DUTCH ORTHOGRAPHY IN LOWER, MIDDLE AND FLANDERS UPPER CLASS DOCUMENTS IN 19TH.CENTT.]RY WIM VANDENBUSSCIIE F.W.O.-Vlaandereru Vrtje UniversiteitBrussel,Belgium 1. Introduction The 19s centurycould be considereda forgottenchapterin the linguistic study of the developmentof Dutch in Flanders. Although many contributions have been publishedon externalaspectsof the Flemish languagesituation in the Late Modern period(Witte & Van Velthoven1999is a standardreference), descriptionof the grammaticalfeaturesof the thereis to dateno comprehensive languageat that time, nor is anythingknown aboutsocialand stylistic variation in actual languageuse. In most cases,major scientific 'Histories of Dutch' (mostnotablyVan denToorn et al. 1997)pay marginalattentionto the subject. Similar remarks have recently been made about researchon the history of English (Gdrlach 1999:1)and German(Mattheier1998:l), but the case of Dutchin Flandersis particularlystriking. It is generallyagreedthat the l9'n century was a vital period for the development,standardizationand even survival of the Dutch languagein the presentday area of Flanders(Van de Craen & Willemyns 1988). Due to tenitorial separationfrom the NorthernDutch provinces(which coincide with the currentterritory of the Netherlands)at the end of the l6to century,and under policiesof successive Spanish(1585-1714), influenceof the French-favouring Austrian(I714-1794)andFrench(1794-1815)rulers,Dutchcouldnot develop towardsa standardprestigelanguagein Flanders.The natureof FlemishDutch around 1800 is usually describedas a collection of dialects, of which the functionswere restrictedto the informal and [-prestige]-areas.Contraryto the situationin Holland,therewasno widely acceptedstandardDutch which could be used for supraregionalcommunication- in general,French was used for such purposesinstead (De Vries et al: 1994). Common opinion has it that "Flanders'nativelanguagewaspusheddown the socialladder,wherethe lower 28 WIM VANDENBUSSCHE middle class, farmers and workers mingled" (witte et al. 2000:44); there is evidence,though - as will becomeclear from this article - that the upper classes,too, continuedto use Dutch in everydaywriting (seeVandenbussche forthcoming). Yet, at the end of the century in 1898, Dutch was officially recognized (alongsideFrench)as Belgium's nationallanguage,and today,anotherhundred yearslater, it is the official fully standardizedlanguageof all Flemings. This phoenix-likerestorationwas largely due to the so-called'FlemishMovement', a socio-political and linguistic emancipatorymovement whose actions and merits havealreadybeendescribedin greathistoricaldetail (NEVB 1998). However, the purely linguistic aspectsof this evolution 'from rags to riches' and the gradual growth of the languagestandardizationprocessin Flanders,havenot yet beendescribedon the basisof original sources,let alone from a historicalsociolinguisticpoint of view. Over the past five years, our researchteam at the Free University of Brusselshas been working on the first researchproject which does take into accounttheselinguistic, social and stylistic aspectsof standardizationin 19thcentury Flanders (vandenbussche& willemyns 2000; De Groof in this volume). To this end we collectedan original corpusof handwrittentexts- meeting reports- spanningthe whole periodbetween1800and 1900and pertainingto f[mistr writers in Bruges from three distinct social classes. For the lower classes we used documents of various assistance companies for trade apprentices. Theseorganizationscan (onderstandsmaatschappijen) be consideredearly precursorsof our presentday social security funds: they guaranteedmembersand their families minimal financial supportin the event of illn"s, invalidity,pensionand death (Michiels1978). Our cor?uscontains an extensiveselectionof meetingminuteswritten by apprenticesin the trades of shoemaker,wool weaver,tailor and brush maker. Thesedocumentsare all kept in the municipal archive and the folklore museumof Bruges. Similar structuresexistedfor the middle classorientedtrademasters,and we were able, accordingly,to selecta largesampleof meetingreportsfrom the bakermasters' assistancecompanyas