CC BY-ND
109
Journal of Language & Education
Volume 1, Issue 3, 2015
Verbal Representation of Ethnical Stereotypes about the Dutch in English (an Insight into Cross-Cultural Perception via the Language)
Elena Golubovskaya
Peoples’ Friendship University ofRussia
The paper presents a brief summary of the multi-level interdisciplinary research on Englishmen’s ethnic stereotypes about the Dutch and the ways they manifest themselves in the English language. Unconventionally, the national stereotype is investigated as a subject of Cognitive Linguistics. As a result, the term “conceptual model” is proposed as an equivalent to “conceptual metaphor”, and two conceptual models verbally represented by the ethnonym “Dutch” and phraseological units with this component are described. A literature review examines if the identified conceptual models are supported in literary discourse, then the usage of the key lexis is analyzed meticulously for the same purpose. The last part of the paper suggests the results of the experiment held to verify if the stereotypical perceptions of the Dutch are maintained by people in contemporary Great Britain. The results indicate that language plays a significant role in stereotype formation and maintenance.
Keywords: ethnic stereotype, concept, conceptual model, verbal representation of ethnic stereotypes, phraseological units with the component “Dutch”, free associative experiment
Introduction
The current research is aimed at investigating the English lexis (including phraseological units) that represent the realia of Dutch culture. Most of them act as ethnic stereotypes that manifest the beliefs perceived by the British, as English speakers, about the Netherlands and the Dutch. The term “stereotype” is referred to here as a subgroup of social stereotype, i.e. the judgment expressing a generalized evaluation of the social group member, while the term “ethnic stereotype about the Dutch” is introduced to denote the
Elena A. Golubovskaya, Department of Foreign Languages, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elena A. Golubovskaya, Department of Foreign Languages, Peoples’ Friendship University ofRussia, 3/379 Ordzhonikidze Street, Moscow, Russia, 115419.
E-mail: [email protected]
system of simplified assessments for the image schema of the Dutch community.
The article focuses on evaluative social stereotype of an ordinary Dutch person and the Dutch as an out-group held by contemporary Brits. The complexity of the given phenomenon stands behind the variety of approaches to its investigation. To obtain a broader insight of how ethnic stereotypes are formed, maintained and manifested, it is necessary to integrate the data provided by anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, who in most cases do not engage with linguistics and undervalue the contribution it may bring to this field of research. The current study, however, is aimed at revealing the importance of verbal representation of the commonly perceived image of the national out-group. Nevertheless, it is all the same based on the integration of multidisciplinary studies, including linguistics, social sciences, philosophy, and psychology.
The urgency of the topic is caused by the increased importance of coexistence of different ethnic
39
ELENA GOLUBOVSKAYA
groups in the modern world, their communications and relation building. Stereotypical beliefs about heterogeneous ethnic groups may, on the one hand, integrate knowledge and simplify the perception of a nation, or, on the other hand, may lead to false statements. In other words, they may have a positive impact on cross-cultural interactions and support them or, vice versa, they may possibly trigger international conflicts. To avoid ethnic prejudices, the initial role of language should be considered, as it is central for tracing the routes of stereotype formation. The distinct nature of stereotype as a mental model is presented across attributes whereas in most cases cognitive linguists deal with subjects. From this stems our investigation into verbal representations of stereotyped evaluations,, with the following research questions framing our approach:
• What type of mental set does the social stereotype belong to?
• What mental units are represented by the key word “Dutch”? Can their constituents be modeled?
• Are there still stereotypical beliefs of the Dutch in the public consciousness of modern English speakers? Does language act as a means to maintain them?
To address the research questions, test materials sourced from the mono- and bilingual sources were exploited, including thesauruses and phraseological dictionaries, extracts were taken from fiction of all genres and data was provided by respondents of British origin who took part in a specially designed questionnaire. The methodology relied on componential analysis, contextual analysis and questionnaire. Continuous sampling was used to provide the corpora for the current research; as a result, 75 phraseological items with the component “Dutch” were found in mono- and bilingual dictionaries and other reference sources. The verb “to dutch” in its two meanings derived from the converted adjective along with the three semantic connotations of the compound noun “Dutchman” were also put under scientific consideration. The study focused on two mental concepts linguistically manifested by the key lexical unit “Dutch”, so varied lexical items denoting ethnic stereotypes against the Dutch were studied meticulously.
Background
Investigating the ways ethnic stereotypes may be represented in a language requires us to first examine and define a key term - social stereotype. First time it was proposed by the American journalist Walter Lip-mann, the author of the pioneering work “Public Opinion” in which he introduced the notion and described
the social stereotype as an “ordered, more or less consistent picture of the world, to which our habits, our tastes, our capacities, our comforts and our hopes have adjusted themselves” (Lippmann, 1997, p 64). It is hard to underestimate the importance of the discussion Lippmann started, his celebrated book still attracts the world’s attention, Lippmann’s considerations have been revised and continue to draw the interest of social scientists, who have interpreted and reinterpreted his arguments. So, G.Allport, in his celebrated paper “Nature of Prejudice” contrasted the social phenomena of prejudice and stereotype, claiming the latter is “not based upon actual experience” (Allport, 1954, p.
6). Of interest is the collision of opinions expressed by different researchers. To exemplify the case, the American researcher of racism and racial conflicts L. Blum focuses on objectionable, racist, inferiority stereotypes (Blum, 2002, p. 211), whereas Jenkins, for example, argues for the positive potential they embrace and claims that “despite its acquired negative connotations, stereotyping is a routine, everyday cognitive process upon which we all to some extent depend” (Jenkins, 1996,
p.122).
The category of ethnic stereotype has become part of scientific thinking in socially oriented sciences in Russia as well. The 1960s saw a rising urgency of racial contradictions, which prepared the ground for research into the perceived stereotyped beliefs about the out-groups by Soviet scientists (Kon, 1966; Kon, 1968; Shikhirev, 1971). In the nineties the collapsed Soviet Union gave way to increased multicultural diversity, which brought about a growth in research on cross-national perceptions (Chugrov, 1993; Pavlenko, 1992).
