Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.286

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Ostracizing linguistic forms through metalinguistic comments: The case of ge-dikmek-t

Margreet Dorleijn
  • Corresponding author
  • Amsterdam Centre for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-11-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0052

Abstract

This paper considers the relevance of studying metalinguistic comments about the embedding of Turkish infinitives in Dutch morphology. It focusses on bilingual Dutch and Turkish spoken in the Netherlands. Data of computer mediated communication (CMC) is used. The paper reports on an analysis of the (sparse) occurrence of Turkish verb embedding in Dutch and the accompanying metalinguistic comments. For this, an exploration of the internet as well as of a data set compiled form Turkish-Dutch discussion fora consisting of 1.335.592 words was conducted. 1 A comparison is made with the reverse verbal construction in Turkish-Dutch bilingual speech (Dutch infinitives + Turkish infinitive yapmak ‘to do’). The absence of evaluative comments on the latter construction suggests it has been accepted as norm-behavior in the Turkish-Dutch community. Embedding of Turkish verbs in Dutch morphology, by contrast, is not accepted. The paper discusses the extent to which metalinguistic comment can be used as a diagnostic tool to uncover implicit norms of non-standard varieties.

Keywords: Turkish-Dutch bilingual speech; innovative features; implicit norms; language play

References

  • Aktunç, Hulki. 2000. Türkçenin büyük Argo Sözlüğ [Great dictionary of Turkish slang]. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Google Scholar

  • Auer, Peter. 1999. From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism 3(4). 309–332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Backus, Ad. 1996. Two in one. Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar

  • Backus, Ad, Derya Demirçay & Yeşim Sevinç. 2013. Converging evidence on contact effects on second and third generation immigrant Turkish. (Tilburg papers in culture studies 51). Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar

  • Backus, Ad & Margreet Dorleijn. 2009. Loantranslations versus code-switching. In Barbara Bullock & Almeida J. Toribio, (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching, 75–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Boeschoten, Hendrik & Peter Broeder. 1999. Zum Interferenzbegriff in seiner Anwendung auf die Zweisprachigkeit türkischer Migranten (On the concept of interference and ist application on the bilingualism of Turkish migrants). In Lars Johanson & Jochen Rehbein (eds.), Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich, 584–612. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

  • Broeder, Peter & Guus Extra. 1999. Language, Ethnicity and Education. Case Studies of Immigrant Minority Groups and Immigrant Minority Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Demirçay, Derya & Ad Backus. 2014. Bilingual constructions. Reassessing the typology of code-switching. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(1). 30–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dorleijn, Margreet. 2016a. Can internet data help to uncover developing preferred multilingual usage patterns? An exploration of data from Turkish-Dutch bilingual internet fora. Journal of Language Contact 9(1). 130–162.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dorleijn, Margreet. 2016b. Is dense codeswitching complex? In Language sciences. ISSN: 0388-0001. doi: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Golovko, Evgeniy V. 2003. Language contact and group identity: The role of ‘folk’ linguistic engineering. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate, 177–208. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Irvine, Judith T. 2001. ‘Style’ as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation. 21–43. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Irvine, Judith T. & Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language, 35–84. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research.Google Scholar

  • Jaworski, Adam, Nikolas Coupland & Dariusz Galasinski (eds.). 2004. Metalanguage. Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kliuchnikova, Polina. 2015. Language attitudes and ‘folk linguistics’ of Russian-speaking migrants in the UK. Russian Journal of Communication 7(2). 179–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lemon, Alaina M. 2002. “Form” and “Function” in Soviet Stage Romani: Modelling metapragmatics through performance. Language in Society 31(1). 29–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matras, Yaron. 2003. Mixed languages: Re-examining the structural prototype. In Peter Bakker & Yaron Matras (eds.), The mixed language debate. Theoretical and empirical advances, 151–176. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Common and uncommon ground: Social and structural factors in codeswitching. Language in Society 22. 475–503.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nortier, Jacomine. 2016. Characterizing urban youth speech styles in Utrecht and on the Internet. Journal of Language Contact 9(1). 163–185.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Onar Valk, Pelin. 2015. Transformation in Dutch Turkish subordination? Converging evidence of change regarding finiteness and word order in complex clauses. Utrecht: LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan. 2000. Verbalized events. A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Suzanne Niemeyer & René Dirven (eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Willoughby, Louisa, Donna Starks & Kerry Taylor-Leech. 2015. What their friends say about the way they talk: The metalanguage of pre-adolescent and adolescent Australians. Language Awareness 24(1). 84–100.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Wohlgemut, Jan. 2009. A typology of verbal borrowings. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Woolard, Kathryn. 2008. Why Dat now? Linguistic-anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 432–452.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-11-02


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0052.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in