our middle classcorpus. In orderto compile a database of upper classmeetingreports,finally, we were grantedpermissionto consult the ar;hive of the Saint Sebastianarchers'guild, which was (and still is today) one of the most prestigioushigh societycirclesin the town (Godar 1947). Each of thesedocumentshas been digitalized- manuallytranscribedin word processingformat - and analyzedin searchof standardizationfeatures on the levels of orthography,glammar and style. We have thus been able to describe for the first time the real impact of various language planning DUTCH ORTHOGRAPHY IN I9TT.CENTIJRY FLANDERS 29 measuresthroughoutthe 19frcenturyon actuallanguageusers,and the possible differentiationaccordingto the writers' social status. The successivemodels for a standardized Dutch spelling certainly ranked among the most controversialof thesemeasuresat the time (Couvreur& Willemyns 1998); in this article I will try to illustratethe extentto which thesespelling norms had an effecton the everydaywriter in the practiceof writing meetingreports. One methodologicalcommentshouldbe includedat this point. I am well awareof the fact that the categorizationof writers into various social classesis a highly sensitiveissue,especiallywhen one takesinto accountthat the social and economicstructurein Flanders(but also in the rest or Europe) during the 19thcentury was constantlychanging (Witte et al. 2000). The rise of the middle class, the slow transition from a trade-basedto an industrialized economyand the subsequentchangesin the rel'ativefinancial statusof certain professionsmake it a perilousundertakingto define a clear social structurein Bruges- it shouldbe notedthat this descriptionis not available 19th-century in the secondaryliterature on the history of the town (patial date to contributionscanbe found in Michiels 1978andVan Eenoo 1959). For this research,we have usedthe scribes'relative esteemfor their own and other professions- as expressedin the corpus texts - as the main criterion for our broad three-classcategoization (lower, middle and upper class). The membersof the Sebastianarchers' guild repeatedlyidentified themselvesas the town's socialand financialelite and explicitly cultivatedthis image with, amongstother things,philanthropicactionsin favour of the lower classes(breaddistributions,for example)(Godar1947). This prestige-focussed approachon the basisof text internalelementshas further proved to be useful to distinguishbetween'lower class' tradeapprenticesand 'middle class' trade masters(who could, alternatively,havebeenseenas belongingto one and the same 'trade class'). From their written 'behaviouralcode for members' it becomesclear that apprenticesconsideredtheir mastersto belong to a higher socialclass;the discussionsincludedin the apprentices'meetingrepolts further confirm their poor financial statusand their dire needfor financial supportin case of illness and invalidity. The mastersclearly distinguishedthemselves from their subordinateapprenticeson moral and/ or financial grounds: they literally stated,for example,that their apprenticeswere not to be allowed in company. their assistance 2. Spelling norrns Strippedof all emotional,tactical and political elementsinvolved (seeDe Groof in this volume), the controversyover the spelling of Dutch in Flanders throughoutthe first half of the 19ft centurycamedown to the conflict between 30 WIM VANDENBUSSCFIE either adheringto NorthernDutch spellingstandardsor introducingspecifically Flemishelementsin the writing system. This discussiongained momentumafter the Dutch governmentofficially imposed Siegenbeek'smodel as the spelling standardfor the Netherlandsin 1804. In Flanders(which was subsequentlyunderFrenchrule until 1815 and underDutch rule until 1830,beforeit becomea part of the independentBelgian state),this decision was favoured by the so-called 'integrationists'. Others choseto defendthe existing Brabanticspelling systemof des Roches,or the newly developedmodel of Behaegel. After Belgian independence,a special spelling commissiondevelopeda new model which very much resembledthe eiisting Siegenbeeknofln, and which was given force