The routes of ethnic stereotype formation have been widely debated by psychologists and philosophers. In most cases, the explanation of this phenomenon is supported by the opposition of we-ness and they-ness, which Levi-Strauss considers to be among the fundamental patterns behind categorization, in general (Levi-Strauss, 2001). The human mind constantly sys-temizes and orders the world by means of unconscious patterns - binary opposites. “We-ness - they-ness” is one of them, and ethnicity acts as a factor where these opposites are manifested due to cultural differences of different national groups. In the realm of stereotyping, we-ness is evaluated as positive, whereas they-ness is seen negatively. Along these lines, the dual nature of human attitude towards ethnic consciousness provides scientific explanation of ethnocentrism as “the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner, 1906, p. 13).
There are alternative ways to justify stereotyping. Ajtony approaches the issue starting from social identity theory (SIT) founded by Tajfel and Turner. Based on
40
VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNICAL STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE DUTCH IN ENGLISH
the three-dimensional construct of social identity, she emphasizes the cognitive aspect and argues that when people categorize themselves and others according to their ethnic or national affiliation it inevitably causes an asymmetrical relation: “[w]ithin the category we mostly consider the identity of those belonging to it, our own group is experienced to be ‘ingroup biased’, continuously being overestimated as opposed to the outgroup”. This leads to the emergence of national or ethnic stereotypes when “the common characteristic of people belonging to one category...at the same time -is the description of features differentiating them from other categories” (Ajtony, 2011, p.145). In spite of an apparent variety of considerations about the routes of ethnic stereotype formation, it may be concluded that they complement rather that contradict each other.
A detailed discussion of the types of ethnic stereotypes identified in the literature is beyond the scope of this article. It should be noted that according to the membership /non-membership of the group an individual refers to there may be instances of auto-stereotypes and hetero-stereotypes. What is of interest and immediate relevance here is the mental model the ethnic stereotype corresponds to. The cognitive nature of the ethic stereotype should be correctly defined to gain a better understanding of the ways it is manifested verbally.
As a form of social cognition the ethnic stereotype is subject to meticulous investigation in a study by J.L.Hilton and W.von Hippel, who outline different models for their mental representations, such as the prototype model, the exemplar model, associative networks, schemas and base rates (Hilton, 1996). An understanding stereotype and prototype as two forms of cognition, with the former developed from the perspective of linguistics and the latter being a subject of social science, is widely diffused in multidisciplinary studies (Ajtony, 2011, p. 135). These ideas are extended further to propose more detailed and comprehensive clarifications, like the reference to metonymical sources of social stereotype formation by Lakoff: “Social stereotypes are cases of metonymy - where the subcategory has a socially recognized status as standing for the category as a whole, usually for the purpose of making quick judgments about people” (Lakoff 1987, p. 80). The literature review on the issue has led to the conclusion that the most-suited term here would probably be “concept” as the universal notion to cover culturally determined mental sets. This statement maybe supported by the similar cognitive nature of both units, the complexity of the structure of each of them as well as the same methodology applied to the investigation of both phenomena. So, hereafter, the ethnic stereotype is treated as one special group of concepts. This enables the perception of the stereotype in its generic
sense and ethnic stereotype - in particular - from the perspective of cognitive linguistics.
The notion of concept is known to be the main subject of modern cognitive linguistics. As a rather ambiguous term, it has been defined in a variety of ways. In Russian science, two main approaches to understanding the properties of the concept and identifying its nature can be traced, commonly referred to as “lin-guo-cultural” and “linguo-cognitive” trends. Whatever their background sources maybe, these are, to a certain degree, treated as contradictory and are often opposed to each other. As the concept is in any case bound to some quality characteristics of a certain phenomenon, it is inevitably expressed by the key word of attributive functionality. Inside the area of the current research, the concepts under consideration are linguistically expressed via phraseological units with the component “Dutch”, thus this very adjective acts as the basic attributive word here. With regard to its semantic meanings this word may denote one or several concepts, which are formed, as a rule, on the basis of subjective, i.e. evaluative knowledge.
The concepts are explored by both common methods - by means of analyzing their lexical representations - and experimental methodology, i.e. by processing the data obtained via cognitive psychology surveys.
The hierarchy of the concept may be revealed in the field model of its constituents, which are singled out through understanding and grouping the appropriate lexical units in accordance with its layers. Popova and Sternin introduced the theory of the concept field structure on the basis of the key word (Popova, 2001). With respect to the number of the layers, the conceptual field may have one layer (in one-layer concepts), two and more layers different in the degree of abstractedness (multi-layer concepts) or segmental (with the core as the basis surrounded by several similarly abstract layers) (Popova, 2001).
The rapid development of Cognitive Linguistics is marked by the growing popularity of the cognitive (conceptual) metaphor. The American linguists J. Lakoff and M. Johnson in their pioneering work, “Metaphors We Live By”, were the first to underline the significant role metaphor plays in concept formation and the conceptual system as a whole. They demonstrated the ability of the conceptual metaphor to generate one or a few metaphors in language (Lakoff 1980). The cognitive (conceptual metaphor) theory has been adopted and elaborated on by a great number of researchers.
In spite of the widespread views of the metaphor as the source for most phraseological units, those considered in the given research are an exception. We agree with Lakoff’s viewpoint on the metonymical nature of stereotype (see above) and, regardless of the enormous imaginary potential of the idioms under consideration, that it is more likely to admit their metonymical nature.
