geert driessen (2005) lcc in dutch? usage of dutch regional languages and dialects

In Dutch?1 Usage of Dutch RegionalLanguages and Dialects

Geert DriessenITS – Institute for Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen,P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands

This article examines the use of regional languages and dialects of Dutch in theNetherlands, and the relation of such to the Dutch language proficiency of primaryschool pupils. The data from the large-scale primary education PRIMA cohortstudy are analysed. A total of nearly 35,000 pupils participated in five measurementrounds covering the period 1995 through 2003. Insight is thus provided into themost recent situation and the developments during this period. Two developmentsstood out in particular. A considerable intergenerational decrease in the use ofregional languages and dialects within families, on the one hand, and across years,on the other hand. Only a weak relation between the use of regional languages anddialects and language proficiency is detected, moreover. The conclusions do nothold for each and every regional language and dialect studied here. The position ofLimburgish proved interesting in particular.

Keywords: dialects, regional languages, language proficiency, large-scale research,The Netherlands

Regional Languages and Dialects in the NetherlandsIn the Netherlands, the language for usage in formal domains is Standard

Dutch. In addition to Standard Dutch, a high-brow variety exists, namelyAlgemeen Beschaafd Nederlands (ABN, General Civilised Dutch). In contrast toStandard Dutch, which can be regionally coloured, ABN is accentless,spoken by few and therefore functions as a mental concept or norm forall speakers of Dutch.

Beyond Standard Dutch and ABN, there are also three regional languageswhich are recognised by the European Charter for Regional or MinorityLanguages: Frisian, Low Saxon and Limburgish. In an initiative to protect thesmaller languages within the European Community, two levels of recognitionare discerned by the European Council. Frisian is spoken in the Dutch provinceof Friesland (for an overview of the Dutch provinces, see Figure 1) and has thehighest level of recognition or level III. This means that the Frisian provincialgovernment is obliged to actively promote the use of Frisian. This is done bypresenting the names of towns and villages in both Dutch and Frisian, by pro-viding Frisian as an integral part of the primary school curriculum (i.e. as acompulsory subject and medium of instruction) and by permitting the courtsto conduct their proceedings in Frisian. The inhabitants of Friesland can alsochoose Dutch or Frisian as their official first language. Nearly 60% of the popu-lation of the province or 350,000 inhabitants report Frisian to be their firstlanguage and some 75% of the inhabitants can speak Frisian. Since 1980,

1

0790-8318/05/03 001-15 $20.00/0 # 2005 G. DriessenLANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM Vol. 18, No. 3, 2005

Frisian is taught in all Frisian primary schools and together with Dutch, it isused as a teaching medium in 80% of the schools. In secondary schools,pupils can choose Frisian as a final examination subject but only 5% of thepupils have been found to do so.

Low Saxon and Limburgish have level II recognition which means that thegovernment acknowledges the fact that these are not dialects of Dutch.Unlike the Frisians, however, the inhabitants of the relevant regions cannotchoose Low Saxon or Limburgish as their official first language. There are noclear regulations with regard to how the government should support the useof these regional languages. Low Saxon is spoken in the provinces of

Figure 1 The provinces of the Netherlands

2 Language, Culture and Curriculum

Groningen, Drenthe, Overijssel and Gelderland. An estimated 60% of the popu-lation of these provinces or 1,800,000 inhabitants speak Low Saxon. In publicorganisations and services, Low Saxon is spoken to differing degrees withmutual comprehensibility holding as the criterion for use. Low Saxon as aschool subject is rare, however.

Limburgish is spoken in the province of Limburg. About 75% of the popu-lation of Limburg or 900,000 inhabitants are able to speak Limburgish. In con-trast to the other Dutch regional languages and dialects, Limburgish is not onlyspoken by the lower classes, but also by the middle and elite classes.Limburgish is also used in both formal and informal situations. Limburgishenjoys high social prestige in the province of Limburg and certainly in the pro-vincial capital, Maastricht. Although Limburgish is not taught as a schoolsubject, it is often used to communicate at school.

Many dialects are also spoken in the Netherlands. In the province of NoordBrabant, Brabantish is spoken. However, no figures are available as to thenumber of speakers of this dialect. Zeelandic is spoken in the province ofZeeland by an estimated 60% of the population or some 250,000 inhabitants.The regional and local governments do not show much interest in thedialect, but the status of Zeelandic is nevertheless open to debate and effortsare currently being made to have Zeelandic recognized as an official regionallanguage. The dialects spoken in the provinces of Noord Holland, ZuidHolland, Utrecht and Flevoland are not considered separate dialects as theyhardly differ from Standard Dutch. This group of dialects is calledHollandish, and most speakers of Hollandish do not see themselves as speak-ing a dialect although their use of the language has the characteristics of adialect.