of law in Belgium from 1844 on. This rapprochementbetweenFlemish and Dutch spelling standards of a commonnorm designedby de Vries & Te eventuallyled to the acceptance Winkel in 1864. Each of these systemsmay have been influential to some extent in the region of Bruges,either due to its official status(siegenbeek,commission and de Vries-te Winkel), its regionalcharacter(Behaegel)or its relativemonopoly at the time (desRoches). A contrastivelinguistic studyof the different models remainsto be written, however(Molewijk 1992 containsa 'popular-scientific' accountof thesespellingreforms). In Table 1 I havetried to bring togetherthe spellingnorns from the respectivesystemsfor fifteen distinct phonemes.(The riader will note that thereare sixteenentries;for the [al] phonemea distinction has been made betweenthe spelling in open and closed syllables,since the additional<a> spellingonly occurredin opensyllableposition.) This description is tentative and does not aspire to completeness:the phonemeswereielectedon the basisof the most frequentexamplesof spelling variation which were found in the researchcorpora. It would go beyondthe scopeof this paperto discussthe distributionof the spelling variantsfor each phonemein the different models;for now, it may suffice to say that different ipelling forms within one model can only be usedin distinct and well defined and that sharedspellingvariantsacrossdifferent modelsdo not "ir"u*itun""s, necessarilvhavethe samedistributionin eachof thesemodels' DLTTCHORTHOGRAPHY IN I9TT.CENTT]RY FLANDERS 'a:] closed rvllable a:l open ;yllable e:l open ;yllable o:l ope4 iyllable i:l ul al €il DesRoches Siegenreek 1804 t76r <ae> <aa> <ae> <a> <ee> <e6> <eC> <oo> <od> <re> <y> <oe> <eu> <ey> <e> <ee> <o> <oo> Behaegel Commission le Vries & te Winkel1864 1817 1844 <ae> <aa> <aa> <a> <a:l> <e> <ee> <e6> <o> <oo> <o6> <le> <ii> <oe> <eu> <oe> <eu> <a> <e> <ee> <e> <ee> <o> <oo> <o> <oo> <1e> <y> <ie> <oe> <eu> <oe> <eu> <el> <eii> <er> <ul> <uii> <ou> <au> <aau> <rn> <k> <v> <ch> <g> <uy> <uy> <ui> <uii> <ou> <au> <aau> <ou> <au> <aau> -kt <d> <dt> <k> <k> <t> <d> <dt> <k> <f> [fl in <ontvanq> lXl in [Xt] <ch> <g> andtXl# <v> <ch> <g> <v> <ch> <s> <v> <ch> <g> lcwl lpl in <ambt> ltl in [t]# <ou> <au> <aau> <t> <d> <er> <ei> <eii> leyl <a> <ou> <au> [z] Table 1: Spellingnormsforfifteen phonernesunderfive dffirent spelling systems 3l 32 WIM VANDENBUSSCHE 3. Spellingreality 3.1 ktwer class witers None of the preceding models was ever adopted consistently by any of the lower class writers in our corpus. It is clear that the strict normative views of the successive spelling designers were either unknown or ignored, but this does not necessarily mean that the spelling of the Flemish lower class writers was normless or unsystematic. I contest the traditionally held opinion that the relative uniformity of written Dutch in Holland contrasted with absolute spelling chaos in Flanders (Suffeleers I979:I9), and I do so with respect to the upper, middle andlower classes. A systematic analysis of the variants used for the cited phonemes shows that each of the lower class authors had developed their own spelling system (Vandenbussche 1999). The use of spelling variants for the same phoneme within the same text was a core element of these spelling systems. Variability should, in other words, neither be seen as chaos, nor as a deviation from existing official norns, but as an essential characteristic of the distinct spelling systems of all lower class writers. It was perfectly normal for lower class writers to write the same word in two different ways in the same text or sentence. We can thus find gemeensaemheijd ("association") next to gemeenzaamheyd, without any correction or attempt to make consistent spelling choices. A striking example of this spelling tolerance was found in the following text, which contains three successive identical formulae on the same page which were beyond any doubt written at the same sitting. Although the author could have copied the first example twice, the second and third versions contain divergent spelling forms; one also notes that certain words were suddenly