41
ELENA GOLUBOVSKAYA
It is argued here that due to the similarity in metaphor and metonymy formation, both emerge as a result of meaning transference on the basis of the associative attribute - the conceptual framework of the cognitive metaphor including the terminology may also be extended to the metonymical phraseological items with the component “Dutch”. Hence, at this point it seems appropriate to introduce the term “conceptual model” as the equivalent of “conceptual metaphor”. Hereafter, the word combination “conceptual model” is used to denote the congruence of the source and target domains based on the identical attributes associated with the typical beliefs of the Dutch.
The analysis and adoption of the viewpoints by different authors on stereotypical beliefs of the national portrayal of an ordinary Dutch person prepared the theoretical ground for proceeding further to discussion of the ways these mental sets are represented in the English language. Our study was focused mainly on the lexical item “Dutch”, due to its popularity in the lexis and phrasicon of the English language versus the other ethnonyms as well as the prevalence of this word, independently or within phraseological units, in literary contexts extracted from works by British and American authors including the literature of the last few decades.
Talking about the roots of stereotypical prejudices against the Dutch it should first be mentioned that they emerged from the four big conflicts between England and the Dutch republic in the seventeenth century caused by economic rivalry. The pejorative coloring of its meaning may also be counted for by the similarity to its etymon “Duch” and its derivative - the German “Deutsch”. So, the key word “Dutch” is very likely to have absorbed the negative attitudes towards the Dutch and, in a broader sense, all Germans.
Conceptual Models
A deeper insight into the semantic and conceptual meanings associated with the key attribute - Dutch - provided enough space for the justified retrieval of two concepts which may be treated as homonymous, with the same form outside but entirely different inside. Therefore, two different field models may be built to demonstrate conceptual constituents of those concepts respectively. The thorough analysis of their contents has led research to name them “Dutch - relevant to the Dutch Republic (the Netherlands)” (concept 1) and “Dutch - in contradiction to conventional standards or negation provoking” (concept 2). In general, an assumption has been made that initially the stereotyped concept (2) was a part of the first concept, originally referring to physical conditions and cultural background of the people based on the territory of Holland (1). The continuous extension
of the layers adjunctive to the concept (1) gradually led to the spin-off of the new cognitive pattern, which turned into an independent concept (2).
The semantic and linguistic contents of the concepts are described in accordance with the lexical combinations of the word “Dutch”. This methodology conforms with the identified concepts due to their attributiveness as they may not be totally independent as those which denote subjects (i.e. objects and phenomena) and are represented by nouns.
The relevant lexical and phraseological units with the component “Dutch” may be sorted to identify the meanings expressed in linguistic consciousness as per the concept “Dutch - relevant to the Dutch Republic (the Netherlands)”. Its structure may be presented in three layers with two segments within the first one. The lexical units were distributed in accordance with the changed semantics of the key adjective, which goes along with the loosened motivation inside the phraseological units.
The first, basic layer of the concept is relevant to Holland as the country where a certain ethnic group with their cultural values lives. This very layer is the closest to the literate semantics of the key adjective. Two equally abstract segments may be found within this layer. One of them refers to a purely physical, natural essence (“Dutch clover”, “Dutch rushes”). The second segment reflects the dominant role of cultural and geographic factors. The lexical units in this group denote cultural realia: items of national clothes, accessories of the people - residents of the Netherlands: “Dutch cap”, “Dutch breeches”, “Dutchman’s pipe”, and the achievements and values by Dutch people on the territory of their country: “Dutch tulips”, “Dutch channels”, “Dutch painting”, “Dutch ships”, “Dutch liberties”. The linguistic contents of this layer also may be extended through free combinations with the key word “Dutch”, which denote material and spiritual items relevant to the area belonging to the Dutch.
The second layer of conceptual field 1 is assimilated to the attribute “of Dutch origin” and linguistically presented by set expressions like “Dutch doll” /a wooden doll/, “Dutch door” /a double-hung door/ “Dutch cheese” /a special sort of cheese/). In contrast to the first layer, this is marked by the loosened national coloring of the appropriate objects and phenomena. In a generic sense, the lexical units of the given layer are characterized by the conceptual meaning “developed, designed in Holland, but at the moment also used in the other countries of the world”. This layer is typical of the cultural background relevant to all the material objects behind this part of the concept.
The third layer of the conceptual field shows the changed significance of the “national” seme in the key adjective, the meanings it demonstrates here are all derived from the reconsidered and rethought initial
42
VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNICAL STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE DUTCH IN ENGLISH
Figure 1. Conceptual Model «Dutch - relevant to the Dutch Republic (the Netherlands)»
attribute and may be rendered as “resembling objects of Dutch origin”: “Dutch cap” (women’s contraception), “Dutch cheese” (bold head).
The linguistic representation of the conceptual model “ Dutch - relevant to the Dutch Republic (the Netherlands)” is represented in Figure 1 - Conceptual Model “ Dutch - relevant to the Dutch Republic (the Netherlands)”.
Concept 2 “ Dutch - in contradiction to conventional standards or negation provoking” is linguistically represented by three layers. As the reconsidered semantics of the ethnonym resulted in the lost connection to the initial meaning “Dutch”, here the lexis was distributed among the field layers in a different way. The division was based on the degree of the abstraction the lexeme “Dutch” possesses within the phraseological units.
The semantics of phraseological units changes from layer to layer in the following way: “Dutch -having a certain attribute which contradicts common standards, conventional things, customs (the first layer), “Dutch negative, provoking somebody’s negation for no clear reasons” (the second layer); “Dutch - anti, the wrong way out” (the third layer). The first, basic, layer with the most concrete semantics has a segmental composition. The eight associations identified in the scope of this study define eight segments which correspond to the matches inside the “Dutch” concept, such as: 1) alcohol addicted, connected to alcohol: (“Dutch courage” - courage gained from intoxication with alcohol, “Dutch milk” - beer); 2) breaking rules,
Figure 2. Conceptual Model «Dutch - in contradiction to conventional standards or negation provoking»
doing things unusually, in an unconventional way (“to do a dutch” - to place one’s debts in a special way to ruin the owner of the casino; “Dutch book” - bad accounting or a way of bet making with no profit left for the bookmaker; 3) superficial, showy, not original (“Dutch defence” - fake defence, “Dutch gold” - foil); 4) alien, unclear, obscure (“double Dutch” - gibberish; “Dutch by injection” - about a woman who lives with a foreigner); 5) sinful (“Dutch widow” - prostitute, “to take the Dutch route, do the dutch” - commit suicide); 6) useless, unhelpful, unnecessary (“Dutch comfort” - cold comfort, “could be worse”, “Dutch anchor” -something left behind, especially when needed); 7) angry, short-tempered (“Dutch blessing” - abuse, bad language, “to get one’s dutch up” - to put somebody out of temper); 8) overweight, having a bulky build (of a person) (“Dutch-built” - stout (of a person), “Dutchman” - a suet).
