Spoken Dutch in Flanders: Perceptions and attitudes of the Dutch language situation by non-linguists Chloé Lybaert [email protected] Supervisor: Prof

Spoken Dutch in Flanders:Perceptions and attitudes of the Dutch language situation by non-linguists

Chloé [email protected]

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Johan De Caluwe

1. Introduction – The Dutch language situation

• Dutch = pluricentric language• Focus on Flanders = Dutch-speaking

part of Belgium• Standardization in Flanders during

the 20th century: written language: strongly standardized

spoken language: lack of standardization &

strong diversity

• Focus on the spoken language, esp. on tussentaal

Saint Petersburg - Tuesday, November 20 - Chloé Lybaert 2

1. Introduction – Tussentaal

• Tussentaal (TT) = lit. “in-between-language”= that spoken language use of some Flemish people which

is neither ‘Standard Dutch’, nor is it purely dialectical: it is something in between (Jaspers 2001, p. 129-130).– Features from Standard Dutch (SD) and Dutch dialects (DIA).– Continuum of varieties of TT in between SD and DIA

• Diaglossic language situation (Auer 2005)

DIA Tussentaal SDSaint Petersburg - Tuesday, November 20 -

Chloé Lybaert 3

1. Introduction – Tussentaal• Many publications on tussentaal (TT):– In spontaneous conversations, soaps, commercials,

etc. (De Caluwe 2009; Van Gijsel et al. 2008).– Studies based on the Spoken Dutch Corpus (e.g.

Plevoets 2008)General consensus: increasing use of TT (TT)

• But: TT is not a new phenomenon– Language characteristics of TT have always existed

(Willemyns 2005)– New: change in the intentions of the speakers?



Change in the intentions of the speakers?– Formerly: TT seen as an attempt to speak Standard Dutch

• intermediate stage• cf. interlanguage in second language acquisition (Beheydt 1993,

Geeraerts 1999).• TT as the highest attainable level!

– Hypothesis: now in addition, TT with no intention of speaking SD• Language used at home (replacement of dialect) (De Caluwe 2000)• Hypocorrect language: “deliberately more careless use of language

by highly educated people” (Plevoets 2009, p. 5)



Consequences of this hypothesis? Now different types of TT alongside one another

• TT as interlanguage• TT as home language• TT as hypocorrect language

TT considered as a thread to Standard Dutchcf. debate about TT in Flanders:

• Wrong intentions of the speakers• No attempt to speak Standard Dutch


1. Introduction – Research question

This hypothesis still remains largely uninvestigated• Perceptions and intentions of Flemish language users are

still underexposed (De Caluwe 2009)• Linguists project their knowledge and perceptions on

linguistic lays (De Caluwe 2009: 9):Supposing that the average language user in general, and young people in particular, perceive and value the current variation of dialectical, regiolectical, standard and English forms differently from language specialists, the future of Dutch in Flanders might be quite different from what specialists think and hope [my translation, CL].

Here: perceptions of linguistic lays = centre of attention!Saint Petersburg - Tuesday, November 20 -

Chloé Lybaert 7

2. Ideological background• Debate on TT against the background of the Flemish

history of standardization:– 19th-20th century: dominance of French in FlandersÞ Flemish opposition, esp. by the Flemish Movement• = a political movement for emancipation and greater autonomy of

the Belgian region of Flanders, for protection of the Dutch language, and for the over-all protection of Flemish culture and history

• Internal conflict: Integrationists vs. particularists• Take-over of the Dutch language as it is spoken in the Netherlands

– Strong climate of standardization in Flanders.– 1950 – 1980: Hyperstandardization (Van Hoof & Jaspers 2012)=> Language use in Flanders strongly ideologized!