capitalized or linked up with other words. Dem zelvedagwierdGereslqveer!pn vastGestelby dezeGemeenzgfrgd pgn vastGestelby dezeGemeenzamchgiic De4Znlve dagwierdGeresglveer! De4 zelvedagwierd wordenaenAgt DruckEenwessel alsdatzal gegeven alsdatzalgegeven wordenaenJoseph Goorens, op wessel, de somme gegeven aenEugenius annoij,op wessel@g van700@ tenhonder! Capitaltegendenpenningsesen van700ftfrgncs gapital,tegendenpenningsesentenhonder! van700fSgggg, Qapital,tegendenpenningsesentenhonder!, DUTCH ORTHOGRAPHY IN IgI]I-CENTURY FLANDERS 33 voor den tyd van twee taeren begenende met den twee-en-twintigsten novembre l8t 4 voor den tyd van twee iaeren Beginnende met den twee en twintigsten Novembre l814 voor den tyd van twee taeren beginnende met den twee en twintissten Novembre 1814 1816pqemori En Vervallende met @ 17 !l@fe Endevervallede met@ 17 &yg 1816. ![emori 1816 ![emori En de vervallede met @ 17 Ngbfe [The sameday it was decidedand stipulatedby this association/ that will be given to Agt Druck/JosephGoorens/Eugeniusannoij a bill of exchange worth the sum/ of 700 francscapital at an interestrate of six percenV for the time of two yearsstartingon the 22nd November 1814/ and endingon the lTth November l8l6 Memori.l (In the third examplethe introductory phrasewas shortenedto [The sameday wav givento...l) (Meeting minutestailor apprentices,November21"r,l814; our translation) There were clear constraintson spelling variation, however. Analysis of the corpus made it possibleto predict where variants would most probably occur (the fifteen casescited above),but alsoto predict which allographscould be used. An overview of all possibleallographswhich were actually used in the whole corpus throughoutthe 19tncentury is presentedin Table 2, which should be interpretedas a maximal systemcapturing the gteater part of all tolerablespellingvariation. All writers applied their own restrictions within these limits; the frequencieswith which the variants were used also differed from writer to writer. It is not surprisingto seethat most variantsalso occuffedin one of the different official spelling norns, which once more indicatesthat lower class spelling was not inspired by chaosbut rather by a certain tradition. In this contextone can refer to the remarksmadeby Milroy (I992:I33-I34) aboutthe spelling of Early Middle English authors: "[I]f the scribesreally had used variants'at will', we would actuallybe unableto readthe texts [...] theremust alwaysbe someorder in any spelling systemthat we can read, even if it is a variable system [...] it is our task to attempt to specify the constraintson spelling under which they were working, alwaysadmitting that after we have done this, there may well be residuesof apparentrandomnessthat we cannot explain." WIM VANDENBUSSCHE 34 [a:l closedsyllable <ae> <aa> [a:] open syllable [e:] open syllable [o:] open syllable li:l lul 161 leil <ae> <a> <aa> <e> <ee> <o> <oo> <le> <y(e)> <tj(e) <oe> <ou> <eu> <ue> <ey> <ei> <eij> <y> <rj> lceyl <uy> <ui> <uii> lcwl <ou> [p] in <ambD ltl in [tl# tkI [fl in <ontvang> lXl in [Xt] and txl# lzl <au> <t> <d> <dt> <k> <c> <ck> <o> <f> <v> <ch> <g> <sh> <z> <s> Table2: Allographsusedin the corpusthroughoutthe l9t" century Many of these'residues'can eitherbe explainedas attemptsto useformal or foreign terms with which the lower classwriters were probablynot familiar - and which, accordingly, were reconstructedin the best possible way, renderinge.g. refuestinsteadof refus("refusal") andgedisgecrutiersinsteadof gedisgratieerd("disgraced') - or as dialectal interferences(krus fot kruis ("cross") andqlk for elk ("each")reflectingthe Brugesdialectalpronunciations [krys] and [alk]) (vandenbussche1999). It shouldbe clear, however,that the writers did not attempt to write dialect. On the formal level theseregional interferenceswere very modest(comparedto, for example,the (fully intended) dialect transcriptionsin Lootens1868and the descriptionof the Brugesdialect in De Wolf n.d.). As far as functional aspectsare concerned,their written variety may be defined as an 'intendedstandardlanguage',a term used by Mihm 1998 ("intendiertesHochdeutsch")to refer