this field by, among others, A.W. de Groot, B. van den Berg and P.C. Paardekooper, but the views held differ so widely as to fundamentals that we can hardly expect a satisfactory grammatical synthesis to result in the near future.

C.G.N. de Vooys' useful grammar of Modern Netherlandic stands apart from this new linguistic trend in that its treatment of modern grammatical facts is, consciously, not strictly synchronic but rather historical.

A remarkable and very individual attempt at writing a modern

[p. 110]

Netherlandic grammar is that by G.S. Overdiep. This scholar also dissociated himself from the structural and theoretical school and, while concurring to a certain extent in 19th century grammatical opinions, preferred on the whole to follow his own ‘stylistic’ method, in which the elements of the language, including sounds, are treated principally according to their function in the context of the sentence. Our opinion may differ as to the advisability of mixing stylistics and grammar in this way, and prefer to follow W. Gs. Hellinga in firmly separating grammar from stylistics in his ‘linguistische stilistiek’. Nevertheless, we must admit that Overdiep and his school have made important contributions to the description both of Modern Netherlandic and the Netherlandic of earlier periods. It is to the lasting credit of Overdiep and his pupils, among whom G.A. van Es - Overdiep's successor in the University of Groningen - is the most prominent, that they claimed for syntax its rightful place beside phonology and morphology.