The economic, demographic, political and cultural centre of the Netherlandsor the so-called ‘Randstad’ is situated in the provinces of Noord Holland,Zuid Holland and Utrecht. The Randstad is the area delimited by the fourbiggest cities in the west and mid-west of the Netherlands: Amsterdam,Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht. The greater the distance from the west(i.e. the Randstad), the greater the distance from Standard Dutch. Outsidethe Randstad (i.e. in the north, east and south of the Netherlands), the popu-lation density is much lower but the regional languages and dialects have arelatively strong position (Council of Europe, 1992; de Vries et al., 1993;Hagen, 1989; Hagen & Giesbers, 1988; Landenweb, 2004; Streektaal.net,2004; Stroop, 1998; U.S. English Foundation, 2004; van Hout, 1984;Wikipedia, 2004).

Very little information is available on the number of people who speak aregional language or dialect in the Netherlands and, if such information isavailable, it is almost always based on local or regional surveys and smallsamples. There is even less information available with regard to developmentsin the use of different regional languages and dialects. In general, the loss ofregional languages and dialects has been found to occur first in cities andthen in the countryside, and first among the upper and middle social classesand then the lower classes in the Netherlands. Degree of urbanisation andsocial class are clearly interrelated with the use of regional languages anddialects almost always equated with the lower social classes in the cities but

Dutch Regional Languages and Dialects 3

generally associated with all social classes in the country. Rural languages anddialects often have less of a stigma attached to them than urban language var-ieties simply because rural languages and dialects are an expression of local orregional identity and therefore not social status. It is also more often the case inrural areas than in urban areas that people learn Standard Dutch withoutgiving up their language variety. Another factor influencing the use of languagevariety is age: the number of young people who do not speak (or better, who donot learn) a regional language or dialect is increasing faster than the number ofolder people who no longer speak the language variety. In addition to smallernumbers of speakers, the number of domains in which a regional language ordialect is spoken may also decline (‘functional loss’). And a clear trend towardsregional language or dialect speaking parents increasingly speaking StandardDutch with their children can be seen in the Netherlands (Belemans, 2002;Boves & Vousten, 1996; Hagen, 1989; Hagen & Giesbers, 1988; Hinskens et al.,1993; Hoppenbrouwers, 1990; Streektaal.net, 2004; U.S. English Foundation,2004; van Hout, 1998).

When Driessen and Withagen (1999) reviewed Dutch research on therelations between the use of regional languages and dialects and educationalachievement, they found only a very few studies. In fact, there were no morethan six studies across a period of 25 years. In some studies, no negativeeffects of speaking a regional language or dialect were found for educationalachievement. In other studies, those pupils who spoke a regional language ordialect were found to have a poorer command of Standard Dutch and dofollow lower forms of secondary education than pupils who did not speak aregional language or dialect. On the basis of their own empirical data from1995, Driessen and Withagen conclude that parents’ educational level and pro-vince of residence are relevant for the explanation of differences in the StandardDutch and arithmetic test results for pupils. Most remarkable were the resultsfor the provinces of Limburg and Friesland. The children from both provincesspoke a regional language in about half of the different language domains con-sidered on average. Yet the pupils from Limburg performed best and the pupilsfrom Friesland performed worst on the achievement tests, even after control forsocial milieu. Within the two provinces, moreover, no differences existedbetween those pupils who generally spoke Dutch and those pupils who gener-ally spoke Limburgish or Frisian.

In two more recent studies by van Langen and Hulsen (2001) and vanRuijven (2003), the achievement of Frisian primary and secondary school chil-dren was examined and – in keeping with the findings of Driessen andWithagen (1999) – found to be much lower than the achievement of childrenfrom other provinces, even after control for social milieu. Although the studyby van Langen and Hulsen included information on the actual use of Frisianby the pupils and their parents, the effects of this on the children’s StandardDutch language achievement were not examined. As already noted, vanRuijven also found Frisian primary school children to achieve lower thanother primary school children but did not correlate home language withachievement. Van Ruijven nevertheless concludes that differences in the levelof secondary education attained cannot be attributed to language choice (i.e.Frisian or Dutch).


