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.
References
Aktunç, Hulki. 2000. Türkçenin büyük Argo Sözlüğ [Great dictionary of Turkish slang]. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Search in 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). 309–332.10.1177/13670069990030040101Search in Google Scholar
Backus, Ad. 1996. Two in one. Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Search in 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.Search in 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.10.1017/CBO9780511576331.006Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Broeder, Peter & Guus Extra. 1999. Language, Ethnicity and Education. Case Studies of Immigrant Minority Groups and Immigrant Minority Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Demirçay, Derya & Ad Backus. 2014. Bilingual constructions. Reassessing the typology of code-switching. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(1). 30–44.10.1075/dujal.3.1.02demSearch in Google 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). 130–162.10.1163/19552629-00901006Search in Google Scholar
Dorleijn, Margreet. 2016b. Is dense codeswitching complex? In Language sciences. ISSN: 0388-0001. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.11.002Search in Google 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.10.1515/9783110197242.177Search in 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.10.1017/CBO9780511613258.002Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, Nikolas Coupland & Dariusz Galasinski (eds.). 2004. Metalanguage. Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907377Search in Google Scholar
Kliuchnikova, Polina. 2015. Language attitudes and ‘folk linguistics’ of Russian-speaking migrants in the UK. Russian Journal of Communication 7(2). 179–192.10.1080/19409419.2015.1044871Search in Google Scholar
Lemon, Alaina M. 2002. “Form” and “Function” in Soviet Stage Romani: Modelling metapragmatics through performance. Language in Society 31(1). 29–64.10.1017/S0047404502001021Search in Google 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.10.1515/9783110197242Search in Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809873Search in Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Common and uncommon ground: Social and structural factors in codeswitching. Language in Society 22. 475–503.10.1017/S0047404500017449Search in Google Scholar
Nortier, Jacomine. 2016. Characterizing urban youth speech styles in Utrecht and on the Internet. Journal of Language Contact 9(1). 163–185.10.1163/19552629-00901007Search in Google 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.Search in 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.Search in 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.10.1075/cilt.198.10sloSearch in 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). 84–100.10.1080/09658416.2014.977387Search in Google Scholar
Wohlgemut, Jan. 2009. A typology of verbal borrowings. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219340Search in Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn. 2008. Why Dat now? Linguistic-anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 432–452.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00375.xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