Each of the attributes united by the second layer of the concept (“to beat the Dutch”, “to be in Dutch” -to get into trouble, be in a mess) may be described as a negative characteristic, which due to its abstraction makes it difficult to precisely identify the semantics of the key adjective. In other words, the motivation of a negative attribute and the etnonym “Dutch” connection is not made clear.
The third layer of conceptual field 2 is marked by the special logical collision of the elements in the word combinations “adjective + noun”. The meaning the adjective Dutch is invested here changes the semantics of the noun it precedes to the opposite. (“Dutch hur-
43
ELENA GOLUBOVSKAYA
ricane” - a calm sea, “Dutch nightingale” - a frog). In fact, in this context the adjective tends to mean “not”. The verbal representation of the conceptual model can be graphically modelled as in Figure 2».
Analysis
The implication of the above-mentioned models may be traced in literary discourse, the statement supported by 26 examples of the use of phraseological units to manifest concept 1 “Dutch - relevant to the Dutch republic (the Netherlands)” and 24 contexts with phraseological units to go back to concept 2 “Dutch - in contradiction to conventional standards or negation provoking”. The stylistic analysis of the texts with the “Dutch” phraseological units relevant to concept 1 revealed that the speech utterances with them appeal to the recipients’ emotional sphere due to the stylistic usage of these language means in context where humorous effects, persuasiveness and emphasis are the authors’ predominant intentions. Not surprisingly, in most cases the writers use phraseological units relevant to concept 1 in full accord with their modern semantics and ignore their etymons or inner forms. That is why their semantic meanings remain distinct from direct connection to the Netherlands, Dutch people or objects of Dutch origin. Some contexts, however, demonstrate the restored inner forms of the phraseological units for the purpose of producing humorous effects, like, for instance, in Charles Dickens’ novels: “This was a neat and happy turn to give the subject, treats being rare in the Wilfer household, where a monotonous appearance of Dutch-cheese at ten o’clock in the evening had been rather frequently commented on by the dimpled shoulders of Miss Bella. Indeed, the modest Dutchman himself seemed conscious of his want of variety...” (Dickens, 1973, p. 84)
The usage of set expressions relevant to concept 2 in direct speech and narratives is in most cases caused by attempts to evaluate. Consequently, in a number of cases concept 2 may gain ironical or even further - negative - potential, which is expressed in the verbal context of its language representations. Thus, the example below is based on the contradiction of two images through the comparison of associative attributes. The way of verbalizing one of them is of great interest: this is an allusive reference of literary origin: “One had to cling to it, even though one felt embarrassed, that some obscure loss of face was involved, the Dutch uncle being swiftly proved the emperor with no clothes” (Fowles, 1980, p.114).
We also consider a special kind of occasional expressions with the component “Dutch”. This group comprises both “occasional phraseological neolo-
gisms” and “reinterpreted phraseological items”, which along with lexical neologisms are widespread in fictional literature. Phraseological occasionalisms are approached further in this article to trace the examples of new word and phrase formation with the component “Dutch”, in the works of English and American authors late-twentieth to the early twenty-first century. All the occasionalisms found may be divided into two groups, which we explain below.
The first group includes newly formed items, which are assimilated to already existing lexical units. They are introduced into the context once only and are treated as occasionalisms due to their absence in the available lexicographical sources. The second group comprises the occasional usages in literary texts of the existing expressions with the revised semantic meanings achieved by their immediate contexts. In most cases, they act as puns, and the authors play with the meanings of separate constituents within phraseological units, rather than independent words. It is noteworthy to mention here that the target lexemes are of a polysemantic nature, so verbal context is aimed at suggesting the right meanings for the perceiver.
The items in the first group have the nominal function, as most of them are introduced to name the new notions, which arose at a certain period of time as a result of changes in social, economic and cultural life of society. Their descriptive analysis allows us to see them as a verbal representation of concept 2, i.e. its particular layer. So, for instance, the word combination “Dutch express” from Sheldon’s novel Master of Game is based on the negation that justifies its relation to the third layer of this concept. As in the rest of expressions relevant to this layer, the given item demonstrates a logical contradiction when the adjective “Dutch” changes the meaning of the noun it precedes - “express” - to the opposite. As a result, one of the fastest vehicles turns into the slowest: a bullock (animal-drawn) wagon. The clue to the correct understanding of the expression is offered in the same context: “What’s Dutch express?... Bullock wagon. They travel two miles an hour. By the time you get there, the damned diamonds will all be gone” (Sheldon, 1993, p. 24).
The second group of lexical items is more varied and appears in greater numbers.. It consists of the contexts where the authors change the meanings of existing phraseological units. Verbal humor is based here on breaking linguistic norms. All the units of this group may be subdivided into three groups in accordance with the type of the effect delivered and the degree to which the initial expressions have been altered.