to a variety which doesnot meet the formal requirementsof a standardlanguage(e.g. consistentspelling and grammaticalcorrectness)but which is neverthelessintendedby the writer DUTCHORTHOGRAPHYIN I9III.CENTURYFLANDERS 35 to fulfil the functions attributed to a standardvariety (e.g. supraregional forthcoming)' communication,prestigevariety)(Vandenbussche How did this conceptof 'consistentspellingvariability' evolve throughout the 19thcentury? There is no evidencethat writers changedtheir spelling habits when a new official norn was adopted,nor of an overall partial move towardsthe official norm around 1900. Somewriters from the secondhalf of the century even displayedmore variation than their colleaguesfifty years earlier. In the writings of certain authors we can, however, distinguish a growing personal standardization. This should not be understood as the gradualapproachtowardsan existing official norm, but rather as the ongoing limitation of the personaltoleranceof variability. In other words: the basic philosophyof consistency('one characterfor onephoneme')becameever more apparentin certainlower classtextsotoo, but this need not result in a system consistentwith the official spellingguideline. Variable spelling was combinedthroughoutthe 19n century with the soStil ot Stilzusammenbruch(Mattheier 1986)' called zusammengebrochener This concept(lit. "stylistic breakdown")from Germansociolinguisticsrefersto authors'inability to control the stylistic and glammaticalpropertiesof the texttype used- be it lettersor official meetingminutes- which results (among other things) in syntacticalanomalies,the omission of constituentsand, in somecases,the loss of text structure. The co-occurrenceof variable spelling is believedby certainGermanauthorsto be typical of andStilzusammenbruch Arbeitersprachen(Klenk 1997,Mattheier1990),exclusivelower classvarieties in the 19thcentury. At first sight,the simultaneouspresenceof theselinguistic featuresin Flemishand alsoin English (Fairman2000) lower classtexts seems to confirm this universalistconception. Then again, the everydaylife of a Flemish trade apprenticehad so little in common with that of a German mineworkeror an Englishpauperthat one canjustly questionthe existenceof a uniform sharedlower class identity from a sociological point of view; the shared characteristicsin their written output should, in any case, not be attributedto the factor 'class' assuch. 3.2 Middle classwriters Since the middle class writers displayedthe same amount and identical patternsof spelling variation and since no official guideline was ever fully udopt"a by any of them either (vandenbussche1999),there is no evidenceat this stageto supportthe claim that middle classwriters spelledbetter or more consistentlythan their lower classcolleagues,either at the beginningor at the end of the 19th century. Once again, the influence of the spelling 36 WIM VANDENBUSSCM standardizationmovement seems not to have reached this part of the population. There is more to this claim, however, than the simple observationthat lower and middle class spelling were virtually identical. Despite the strong correspondences betweenlower and middle class texts until 1850, a striking qualitativedivergencewas notedtowardsthe end of the centuryon the level of 1999). The Stilzusammerubriiche text and sentencestructure(Vandenbussche which were also presentin the middle classmeetingminutesduring the first decadesof the century - albeit in a more idiosyncraticway - disappeared almostcompletelyafter 1850,renderinga text imagewhich camevery closeto the texts producedby upperclassassociations. The implicationsof this areat leastthreefold: o until 1850,the combinationof variablespelling andzusammengebrochener Sril was found in both lower and middle classtexts. This contradictsthe traditionally held views of an exclusiveArbeitersprache,at least as far as Flanders is concerned. Further researchis neededto confirm whether similar patternsalsooccurredin middle classEnglish andGerman. o the stylistic and grammaticalstandardization movementhad little impacton the lower classesduring the 19ft century,but did successfullyreach the middle classesfrom 1850 on. This may indicate a phaseddiffusion from the uppertowardsthe lower classes. o standardizedspelling may have beenconsideredless important or seenas less of a hindrancefor 'getting one's meaningacross' than stylistic and grammaticalcorrectness. 