Metalinguistic space
4.5 Nominal inflection as a test case
The eighteenth-century development from elitist to national grammar, through an intermediate stage of ‘civil’ grammar, was first and foremost a discursive develop-ment that can be traced in metalinguistic texts, in the justifications given for meta-linguistic activities, in the aims indicated, and in the target audiences and target registers. The development paralleled Enlightenment discourses about language, nation and the importance of education (Chapter 1). In the previous sections, I have given examples of eighteenth-century metalinguistic discourse illustrating the practical consequences of the changing ideas about the role of normative grammar in society. Specific educational strategies and a tendency towards simplification were among these practical consequences. In the present section, I will focus on one particular area of the grammar that has been a focal point of Dutch metalinguistic discourse from the sixteenth century onwards, viz. nominal inflection, which was part of etymology, i.e. morphology.
The interest in nominal inflection is immediately linked to two major and inter-connected morphosyntactic changes characterising the history of northern Dutch, viz. the loss of inflection, also called deflection, and the change from a three-gender system to a two-gender system (Goossens 2008: 137). For Old and Middle Dutch, four inflectional cases are usually distinguished, viz. the nominative, genitive, da-tive, and accusative (van der Wal & van Bree 2008: 132–135). The case system
already started to weaken in the Middle Dutch period. Deflection implied a shift from synthetic to analytical forms, which meant that case endings were lost, while periphrastic prepositional phrases increased in usage. This can be seen clearly in synthetic genitives such as des ‘of the’ in the masculine and neuter singular, and der
‘of the’ in the feminine singular and in the plural of all three genders, commonly replaced by the analytical prepositional phrase van de ‘of the’ in modern Dutch, which lacks inflection on the definite article. The loss of inflection generates vari-ation of historical synthetic forms such as des vaders ‘of the father’ and analytical prepositional phrases such as van den vader ‘of the father’, which can be even fur-ther reduced to van de vader. While synthetic genitives still occur in written texts of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is often assumed that a fully-fledged case system was not in use in Early and Late Modern spoken Dutch (Geerts 1966: 152; van der Horst 2008: 1074–1075).
Whereas the loss of inflection affected the whole language area, the change from a three-gender system to a two-gender system was mainly a northern innovation (Goossens 2008: 137–147). Also in the Early Modern period, the historically mas-culine and feminine gender merged into one category of common gender, facilitated by the widespread loss of inflectional markers. In southern variaties, the difference between the masculine and the feminine gender was maintained by introducing new inflectional markers such as -n in the definite article den for the masculine singular, depending on the phonetic context. The feminine singular remained de. In the north, de became the common form for both the masculine and the feminine singular. The neuter form was het, often reduced to ’t, both in the north and in the south.
The ongoing loss of inflection and the merger of the masculine and the feminine gender did not prevent northern grammarians from proposing a system of nomi-nal inflection with three genders and four to six cases. Often, the vocative and the ablative were included in addition to the four traditional cases. The changes gener-ated a lot of variation in usage, providing grammarians with different options: case endings v. no case endings, and synthetic v. analytical forms. The variation in usage was mirrored by the variation found in prescription, where considerable differences existed from 1584 onwards, when the first fully-fledged grammar of Dutch was published (Twe-spraack 1584). It continued to exist well into the eighteenth century (Rutten 2006: 216–262). There was not a single case where grammarians reached total agreement. Case endings such as -r and -n abounded as well as analytical forms and combinations of both. In the eighteenth century, this wealth of variation found in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century metalinguistic discourse was leveled out in so far as most grammarians allowed for only two options for each function.
In what follows, I will discuss the prescriptions for the three most heavily de-bated cases, viz. the genitive, the dative and the ablative, as found in the three stages of normative grammar distinguished in this chapter (elitist, ‘civil’, national). I use ten of the most well-known grammars, from Moonen (1706) to Weiland (1805a).
The data are taken from the paradigms of the definite article or, in case these were lacking, from other paradigms such as those of the noun. I focus on the definite article, and will take Middle Dutch as a reference system (van der Wal & van Bree 2008: 135). For the sake of clarity, I will only use the weakened forms of the defi-nite article, for example de in the masculine nominative singular, which developed from the demonstrative pronoun die, which was also in use as a definite article in Middle Dutch, and was in fact not replaced by de before the sixteenth century (van der Horst 2008: 841–842).