The first subgroup is represented by the units with the unchanged form. The initial meaning of the
44
VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNICAL STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE DUTCH IN ENGLISH
component “Dutch” is partially restored in the phraseological unit in G.K.Chesterton’s novel Manalive: “That’s German, and German is High Dutch, and High Dutch is Double Dutch” (Chesterton, 1912, p. 216). The author narrows down the semantics of the element “Dutch” and changes it from the metaphorical sense it holds within the set expression “double Dutch” (“gibberish”) to the original “the language of the Dutch” and restores the lost connection between “Dutch” and “Deutsch”. This effect is delivered through the equation of the phraseological units “Dutch” and “double Dutch”. The decomposition of the set expression by means of their constituent liter-alization is suggested as a pun here.
The second subgroup comprises the examples of incorrect variations of existing expressions, making it difficult to identify precisely the intended meanings the authors exploit. Contamination of the phrase-ologisms takes pace when the authors combine the components of two different idioms. The so-called linguistic “hybrids” occur as a result of poetic realization of the speech system: “She’s wanted for York’s murder, isn’t she? Wouldn’t it be sweet if they were found dead in a love trust? The papers would love that ... Grange and her sweetie doing the double Dutch in the drink instead of her cooking for the York kill? That would put a decent end to this mess ...” (Spillane 1966, p. 146). The word combination “do the double Dutch” is formed by uniting two set expressions “do the Dutch” - “commit s suicide” and “double Dutch” - “gibberish”.
One of Spillaine’s heroes simultaneously uses two phraseological units with the same component. The microcontext of the above extract demonstrates the double actualization of two phraseolgisms so that parallel and simultaneous perception of the phraseological meanings, and the literal meanings of the components of the same phraseologisms, occurs. In this line of thought, the given extract actualizes literary, phraseological and associative meanings of the lexical items: “commit suicide” (the people will be found dead), “do something strange” (the suicide will be committed in an unusual situation - at a date), “do something together with a partner” (the verb meaning “do” is associated with the semantics of the adjective “double”), “do something under the influence of alcohol” (the set expression with the relevant sense). The author’s message is conveyed here in an original way by introducing the multilevel pun.
The third subgroup is subject to the simultaneous changes in the form and meaning, i.e. double actualization of a phraseologism is realized, so that the content of the microcontext facilitates the perception of the direct meanings. The following example reveals the inverted order of the idiom components and its “enlargement” - the effect delivered by the in-
clusion of additional words, as a result the registered in the dictionary unit is hardly recognized: “I’m one Dutchman, and you’re another, and that’s all about it” (Dickens, 1911, p. 418-419).
The usage of the indefinite pronoun “another” which replaces the noun “Dutchman” is indicative of the component omission and literalization. All this aims at creating a humorous effect.
In general, the investigation of occasional usages of lexical items with the component “Dutch” reveals that structurally modified units stay neutral, and the authors use this device purely as a means of verbal humor and neglect the original semantics of the ethnonym or phraseological units with the given component. On the contrary, the semantically transformed phraseologisms with the reconstructed image or generalized metaphorical meanings realized in new contexts speak for particular opinions and beliefs about the Dutch; furthermore, the other examples are indicative of the new pejorative connotations the keyword obtains.
To approach the different ways national stereotype maintenance is carried out it might be reasonable to refer to the literary discourse in terms of content rather than the language itself. In this case, the info-logical data should be the main focus of the research. The appearance, character, beliefs and actions were equally considered to generate the overall portrait of typical Dutch people in the eyes of the British.
This stage of the study demonstrated that the most important stereotypical beliefs of the typical Dutch national features are represented in English literary texts both explicitly and implicitly. The former may be referred to in the evaluative beliefs of the authors or heroes about the generalized image schema of Dutch people - including the way they look and their behavior. The latter touches on the focus on the Dutch origin of the characters. The most demonstrative example of the stereotype-congruent information may be found in the essay by J.K.Jerome “Idle Thoughts in 1905” (Jerome, 1905). The typical traits of an ordinary Dutchman are intentionally exaggerated by the author to deliver a humorous effect. Instead of investing a particular personage with these symbolical traits, Jerome exploits the effect of generalization. The general portrait of the given national group is based on the inner traits and, to a certain a degree, on some outer features.
To summarize the findings about typical Dutchmen collected through the analysis of English literary texts, Kobozeva’s method of data processing was applied [Kobozeva, 1995]. According to her, the revealed attributes may be sorted into a few groups. For example, character traits such as “grumpiness, straightforwardness, rudeness, gallantry” may all be united by the key notion - “relation to others”. Then the rel-
45
ELENA GOLUBOVSKAYA
evant scale may be treated based on the gradients “grumpiness, straightforwardness” etc. Industry and clean habits are connected with the attitude towards household activities, whereas distraction, unpunctuality along with eccentricity and weirdness assume incompliance with social conventions and etiquette etc.
Therefore, the traits revealed during the research can be considered in terms of seven graduation scales in full accord with the number of the personality “facets”: intelligence, attitude to the self, attitude to the others, attitude to the environment, attitude to household activities, compliance / incompliance with social conventions and etiquette, the appearance and appositional features, the other nationalities’ common beliefs about the Dutch.
Firstly, special attention should be paid to the ratio of positive (p) and negative (n) traits of the Dutch national image (both appearance and nature is considered). Regardless of the same characteristics described, the final ratio is equal to 17(p):9(n). It is claimed as evidence of overall favorable attitude towards the out-group members. Secondly, the available findings were further processed in terms of cross-comparative analysis of the newly discovered traits and those presented in the concept verbally expressed by the lexical item “Dutch”, its derivatives and phraseological units with this component. Coincidences were identified between the characteristics like unpleasant looks, rudeness, bad manners, ill-breeding which correspond to the first layer of the concept “Dutch - in contradiction to conventional standards or negation provoking”, other nations’ antipathy (is relevant to the second layer of the same concept); eccentricity, weirdness - the traits united by the third - the outer layer of the same conceptual field. Apparently, the characteristics mentioned by several authors play a more important role, the fact that determines their popularity, and therefore present more intrinsic evidence of the stereotyped consciousness versus the traits stated one time only. All the contexts where beliefs of the Dutch are revealed may lead to the conclusion that there is a certain congruence of the attributes identified through the analysis of lexicographical sources on the one hand and literary contexts, on the other.