3. Spoken language use in Flanders• Standardization of spoken Dutch in Flanders:– Formal spoken language bears close resemblance to

spoken language in the Netherlands• BUT: hardly ever spoken in reality • “Sunday suit” (Geeraerts 2001)

– Room for an informal spoken SD? (De Caluwe 2009)• Informal SD closely resembles formal SD• Standard = too high

Hardly ever spoken Use of an umgangssprache instead Use of tussentaal


3. Spoken language use in Flanders

Status of TT?– Area of tension between TT and SD– What is the status of Standard Dutch?• cf. European research network Standard Language

Ideology in Contemporary Europe (SLICE)• 2 possible scenario’s

– Destandardization (Fairclough 1992): abandoning the standard language ideal

– Demoticization (Mattheier 1997): incorporation of variation


3. Spoken language use in Flanders

Applied to the Flemish language situation:– Destandardization: standard language vacuum

(Grondelaers et al. 2011)• Imported norm hardly ever used• No replacement

– Demoticization (Plevoets 2008): • Expansion of the norm, incorporation of tussentaal• Standard Dutch with a formal and informal pole


3. Spoken language use in FlandersÞ Lack of perceptional and attitudinal data:

[T]here is an equally problematic absence of perception data, pertaining to lay evaluations of ongoing change […] it is essential to find out what untrained members of the speech community think and feel about norm relaxations such as audible regional accents in the standard (Grondelaers & Van Hout 2011, p. 201).


4. Case study4.1. Research question4.2. Research design4.3. Stimulus material4.4. Informants4.5. Analysis


4.1. Case study: Research questionMacro variation

Lack of research data on perceptions and attitudes of the average language user:

• “a general folk theory of language” (Preston 2002)

• Perception of the Flemish language situation

• Knowledge on tussentaal• Attitudes towards regional

variation in Standard Dutch

TOPIC OF TODAY

Micro variationLack of research data on the

salience of language features

WORK IN PROGRESS


4.2. Case study: Research design• 80 informants – spoken interview – 7 audio fragments• Conversation about the fragments and about language use in

Flanders in general• Conversation about linguistic features• Reported perceptions and attitudes are central: language

regard (Preston 2010)• Questions:

– Introductory question: How would you describe the Dutch language situation to someone who has never been to Belgium?

– Questions on language use in the audio fragments• Which language is spoken in this fragment?• On which features do you base your judgment?


4.3. Case study: Stimulus material • 7 fragments containing natural language use• Source: The Spoken Dutch Corpus (only

spontaneous conversations and interviews)• Fragments spoken in Standard Dutch or

Tussentaal (from diverse regions)– Fragments spoken in TT:

• Pronunciation: SD, but with a regional accent (cf. tertiary dialect characteristics (Rys & Taeldeman 2007))

• Some morphological and syntactical dialecticisms• Vocabulary = informal, but no dialect vocabulary


4.4. Case study: informants • 80 informants:– Constant factors:• Educational level: high• Mother tongue: Dutch

– Independent variables:• Age: °1988-1991 & °1961-1970• Regional distribution: East-Flanders, West-Flanders,

Brabant (= Antwerpen & Vlaams-Brabant) & Limburg• Sex: male/female


4.4. Case study: informants


Edu. level High

Birth year 1961-1970 1988-1991Sex M V M VRegion B O

VWV

L B OV

WV

L B OV

WV

L B OV

WV

L

N°: 80 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4.5. Case study: Analysis• Reported knowledge and perception central:

What do the informants say about the Flemish language situation?

• Results qualitatively analysed: processing the interviews

• Linguistic lays: – Reflecting on language for the first time?– Other view on language (not an inferior view!)– Other vocabulary (+ terminology does not always

cover the same ground)Saint Petersburg - Tuesday, November 20 -

Chloé Lybaert 19

5. Results: prototypical DIA and SD• Most informants have a similar idea on what

SD and DIA prototypically is. • Cf. prototype theory in cognitive science– Linguistics: semantics (vb. Lakoff 1987)• Furniture: chair vs. table/bed

– Here: “cognitive sociolinguistics” (vb. Kristiansen 2008, Geeraerts 2010)


5. Results: prototypical DIA and SDPrototypical SD

• Language characteristics:– Full articulation of words– No dialect vocabulary– No regional accent=> Clearly understandable language

• Area of use:– The national station, teachers (of

Dutch) & politicians– Always useable, esp. in formal

situations

• Mostly asks a lot of effort from the speakers

• Normative ring: polished speech, correct speech, etc.