3.3 Upperclasswriters Researchon the upper classmaterial is not yet complete,so that it is not possibleto pronouncea full judgementon the spellingbehaviourof the higher social echelonsin Bruges. Texts from the first quarter of the 19thcentury indicate, however, that there was also a considerabledegree of spelling variation in the formal meetingreports of one of the most prestigiousupper class associationsin Bruges (the Sebastianarchers'guild mentionedabove). Thesewriters usedexactly the samespelling variantsas their socially inferior colleagues,for vowels,diphthongsand consonantsalike. For somephonemes, though, the stageof consistentvariablechoice had alreadybeen reached(see Table3). Apart from a few syntacticalanomalies,neither massive loss of style control nor incoherenttext structuresoccurred.The persistenceor evolutionof this text pattern during the rest of the century is the subject of ongoing research. DUTCH ORTHOGRAPHY IN I9TH.CENTURY FLANDERS [a:] open syllable [e:] open syllable eil aYl [z] xl kl 'ambt' 'ontvangen UpperClass variantsaround 1820 3xamples from UC .exts <a> <ae> vergaderinge vergaederinge <e> <ee> <eij> lontenteren qouverneeren <ey> <ei> <uij> <ey> locieteyt <uij> ruijs uijt <uy> <uy> luys uyt <ui> <s> <s> <z> <z> sal deese gesegt zal deze gezegt <ch> <g> <c> <k> <ck> <ch> <g> <ck> <kk> <c> <ck> <k> <ck> -ower/Middle llass variants rntil 1900 <a> <ae> <aa> <e> <ee> <eij> ampt amt ambt rntfangen )ntvangen 37 qualiteijt verpacht gebragt tlecken trekken lontracte rontrackte boek boeck lmpt lmt rntfangen Table 3: Comparisonof spelling variants used by Lower/lV{iddleClass writersuntil 1900,andby Upper Classwritersaround1820. 4. Discussion How should we interpret the correspondingspelling problems of lower, middle and upperclasswriters? What is the key to the apparentphasedsocial stratificationof increasingwriting quality during the lgth century? I believe that the answer to both questionsis to be found in the history of writing educationin Flanders,andin the patternsof literacyacquisitionin l9th-century Bruses. WIM VANDENBUSSCHE 38 Although there was no direct link betweenwriters' social class and the quality of their written language,there most certainly was a connection betweenrelative wealth and the availability of quality writing education. The richer the parents,the better the schoolsthey could afford for their children. Expensive daytime schools offered a full language curriculum with composition and grammar exercises,whereasSunday schools for the poor hardly roseabovethe level of alphabetlearning(Michiels 1978,de Clerck et al. 1e84). One effect of this layered system is reflected in Figure 1 (based on Callewaert1963),which convincinglyshowsthat literacy in Brugesgradually the highesttowardsthe lowest social classesin the secondhalf of spread_from the 18thand the whole of the 19thcentury. The graphillustratesthe percentage of illiterate peoplefor four different social classesduring the first half of the 19thcenturyin Brugesand indicatesthat in Brugesthe generalliteracylevel and, presumably,the quality of writing education- rose first among the higher social classes. Whereasthe large majority of the middle classes(here further divided into 'middle class' and 'skilled workers') was fully literate around 1850, the lowest social classes(roughly correspondingto 'unskilled workers') only reachedthe level of full literacy at the beginning of the 20m centurv. llliterocy in Brugesoccording to sociol closs (from Collewoert 'l963) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 'of o o o closs middle closs skilledworkers unskilledworkers Fig. 1: Illiteracy in Brugesaccordingto socialclass(from Callewaert1963) DUTCH ORTHOGRAPHY IN I9I]{-CENTURY FLANDERS 39 1999)that As indicatedearlier,I havebeenable to show (Vandenbussche the spelling and style problems of the lowest social classes.during the last phase