For the genitive case, the Middle Dutch reference system comprises the follow-ing forms: des in the masculine and neuter sfollow-ingular, der in the feminine sfollow-ingular and as the generic plural form. Analytical variants consist of the preposition van
‘of’ and a form of the article that can either be inflected (den) or not (de). In the neuter, there is also variation of the historical form den and the nominative and accusative form het. Table 5 presents the results for ten normative grammars of the period 1706–1805.
Table 5. Genitive case of the definite article in ten normative grammars (1706–1805)
Genitive singular
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Moonen 1706 des der des
Verwer 1707 des der des, van den
Séwel 1712 des, van den der, van de des, van het
Elzevier 1761 van de, des van de, der van het, den
van der Palm 1769 des, van den der, van de des, van het Stijl/van Bolhuis 1778 des, van den der, van de van het, des
van Bolhuis 1799 van den van de van het
Wester 1799 des, van den der, van de des, van het
van Varik 1799 des, van den der, van de van het, des
Weiland 1805a des der des
Genitive plural
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Moonen 1706 der der der
Verwer 1707 der der der, van de
Séwel 1712 der der der
Elzevier 1761 van de, der van de, der der, van de
van der Palm 1769 der, van de der, van de der, van de
Stijl/van Bolhuis 1778 der, van de der, van de der, van de
van Bolhuis 1799 van de van de van de
Wester 1799 der, van de der, van de der, van de
van Varik 1799 der, van de der, van de der, van de
Weiland 1805a der der der
Table 5 shows that there was a high level of agreement, but also still significant varation. Moonen (1706) presented only inflected forms in the genitive, clearly preferring the historical synthetic variants. Verwer (1707) largely followed Moonen (1706), but it should be noted that in the nominal paradigm, Verwer (1707: 20–22) presented solely analytical forms with very few inflected forms of the article. Séwel (1712) introduced more analytical forms. The ordering in Table 5, which follows his paradigms of the definite article (1712: 66–67), suggests that Séwel considered the analytical genitives as alternatives to the (primary) synthetic forms, but elsewhere (1712: 184–220) the order is reversed, or he mentioned only the synthetic forms.
Contemporaries criticised him for such inconsistencies (Rutten 2006: 262–265).
After the period of elitist grammar, synthetic as well as analytical forms were considered appropriate in the genitive (Elzevier 1761; van der Palm 1769). Van der Palm (1769) consistently presented first the historical synthetic forms and then the analytical alternatives, illustrating his aim of rendering Moonen more accessible, in this particular case by presenting Moonen’s prescriptions as well as the more common analytical forms.
When normative grammar became a matter of national concern, a second step was taken to simplify the case system. In his editing of Stijl’s grammar (1776, 21778), van Bolhuis still largely remained within the realm of ‘civil’ grammar, giv-ing both the synthetic and the analytical forms. However, in his concise grammar (1793, 21799) written for ’t Nut, van Bolhuis radicalised his position, giving only the analytical forms in the paradigms, while allowing inflected articles (den) only in the masculine singular. Presenting this as an example of “normal declension”
(1799: 27), he only discussed other synthetic forms in the text following the par-adigm. Despite the fact that van Bolhuis clung to the six-case system, this was a grammatical revolution, resulting from the educational and inclusive approach characterising the discourse of the period. Van Bolhuis’ prescriptions must have been closer to everyday usage than those of any grammarian before him. His gram-mar thus represented the national gramgram-mar’s momentum. It was a brief moment, however, as Wester, who was coached by van Bolhuis when writing his grammar book (1797, 21799; cf. Noordegraaf 1985: 227–228) re-introduced the synthetic genitives. When ’t Nut published its own grammar (van Varik 1799), both syn-thetic and analytical forms were prescribed. The return to earlier prescriptions was completed when Weiland copied Moonen (1706) in his officialised grammar (1805a). A few years later Weiland published an abridged version of his gram-mar book, specially intended for schools, in which he repeated the prescriptions presented in Table 5, thus only mentioning the synthetic forms (1808: 50–51; see also below).
The general development from synthetic in the elitist period to synthetic and analytical around the middle of the century, to only analytical in the period of
national grammar, and finally back to synthetic forms with Weiland (1805a), is also found in the dative and the ablative. The Middle Dutch reference system for the dative has den in the masculine and neuter singular, and also in all plural forms, while der is the feminine singular. The prototypical preposition associated with dative constructions is aan ‘to’. Analytical variants may be inflected (den). In the neuter, the variation of het and den persists. See Table 6.