Prototypical DIA• Language characteristics:

– Dialect vocabulary– Regional pronunciation=> Hard to understand: strong

regional differences

• Area of use:– Regional language use– Informal language use– Often used by older people

• No effort• Normative ring: “plat” (coarse

language)Saint Petersburg - Tuesday, November 20 -

Chloé Lybaert 21

5. Results: prototypical DIA and SDPrototypical SD

OVMJ1: ja da’s al AN vind ‘k INT: ja en waaraan herken je dat dan? OVMJ1: alles alles deftig uitgesproken INT: ja OVMJ1: geen dialectwoorden bijna

OVMJ2: da’s duidelijk AN INT: ja en is ’t duidelijk uit welke regio de spreker komt? OVMJ2: ‘k zou ’t echt niet weten ze spreekt echt wel heel AN

OVMJ5: pff ja der wordt vanalles gesproken hé natuurlijk maar ge kunt wel bij iedereen overweg met standaardtaal

INT: dus wat wordt er dan gesproken? vooral dialect? LMJ2: via ik vind het vooral veel dialect er zijn maar weinig mensen die echt correct AN spreken INT: ja LMJ2: enkel volgens mij maar op het VRT-nieuws ofzo

Prototypical DIAINT: ja ja en waarom vind je dat dan

dialect of BMJ5: ja ja ik zeg het euh ze gebruikt bepaalde woorden die niet overal voorkomen INT: ja BMJ5: en ja die klanken die intonatie da’s echt wel euh

LVO3: ja de dialecten hé INT: ja ja en LVO3: per regio en per bijna per dorp bijna hebde een ander dialect

INT: ja en euhm in welke situaties is dat gepast? WVVJ5: euh in een informele situatie INT: ja en wat vind je zelf van dat taalgebruik? WVVJ5: euhm ja als ’t informeel is dan vind ik dat dat zeker mag INT: ja WVVJ5: maar en zeker tussen twee West-Vlamingen


Saint Petersburg - Tuesday, November 20 - Chloé Lybaert

23

5. Results: prototypical DIA and SDMindmap invoegen als voorbeeld

5. Results: variation in SDIs a regional accent allowed in (less prototypical) Standard Dutch? • 13/80: Unclear

– Not/hardly mentioned during the interview– (apparently ?) contradictory statements of one informant

• 23/80: Regional accent unacceptable– Regional accent: approximation of SD, attempt to speak SD, etc.

• 11/80: Slight accent acceptable• 33/80: Accent acceptable

– Not necessarily tolerant towards all accents– Often a case of not being able to speak without an accent


5. Results: tussentaalStrong variation in how tussentaal is recognised and named: • All the informants recognise language use in between SD

& DIA…but many still have a bipolar/diglossic model.

• 25/80 knows and uses the term tussentaal or Verkavelingsvlaams (= language spoken on real estates):

– Usually described with reference to SD and the dialects– Not really SD, not really DIA– In-between-language, mixture– According to some: TT as an attempt to speak SD– Gradations of TT


5. Results: tussentaal– Other informants:

• Other term (not tussentaal): – Regiolect– Spreektaal (= Spoken language)– Omgangstaal (=umgangssprache)– Vlaams (= Flemish)– Gekuist dialect (=Polished dialect)– Vertrouwenstaal (= confidential language)

• Description (cf. descriptions of the term tussentaal) => further research required

=> Not everyone knows and recognises tussentaal because they have learnt about it at school! Also spontaneous recognition!