of the acquisition of literacy (secondhalf of the 19mcentury) were identicalto thoseof the middle classesduring their last phaseof the acquisition of literacy,half a centuryearlier(first half of the 19thcentury). Thereis reason to suggest,therefore,that the lower and lower middle classtexts may provide examplesof transitionalvarieties,which shouldbe locatedon a sliding scale betweenliteracy and illiteracy. The lower and middle class languagein the researchcorpora could then be consideredas reflecting two phasesof this literacy acquisition,which startedat different points in time for eachclass. If our hypothesisabout the transitionalcharacterof literacylinked varieties is right, one of the future resultsof our ongoingresearchmay be the discoveryof consistentexamples of these frequent spelling and style problems in the writings of the Flemishupperclassesbefore1800. may revealthe educationalprofile of different social Literacy percentages classes,but they also conveyinformationaboutthe importanceattachedto the masteryof readingand writing in thesegroups. Next to the needfor a detailed analysisof Flemish paupereducation,it is thereforenecessaryto clarify the sociologicalimpactof literacyin the lower, middle andupperclasses.I assume that upper class life in Bruges containeda substantialwritten core by the beginningof the 19tncentury. Lower and middle classwriters,on the contrary, may still havelived in cultureswhich wereto a largeextentorally based; many of their writing problemsare indeedtypical of writers in the transitionfrom an oral to a written culture(Fairman2000). This is reminiscentof the German distinction between writers whose professionswere either handarbeitorientiertor schriftarbeitorientiert(Mihm 1998);an insight into the evolution of the lower and middle classprofessions in Bruges on the continuum between both poles would most certainly contribute to a better understandingof the researchdata. The professional obligationto becomeliterateprobablydid not imply immediate'perfection' on the levels of spelling, grammar and style. During the first years of this transitionnot all classmembersmay even have felt the need to be literate, as long as someonewasableto write andperformthe expectedwritten tasks. The relative importanceof standardizationin different socio-professional contexts(oncea literateculture had beenadopted)is a third factor which may partly explainthe socialstratificationof writing quality. By the end of the 19th many associationsmay have felt the need to perform certain written ""ntury tasks, but depending on the amount of external communication and the intended reading public, a high degree of stylistic and grammatical standardizationwas not alwaysrequired. Our data show this standardization 40 WIM VANDENBUSSCIIE should,in any case,not be understoodin the traditionalpresentday senseof the of a singlenorm for spelling word. The processdid not involve the acceptance and grammar, but rather a growing concern with intelligibility. Consistent spellingwas of little importancein this respect,but a soundtext structurewas. 5. Conclusion In sum, spelling standardization(in the present day_senseof minimal variationin form) was unimportantto the majority of the l9tn-centurywriters in Bruges. Whereaslower and middle classwriters continuedto use a variable spellingsystemup until 1900,thereareindicationsthat upperclasswrite6, too, may havesharedthis customfor a long periodinto the 19mcentury. In the light of these findings the virulent controversy among contemporary spelling designersin 19ft centuryFlandersis reducedto a steriletheoreticaldiscussion which took place above the headsof the actual writers. To theselanguage users,the 'war on spelling' was a non-issue. There are indications,however, communication- a certain that - due to the growing impact of supraregional needfor standardizationwasfelt in the realmof styleand grammar,first among the higherand,soonafterwards,amongthe lower socialclasses. References Barton, David & Nigel Hall, eds. 2000. Letter Writing as a Social Practice. Amsterdam& Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Betten, Anne, ed. I99O. Neuere Forschungenzur historischenSyntax des Deutschen.Ti.ibingen:Max Niemeyer. Callewaert,Herwig. L963.Bijdrage tot de studievan het analfabetismeen het lager onderwijs te Brugge. Licentiate thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Iruven. Cherubim,Dieter, SiegfriedGrosse& Klaus J. Mattheier,eds. 1998.Sprache und BiirgerlicheNation. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Couvreur,Walter & RolandWillemyns. 1998.Spellingoorlog.NEVB 1998. 2802-2805. De Clerck, Karel, Bie De Graeve,Frank Simon, Boudewijn Delaere,Kristien Depoorter. 1984. Dag Meester, Goeiemorgen zuster, Goeiemiddag Juffrouw. Facetten van het volksonderwijsin Waanderen(1830-1940). Tielt-Weesp:Lannoo. De Groof, Jetje. Two HundredYearsof LanguagePlanningin Belgium. This volume. De Vries, Jan, Roland Willemyns & PeterBurger. 1994.Het verheal van een taal. NegeneeuwenNederlands.Amsterdam:Prometheus. FLANDERS DUTCHoRTHocRAPHYIN lgnr-cENTURY 41 De Wolf, Karel. n.d. (c. 1930-194O?).Het Brugsch, lijk het nog leeft, en vooraleerhet nog meerverdwijnf.Ms., Brugge' Fairman, Tony. 2000. English Pauper l-etters 1830-34, and the English Language.Barton& Hall 2000-63-82. Godar,ff"n.i. 1947.Histoire de la Gilde desArchers de Saint S4bastiende la Ville de Bruges.Bruges: A.G. Stainforth. G6rlach. Manfred. lggg. Engtish in Nineteenth-century England. An Int roduction Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress' Klenk, Marion. Lgg7. Sprache im Kontext sozialer Lebenswelt. Eine (Jntersuchungzur Arbeiterschriftsprache im I 9. Jahrhundert. Ti;bingen: Max NiemeYer. Lootens, Adolf. L868. Oude kindervertelselsin den Brugschen tongval. Brussel:J. NYs. Mattheier. Klaus. J. 1986. 'Lauter Borke um den Kopp.' Uberlegungenzur Spracheder Arbeiter im 19. Jahrhundert.RheinischeVierteljahrsbldtter 50.222-252. Mattheier. Klaus. J. 1990.Formale und funktionale Aspekte der Syntax von Betten 1990.286-299. im 19. Jahrhundert. Arbeiterschriftsprache des 19. Jahrhunderts' Mattheier, Klaus. J. 1998. Kommunikationsgeschichte ubedegungen zum Forschungsstand und zu Perspektiven der Cherubimet al. 1998.1-45' Forschungsentwicklung. Michiels, Guillaume. 1978.Uit de wereldder Brugsemensen.De fotograiie en Brugge:westvlaamseGidsenkring. het levente Brugge 1839-1918. Mihm, Arend. tggb. nrUeiterspracheund gesprocheneSprache im 19. Cherubimet al. 1998.282-316. Jahrhundert. Milroy, James. 1992.Linguistic Variation and Change. On the Historical Siciotinguisticsof English.Oxford, UK & Cambridge,Mass.:Blackwell. Molewijk, C.C. tggZ. Spillingverandering:van zin naar onzin (1200-heden). SDU. 's-Gravenhage: Encyclopedievan de vlaamseBeweging.Tielt: Lannoo. Nieuwe NEVB. 1998. Taalverzorgingin Waanderen'Brugge & Nijmegen: 1979' Tony. Suffeleers, Orion & B. Gottmer. Van de Craen,Piet & RolandWillemyns. 1988.The Standardizationof Dutch in Flanders.The International Journat of the sociology of Language73' 45-64. Wim. 1999.Arbeitersprache,a fiction? Belgian Journal of Vandenbussche, Linguistics 13. 87-103. Wim. Forthcoming.Triglossiaand PragmaticVariety Choice Vandenbussche, in l9th-century Bruges: A Case Study in Historical Sociolinguistics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics. 42 WIM VANDENBUSSCTIE Vandenbussche, Wim & RolandWillemyns 2000.Historischesociolinguistiek: het Brugge-project.Taal en Tongval52.258-276. Van den Toorn, Maurits.C.,Willy J.J.Pijnenburg,J.Arjan van kuvensteijn, & van de Nederlandsetaal. Joop M. Van der Horst, eds. 1997.Geschiedenis Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress. Van Eenoo, Romain. 1959. Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der arbeidersbeweging te Brugge 1846-1914. M4moire IV. Iruven: Geschiedenis. InteruniversitairCentrumHedendaagse Witte Els, Jan Craeybeckx& Alain Meynen.2000.Political history of Belgium from 1830.Brussels:VUB Press. Witte Els & Harry Van Velthoven. 1999.Languageand Politics: the Belgian CaseStudyin a Historical Perspective.Brussels:VUB Press. STANDARDIZATION STUDIESFROM THE GERMANICLANGUAGES Editedby AN D R E W R . LIN N of Shffield University NICO LA MC LE LLA N D TrinityCollege, Dublin S U B L IS H IN GC OM PANY J O H NB E N JA MIN P AM STERDAM / PHI LADELPHIA