Experiment
To confirm the statement that stereotyped beliefs manifest themselves in British people’s mentalities and, if so, explore the way in which they do so, a specially designed questionnaire was conducted. Two types of research methods - verbal and non-verbal -were applied to penetrate into the ethnic consciousness of individual British people at two levels: con-
scious and subconscious respectively. In this case, free associative portrait, the Luscher color test, characteristic grading, social distance grade, self-semantiza-tion of the lexical items with the component “Dutch” should be mentioned. The methodology of social research at this stage was based on the ideas suggested in the works by modern researchers of cross-cultural relations. The questionnaire was distributed by Russian volunteers who permanently live in Great Britain through the social centers for the elderly, centers of social support, and community centers in the cities of Mansfield, Manchester, Oxford and Reading 20042010 period. The participation was not paid and ran on a voluntary basis. The average age of the respondents was 54 (19-76 years old), covering both genders and a broad range of social groups. The experiment participants were briefly informed on the aims of the research.
The questionnaire rubrics are presented in the appendix. The questions and tasks may be divided into three groups as per the objectives the study pursued. The very first part of the questionnaire (tasks 1-3, 14) comprised the control questions which were aimed at the dependence of the hetero-stereotypes and the respondents’ personal experience. In the second part (4-8), which included central research questions, respondents were asked to identify and analyze the specific national characteristics the Dutch are claimed to have and find out the degree of their conformity. This part of the research was also aimed at identifying the generalized stereotyped attitudes towards the Dutch from the British side. The third part of the questionnaire (9-13) was introduced to pursue two purposes. First, it seemed reasonable to find out how popular phraseological units with the component “Dutch” in English native speech are, both receptive and productive skills considered. Second, they accounted for the urgency of the correlation between the beliefs congruent with the stereotype and the frequency the lexical items with the component “Dutch” occur in the productive and receptive speech of British people.
Most of the tasks in the questionnaire were based on the free association experiment methodology and the national group free portrayal as its subtype. Task 6 was designed as a kind of the receptive experiment.
It is important to mention here that the questionnaire was designed in full accord with conventional methods, but in some cases the tasks were modified, like in the Luscher color test (tasks 5 and 14). The testing material was changed as the colors could have mistakenly attracted the respondents’ attention to the wrong things (the color of the national flag, etc.) That is why a set of abstract symbols was offered to the respondents to ensure they could not intentionally associate the shapes and Dutch culture or Dutch national character.
46
VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNICAL STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE DUTCH IN ENGLISH
This set of symbols was suggested twice: first - to check their association with the typical Dutch and second - to range the symbols as per personal preferences. The tasks were separated to ensure more objectivity. So, on the whole, it was aimed at finding out the relative indicator of unmotivated attitude towards the Dutch. The symbol associated with the Dutch was selected first by 41,6% experiment participants while 23,3% of them had it as their second choice. Apparently, these data speak about the overall positive perception of the Dutch by British respondents.
For the purpose of the given research, the respondents were asked to check the character traits in a proposed list. It was combined with the diagnostic test of attitudes, where the grades were designed in accordance with the negative connotations of the adjective “Dutch” within the phraseological units. Each grade included one sharply negative trait, the other, on the contrary, was positively marked, and the third acted as a neutral characteristic. The traits were offered in a random order as a list. Each respondent was supposed to grade the traits in relation to the conformity with the typical Dutch nature (a seven-point grade was suggested). A similar task was designed in relation to the British national character as an attempt to examine the auto-stereotypical beliefs and verify the objectiveness of the data collected.
The results of the grading were processed by calculating the arithmetic average (negative, neutral and positive traits considered). The total average of the positive traits in the Dutch national character exceeded the same of the respondents’ self-assessment (49.1 : 41.39), whereas the average for negative sides of Dutch character, on the contrary, was a little lower than that of the British themselves (46.7 : 47.34). These findings may also be interpreted as further evidence of the favorable attitude towards the Dutch by the British. It is noteworthy to mark here, however, that the total rate in relation to the neutral traits of a typical Dutchman is completely different from the same in relation to the self-assessment. As the questionnaire demonstrated, their ratio is equal to 0.6 : 1 (27.55 : 43.76). This can possibly be explained by the fact that approaching marginal rates and neutral characteristics is indirectly indicative of the stereotype influence on the national image.
The task based on the free portrayal of the national group is a variation of the free association experiment (task 4). It preceded the ready-made list of the traits in order to avoid the opportunity of the stereotyped characteristics to dominate free associations. The replies did not demonstrate the complete meeting of minds, which would speak for the stereotyped consciousness. Therefore, when processing the data we moved from the outer - lexical - to the inner - semantic - level. The analysis of all the replies suggests
there are a number of descriptors they maybe referred to. The similar reactions by different participants may be united along the lines of the so-called quasi “synonyms”. For instance, the answers like “friendly”, “outgoing”, “party people”, “talkative”, “environmental” were united by the descriptor “socializing” with the sum frequency of 31.7%.
In this context it is necessary to note that in some cases the reactions offered by the respondents were totally different or, even more, contradicted one another. For instance, a number of the participants paid attention to Dutch temper, i.e. the evaluations were polar opposites: from the “quiet”, “reserved”, “thoughtful” to “active”, “sporty”, “temperamental” and “passionate” portrait. This dissimilation of the opinions reflects the lack of the shared beliefs about these traits in English consciousness.
As a result, the following character traits were recorded: 1) nice attitude towards people around /sum frequency equal to 55%/; 2) liberalism, freedom of convictions /supported by 43.3%; 3) calmness, reserve, cold blood /sum frequency 36.7%; 4) high intellectual quality and good manners /shared by 35% respondents. Just about all the evaluations by the British have a positive or neutral focus. The only negative side of Dutch nature marked by the participants is associated with bad habits - marked by an insignificant number of the respondents (3.3%).