6. Summary• Perception of the Flemish language situation

by linguistic lays + attitudes towards accent variation in Standard Dutch– Prototypical conception of SD & DIA– Diverse attitudes towards accent variation in SD – Recognition of in-between-language• Different ways of describing in-between-language: TT,

other terminology or description• Reference to SD and DIA


References• Auer, P. (2005). Europe's sociolinguistic unity, or A Typology of European

Dialect/Standard Constellations. In N. Delbecque, J. Van Der Auwera & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on Variation (pp. 7-42). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

• Beheydt, L. (1993). De toekomst van het Nederlands. Een nieuwe taalstrijd? In L. Beheydt (Ed.), Tussen taal en staat: vooruitkijken voor Vlaanderen (pp. 75-94). Leuven: Davidsfonds.

• De Caluwe, J. (2000). Over de functie en status van tussentaal in Vlaanderen. Viering 20 jaar taalunie: conferentie taalbeleid en taalvariatie.

• De Caluwe, J. (2009). Tussentaal wordt omgangstaal in Vlaanderen. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 14, 8-25.

• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.• Geeraerts, D. (1999). Noch standaard, noch dialect. 'Tussentaal' in

Vlaanderen en Nederland. Onze Taal, 9, 232-235.


References• Geeraerts, D. (2001). Een zondagspak? Het Nederlands in Vlaanderen: gedrag, beleid,

attitudes. Ons Erfdeel, 44, 337-344.• Geeraerts, D. (2010). Schmidt redux: How systematic is the linguistic system if variation is

rampant. In K. Boye & E. Engeberg-Pederson (Eds.), Language Usage and Language Structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

• Grondelaers, S., & Van Hout, R. (2011). The Standard Language Situation in the Low Countries: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Variations on a Diaglossic Theme. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 23(3), 199-243.

• Grondelaers, S., Van Hout, R., & Speelman, D. (2011). A perceptual typology of standard language situations in the Low Countries. In T. Kristiansen & N. Coupland (Eds.), Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 199-222). Oslo: Novus Press.

• Jaspers, J. (2001). Het Vlaamse stigma. Over tussentaal en normativiteit. Taal en Tongval, 53(2), 129-153.

• Kristiansen, G. (2008). Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cogintive approach to lectal variation. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (pp. 45-88). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.


References• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the

Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.• Mattheier, K. (1997). Über destandardiseiering, Umstandardisierung and Standardisiering in

modernen Europäischen Standardsprachen? In K. Mattheier & E. Radtke (Eds.), Standardisierung und Destandardisierung Europäischer Nationalsprachen. (pp. 1-9). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

• Plevoets, K. (2008). Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfo-syntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.

• Plevoets, K. (2009). Verkavelingsvlaams als de voertaal van de verburgerlijking van Vlaanderen. Studies van de BKL, 4.

• Preston, D. (2002). Language with an attitude. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 40-66). Oxford/Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publichers.

• Preston, D. (2010). Perceptual Dialectology in the 21st Century. In A. Anders, M. Hundt & A. Lasch (Eds.), Perceptual dialectology. Neue Wege der Dialektologie (pp. 1-29). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.


References• Rys, K., & Taeldeman, J. (2007). Fonologische ingrediënten van

Vlaamse tussentaal. In D. Sandra, R. Rymenans, P. Cuvelier & P. Van Petegem (Eds.), Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Essays bij het emeritaat van Frans Daems. (pp. 23-34). Gent: Academia Press.

• Van Gijsel, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). Style shifting in commercials. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 205-226.

• Van Hoof, S., & Jaspers, J. (2012). Hyperstandaardisering. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 128(2), 97-125.

• Willemyns, R. (2005). Verkavelingsbrabants. Werkt het integratiemodel ook voor tussentalen? Neerlandica Extra Muros, 43, 27-40.


Documents

Spoken Dutch in Flanders: Perceptions and attitudes of the Dutch language situation by non-linguists Chloé Lybaert [email protected] Supervisor: Prof