Table 6. Dative case of the definite article in ten normative grammars (1706–1805)
Dative singular
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Moonen 1706 den de, der het, den
Verwer 1707 den de, der het, aen den
Séwel 1712 den, aan den der, aan de het, aan het
Elzevier 1761 den, aen den der, aen de aen het, aen den
van der Palm 1769 den, aen den der, aen de den, aen het Stijl/van Bolhuis 1778 den, aan den aan de, der aan het, den
van Bolhuis 1799 aan den aan de aan het
Wester 1799 aan den aan de aan het
van Varik 1799 den, aan den der, aan de aan het, den
Weiland 1805a den de, der den, het
Dative plural
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Moonen 1706 den de den
Verwer 1707 den den den
Séwel 1712 den, aan de aan de den
Elzevier 1761 den, aen den de, aen de den, aen den
van der Palm 1769 den, aen de der, aen de den, aen de
Stijl/van Bolhuis 1778 aan de, den aan de, der aan de, den
van Bolhuis 1799 aan de aan de aan de
Wester 1799 aan de aan de aan de
van Varik 1799 den, aan de aan de, den aan de, den
Weiland 1805a den de, der den
Table 6 shows that there was even more variation in the prescriptions for the dative than for the genitive. This is particularly clear in the feminine plural, where de, der and den occur. The preference for only analytical forms is now also found in Wester (1799). As with the genitive, synthetic forms were again used by van Varik (1799) in his grammar for ’t Nut, while Weiland (1805a) restricted himself to synthetic forms.
Historically, there was no ablative in Dutch, the ablative function being com-monly expressed by prepositional phrases from the earliest documented Dutch
onwards (Quak & van der Horst 2002: 37). The preposition van ‘of, from’ was used in metalinguistic discourse to represent the ablative. Analytic ablatives were pre-ferred throughout the eighteenth century, as can be seen in Table 7. Variation is mainly found in the feminine singular, where the forms de, der and den occur.
From van der Palm (1769) onwards, synthetic variants without prepositions were no longer used, until van Varik (1799) reintroduced der in the feminine singular.
In the plural, no inflected forms of the article appear from van Bolhuis (1799) onwards. Weiland (1805a) did not consider the ablative to be part of the Modern Dutch case system.
Table 7. Ablative case of the definite article in ten normative grammars (1706–1805)
Ablative singular
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Moonen 1706 van den van de, der van het, den
Verwer 1707 van den van den van het, van den
Séwel 1712 van den van de van het, van den
Elzevier 1761 van den van de, der van het, den
van der Palm 1769 van den van de van het, van den
Stijl/van Bolhuis 1778 van den van de van het
van Bolhuis 1799 van den van de van het
Wester 1799 van den van de van het
van Varik 1799 van den van de, der van het, van den
Weiland 1805a – – –
Ablative plural
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Moonen 1706 van den van de van den
Verwer 1707 van de van de van de
Séwel 1712 van den van de van de
Elzevier 1761 van de, van den van de van de, van den
van der Palm 1769 van de, van den van de van de, van den
Stijl/van Bolhuis 1778 – – –
van Bolhuis 1799 van de van de van de
Wester 1799 van de van de van de
van Varik 1799 van de van de van de
Weiland 1805a – – –
The prescriptions for the use of the genitive, dative and ablative case in ten norma-tive grammars from Moonen (1706) to Weiland (1805a) change from a preference for synthetic forms to a preference for analytical forms, and then back to synthetic
forms. As the analytical forms were common in the spoken language and in many written registers (Nobels & Rutten 2014; Simons & Rutten 2014), the change toward these forms parallels the discursive development from elitist to national grammar, justified by the idea that a national grammar should include common forms, and not only forms that characterise elitist text types such as poetry.
The remarkable return to synthetic forms after the gradual rise of analytical forms, followed by van Bolhuis’s clear preference for analytical forms, can be ex-plained with reference to different registers or stylistic levels. Van Varik (1799: 12;
my translation) commented on his genitive and dative paradigms “that we have two ways of speaking in our language, viz. a familiar and a polite or elevated way;
everyday usage teaches us the familiar [way] as a matter of course; and reading well written books teaches us the polite style”. So the analytical forms represented the familiar style of everyday usage, while the synthetic forms belonged to the polite or elevated style. Ten Kate (1723) had introduced three stylistic levels in the field of grammar, which he borrowed from the rhetorical tradition (see also Section 3.6).