The task on the diagnostic pattern completion was processed in the same way. The experiment participants were given the interrupted phrase “They are the typical Dutch because they...” with the substantive “Dutch” to avoid the dominance of female or masculine image (Task 7). The verbal reactions were presented by either activities done by Dutch where their nature is implicitly traced, or explicit identifications of their inner traits. Interestingly, there were no replies recorded which would completely confirm negative perception of the Dutch. The largest number of the replies fell on the group that marked friendliness and sociability of the nation (21.7%); 15% of the considerations revealed the same beliefs of Dutch tolerance; 11.7% of the respondents recorded a high level of intelligence, motivation to learn, good command of foreign languages etc.
Within the discussion of the frequency of usage (task 11), the predominant answer was “once a year” (no clarification was required which items exactly were in question) that was shared by 50 per cent of the respondents, the reply that outnumbered all others. Most of the remaining participants tended to use these set expressions once a month (41.7%) or once a year (31.7%). These statistics are sure to be treated as the apparent evidence of the presence of this vocabulary in productive speech and the conversation Englishmen are exposed to.
47
ELENA GOLUBOVSKAYA
The task to define the phraseological units with the component “Dutch”, however, brought about the results that did not fit in the general picture. Five out of eight phraseologisms (62.2% of the total number) were explained correctly, which significantly outnumbered refusals to participate in the questionnaire or “Don’t know” comments. This should be treated as evidence of a quite high awareness of this lexis among the respondents.
Nevertheless, five out of eight items were offered incorrect definitions by some respondents, i.e. the stated meanings mismatched those registered in dictionaries. The biggest number of the incorrect definitions may be referred to the expression “Dutch uncle”: “giving a present to take it back”, “unintelligible person”, “a stern and blunt person”, “not a real uncle”, “an unrelated person you call uncle”, “stand in or a substitute uncle”. The same distortion of the meaning is found in relation to the phraseological unit “Dutch doll”, with pejorative connotations prevailing. In an effort to explain what it denotes, two experiment participants mistakenly associated it to “a prostitute”. So, the analysis of the survey findings leads to the conclusion that this sort of mistake represents the conceptual patterns “Dutch - anti, the wrong way out”, “Dutch - lusty”, “Dutch - impolite, stubborn”.
The hypothetical assumption that the results would depend heavily on the biometric and social background of the respondents was discarded due to the lack of evidence: most of the people answered the questions regardless of socio-biological group. In other words, we did not find any significant differences in the reactions given by respondents from different groups.
Results and Discussion
On the whole, the results of the study may be summarized as follows. Any mental stereotype, in particular, ethnic stereotype as a subtype of the social one, should be treated as a concept. This presents the ground for studying it as the subject of modern cognitive linguistics. As for the English language, the key word “Dutch” and phraseological units with this component are claimed to underlie the semantics of two conceptual models. One of them is still closely connected to the Netherlands (Holland, the former Dutch Republic) as the area where a particular people with their own culture lives. The second conceptual model manifests the stereotype about the Dutch held by the British. Both conceptual models share the same historical background, as the second originally presented several layers of the first one and as time passed, gradually spun off as an independent mindset.
Stereotypes about the Dutch have significantly reduced, remaining only subconsciously represented. Most of the relevant judgments made by the respondents who permanently live in Great Britain are quite positive. As the research has shown, the opinions do not depend much on the age, academic qualifications, or gender of the respondents.
The verbal manifestation of the prejudices against Dutchmen can be described as follows:
• The register of the English language includes the
lexical unit “Dutch” and phraseological items with the same component heavily invested with pejorative connotations. In accordance with the characteristics they denote and the evaluations they express the semantic variations of the word and phraseological units with it can be divided and subdivided into groups and subgroups.
• Usual items with the component “Dutch” are wide-
spread in English literary texts, including those by modern authors, in most cases, they are used to create a humorous effect or appeal to the readers’ negative reactions;
• The authors of the works exploit word play based
on the existing phraseological units and make up their own new expressions with the same component, mostly with reference to its negative connotations;
• In some cases the attempts of British respondents
to identify the unknown collocations with the component “Dutch” produce negative meanings.
Conclusion
To summarize, the theoretical assumptions that thTo summarize, the theoretical assumption that language plays a particular role in the maintenance of ethnic stereotypes has been supported by multi-level empirical research. Positive evaluations of the Dutch traced in literary works by modern authors and, more than that, distinguished by the questionnaire respondents are indicative of their dilution in modern British culture, but it would be untrue to argue that this stereotypes have become completely obsolete. Moreover, there is enough evidence of the unintentional stereotypical beliefs, with their pejorative connotations are getting more obscure.
The integrated approach makes it possible to process language items in terms of their correspondence to the basic layers of the concepts. Thus, the categorization of lexical units with the component “Dutch” on the basis of their cognitive contents (presence / absence of stereotyped beliefs about the Dutch) allowed a restoration of the fragments of the old and new mentality of the English as stereotype holders. The usual and occasional usages of the phraseological units with
48
VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNICAL STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE DUTCH IN ENGLISH
this component may be used to create and correct the dictionaries.
What seems apparent from the findings is that the data collected from numerous register and literary discourse contexts show a complicated picture that language may help to better understand. It may seem reasonable to extend the scope of the research toward other ethnonyms and the cognitive spheres that stand behind them. The author would be happy to share the result of the given research, e.g. for a specialized dictionary of ethnonyms and their derivatives. Any attempts to use the results and conclusions in general courses on Cognitive Linguistics, English Lexicology, or as parts of curricula, e.g.: Phraseology, Cognitive Semantics, Ethnic Linguistics etc. are welcome.