In ten Kate (1723), the declension of the definite article was one such topic where extensive paradigms with many different forms were broken down into three sty-listic levels (cf. de Bonth 1998: 164–165).
The grammatical variants generated by the loss of inflection and the rise of analytical constructions were handled differently by the eighteenth-century marians discussed in this section. The development from elitist to national gram-mar was paralleled by a shift from synthetic to analytical forms, and thus by an appropriation of everyday usage. The shift towards analytical forms also implied a shift from ‘higher’ registers to ‘lower’ registers. This was reflected in ten Kate’s (1723) and van Varik’s (1799) efforts at distributing the grammatical variants over different stylistic levels. Ultimately, the difference between van Bolhuis (1793/1799) and van Varik (1799) comes down to the question of the register on which the national grammar should be founded. Should the ‘standard’ language, which is being constructed in these grammar books, reflect the supposedly everyday usage of ‘the nation’, following the ideal of inclusive citizenship? Or should it be based on the highest stylistic level of the nation’s elite, to which the rest of the population should turn for guidance? Weiland’s (1805a) choices strongly suggest that the latter was the case.
Turning to the next episode in the period of national grammar, i.e. the first decades of the nineteenth century, it is interesting to see how genitival constructions were treated in metalinguistic discourse. Similar to the research reported on above, the prescriptions for the genitive singular and plural of the definite article are taken from the paradigms offered in the sources. The selection of sources again comprises Weiland’s national grammar (1805a).
Table 8. Genitive case of the definite article in eight normative grammars (1802–1825)
Genitive singular
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Rudimenta 1802 des, van den der, van de des, van het
Weiland 1805a des der des
Weiland 1805b des der des
Rudimenta 1805-I des, van den der, van de des, van het
Siegenbeek 1814 des, van den der, van de des, van het
Weiland 1820 des der des
Puikers 1824 des der des
Kirchdorffer 1825 des, van den der, van de des, van het
Genitive plural
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Rudimenta 1802 der, van de der, van de der, van de
Weiland 1805a der der der
Weiland 1805b der der der
Rudimenta 1805-I der, van de der, van de der, van de
Siegenbeek 1814 der, van de der, van de der, van de
Weiland 1820 der der der
Puikers 1824 der der der
Kirchdorffer 1825 der, van de der, van de der, van de
As can be seen in Table 8, Weiland only mentions synthetic forms in his paradigms, not just in the official (1805a) grammar, but also in the other two publications, viz.
the Beginselen ‘Principles’ of (1805b), a summary of the voluminous (1805a) book, and also in later years, in the 1820 schoolbook. Puikers (1824) follows Weiland.
All other prescriptions are identical, not just with regard to the choice of forms, but also in that they offer both the synthetic and the analytical alternative, and always in this order; the analytical construction is never put first. In terms of the above-mentioned changes in grammar writing in the eighteenth century, there is a return to the prescriptions of the period of elitist grammar in the works of Weiland and Puikers (only synthetic forms), and a return to the prescriptions of the period of ‘civil’ grammar in the other works (synthetic and analytical forms). In both cases, there is a move away from the radical choice to focus only on analytical forms in the late eighteenth century. On the contrary, the synthetic genitive is the prime variant in all texts from the period 1800–1830.
Weiland (1805a, 1805b, 1820) does mention the analytical forms in the run-ning text. Such mentions are usually limited to the observation that genitival con-structions can also be rendered with the preposition van (Weiland 1805a: 76; cf.
Siegenbeek 1810a: 15; Schilperoort 1806: 33). In Rutten (2016d), I also argue that grammarians in this period do not offer clear conditions under which the preferred synthetic genitive and the alternative option of the analytical genitive should be used. Neither do the usage patterns found in the grammar books themselves offer any indications of the distribution of these variants. This means that there was an enormous gap between language use and language norms. Whereas the population at large was apparently supposed to learn the synthetic genitive, which had largely disappeared from colloquial language, metalinguistic discourse mainly provided
Siegenbeek 1810a: 15; Schilperoort 1806: 33). In Rutten (2016d), I also argue that grammarians in this period do not offer clear conditions under which the preferred synthetic genitive and the alternative option of the analytical genitive should be used. Neither do the usage patterns found in the grammar books themselves offer any indications of the distribution of these variants. This means that there was an enormous gap between language use and language norms. Whereas the population at large was apparently supposed to learn the synthetic genitive, which had largely disappeared from colloquial language, metalinguistic discourse mainly provided