References
Ajtony, Z. (2011). Ethnic Stereotypes - Impediments or Enhancers of Social Cognition? In Acta Universitatis Sapientiae,Philologica, 3 (2), 134-155.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge MA.: Addison-Wesley P.
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexica! Categories. Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Blum, L. (2002). Racism: What It Is and What It Isn’t.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 203-218. Calbourne, H. (Ed.). (2001). Race and Ethnicity. Critical Concepts in Sociology. London., N.Y.: Routledge. Chesterton, K. (1912). Manalive. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Chugrov, S. (1993). Ethical Stereotypes and Their Influence on Public Opinion Formation. International Economy. InternationalRelations, 1,41-53.
Dickens, Ch. (1911). The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club. London: Chapman.
Dickens, Ch. (1973). Our Mutual Friend. London: Penguin Books.
Fowels, J. (1982). Daniel Martin. London: Triad Granada.
Hilton, J. L., von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology 47, 237-271.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. London: Routledge.
Jerome, J. K. (1905). Idle Ideas in 1905. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
Kobozeva, I. (1995). The German, Englishman, Frenchman and Russian: Identifying Stereotypes of the National Character by Analyzing Ethnonym Connotations. Communications of Moscow State University, Philology, 3,102-116. (in Rus.).
Коп, I. (1966). Psychology of Prejudice (on the Social and Psychological Roots of Ethnic Prejudices). The New World, 9,187-205. (in Rus.).
Коп, I. (1968). The National Character - a Myth or Reality? Foreign Literature, 9,215-229. (in Rus.).
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Lippmann, W. (1997). Public Opinion. N.Y.:Simon@ Schuster.
Pavlenko, V. & Taglin, S. (1992). Insights into Ethnic Psychology: Study Guide. Moscow: Kharkov, (in Rus.).
Popova, Z. & Sternin, I. (2001). Essays on Cognitive Linguistics. Voronezh: Istoki. (in Rus.).
Sheldon, S. (1993). Master of the Game. London: Harper Collins.
Shikhirev, P. (1971). Studies of the Stereotype in American Social Science. Philosophy Matters, 5,168-175. (in Rus.).
Spillane, M. (1966). The Twisted Thing. N.Y.: A Signet Book.
Sumner, W. G. & Keller, A. G. (1906). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores and Morals. Boston: Ginn and Co.
49
ELENA GOLUBOVSKAYA
APPENDIX
Please, tick the blue triangle in the bottom right hand corner before going on!
This questionnaire is part of the Research Study on the problem of ethnical relations expressed in a language heldbyElenaGolubovskaya.Theresearcherwants your support badly and is asking you to fill it in and then send it back ([email protected]). Please forward the form to your relatives and friends if you would!
Your answers are kept strictly confidential by having the answers reported directly to the researcher.
Thank you in advance for your time in completing this form.
1. Have you ever personally interacted using email, phone, or in-person meeting with the Dutch or people who live in Holland?
Yes, I made such contacts in the past Yes, I keep in touch with them at present No, I’ve never been in contact with the Dutch
If you answered “NO”, Skip to Question #4
2. Are the Dutch among your... (check all that apply)
relatives
friends
colleagues
neighbours
acquaintances
pen pals ?
3. How often do you connect a person / people of this nationality?
very often (every day)
often (once a week)
from time to time (once a fortnight)
seldom (once a month)
hardly ever, as an exception (once a year)
4. How can you characterize the typical Dutch? Give the traits to associate with them which came into your mind first of all.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
5. Choose from among the symbols below the one you would associate with the typical Dutch-image.
m
I
X
Д
6. Which of the traits below do you consider to be typical of the Dutch? The British? Fill in the table below to mark the typical traits on the scale of seven points:
Trait The degree to The degree
which it’s typical to which it’s
of the Dutch (of its typical of
conformity with the Dutch character) the British
Unselfcon-
scious
Good judges ofwine
Brave
Nuisances
Alcohol
addicted
Precautious
Lovers of teaching
Coward
Vicious
Careless
Careful
Economical
Courteous
Rude
Generous
Close-
tongued
Modest
Indifferent to alcohol
Greedy
50
VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNICAL STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE DUTCH IN ENGLISH
7. Mark the relationships that seem acceptable for the Dutch to have. Check all that apply.
Your wife / husband Your friend Your colleague Your boss Your acquaintance Your neighbour
A foreign tourist in your country None is acceptable
8. Complete the following sentence:
These people are typical Dutch because they...
9. Please fill in the following table.
Dutch- How do you Check Check
idioms understand the set the set
the following phrases phrases
expressions? you use being
Define each of them in your own words. while speaking used
I’m
a Dutchman if...
go Dutch
Double
Dutch
Dutch
uncle
Dutch
courage
Dutch sale
Dutch doll
Dutch
cheese
10. Do you use other Dutch-expressions while speaking. Which of them? If you answered “NO”, Skip to Question #11.
11. How often do you use Dutch-expressions while speaking (ignore how many and which of them)?
very often (every day)
often (once a week)
from time to time (once a fortnight)
seldom (once a month)
hardly ever, as an exception (once a year)
never
12. Do you hear other people make remarks using other set Dutch-expressions? What are they? If you answered “NO”, Skip to Question #14.
13. How often (on average) do you hear other people make remarks using set Dutch-expressions (ignore which exactly and how many of them).
very often (every day)
often (once a week)
from time to time (once a fortnight)
seldom (once a month)
hardly ever, as an exception (once a year)
never
14. Rank from like to dislike the numbers of the symbols below according to your own preferences:
l-]2-D3-e4-i5-~6-e
15. Please provide information about yourself.
a) Name and surname
b) Age
under 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 over 50
c) Gender
Male
Female
d) Education
High School BA
Master
Ph.D
other (please specify)
e) Occupation
f) Residence
g) City
h) Country
16. Feel free to add any further comments and recommendations if any
Comments:
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
If you have questions about the research, please send them to: [email protected] Yours sincerely,
Elena Golubovskaya
51