In order to gain greater insight into the current situation and the develop-ments since 1995, a new study of relations between use of a regional languagesand dialects and achievement was undertaken. In their previous empiricalstudy, Driessen and Withagen (1999) examined (1) the use of a regionallanguages and dialects by parents and their children, and (2) the relationsbetween the language or dialect spoken at home, parental backgroundcharacteristics and the children’s educational achievement. The first – 1995 –measurement round from the Dutch cohort study Primary Education(PRIMA) was used for this purpose. Since then, four more measurementrounds have taken place with the last round conducted in 2003. The presentstudy therefore provides an update on the earlier study with a focus on thesituation in 2003 and the developments since 1995.

Sample, instruments and variables

As part of the PRIMA study, test and questionnaire data have been collectedonce every two years from primary school pupils, parents, teachers, and schooladministrators. The present analyses are based on the results of the first fivemeasurement rounds conducted in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003. A total of60,000 pupils in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8 from 600 schools have been included ineach round. For the present analyses use was made of the data from thefourth grade pupils (approximately eight years of age) measured in 1995 andthe second grade pupils (approximately six years of age) measured in 1997,1999, 2001 and 2003. Those children with both parents born in theNetherlands (i.e. the autochthonous children) were selected from the nationallyrepresentative PRIMA sample. This restriction left a total of 34,240 pupils or7000 pupils per measurement round for the analyses. For more extensivedescriptions of the PRIMA database, the reader is referred to Driessen andHaanstra (1996), Driessen et al. (2000, 2002, 2004) and Driessen et al. (1998).

The parents of the pupils completed an extensive questionnaire with ques-tions regarding – among other things – to socio-economic status (SES), ageof the parents and language choice patterns within the family. Socio-economicstatus was operationalised as the highest level of education completed by theparents. The categories ranged from (1) no more than primary education to(7) university education. Mothers’ age was available for only two measurementrounds, namely 1995 and 1997. The categories distinguished for age were: (1)less than 30 years, (2) 30–34 years, (3) 35–39 years and (4) 40 years or older.2

The following question concerning the choice of language or dialect (hence-forth: language choice) in the home was posed from the perspective of theparents: which language do you generally speak with your partner: (1)Dutch or (2) a Dutch dialect or Frisian?3 Four questions concerning languagechoice from the child’s perspective for four domains were also posed: whichlanguage does the child generally use: (a) with the mother, (b) with thefather, (c) with siblings, (d) with friends: (1) Dutch or (2) a Dutch dialect orFrisian?

In addition to these data, information was available with regard to the villageor city and the province in which a pupil lived. The former provides anindication of the degree of urbanisation using the following categories: (1)the so-called Big 4: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht, (2) 21


other big cities, (3) urbanised rural areas and (4) rural areas. The informationwith regard to province of residence was used to distinguish the six regionallanguage and dialect regions (henceforth: language region): (1) Frisian, (2)Low Saxon, (3) Limburgish, (4) Brabantish, (5) Zeelandic and (6) Hollandish.4

The language tests administered as part of the PRIMA study were developedby the Dutch National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO). The testadministered in 2003 for grade 2 indicated the level of Dutch pre-reading skills,consisted of 60 multiple-choice items and had a reliability of 0.96. The scores forthis test were the total number of items answered correctly.

ResultsLanguage choice of parents and children

In Table 1 the percentages of the parents and children reporting speaking aparticular regional language or dialect in various domains of functioning arepresented according to year and language region. In the bottom part of thetable regional language and dialect usage for The Netherlands as a whole ispresented. Five domains of functioning were distinguished: mother withfather, child with mother, child with father, child with siblings and child withfriends. The question here is whether there are any developments in theusage of regional languages and dialects during the period 1995–2003. To sum-marise this development two coefficients are presented. The eta coefficient rep-resents the total correlation between language choice and year. In addition, thePearson r coefficient is presented to indicate the linear correlation. To interpretthese coefficients, the criteria of Cohen (1988) were taken as a guideline:0.10 ¼ weak; 0.30 ¼ medium; and 0.50 ¼ strong. Eta2 � 100 indicates the per-centage of the variance in language choice explained by year. The coefficientseta and r both give an indication of the correlation between language choiceand the year of measurement. If there is no difference between both coefficientsthis indicates that the development is a linear or straight-lined process. Inaddition to the percentages per year the difference between the last and firstyear of measurement are presented in the form of percent points. It shouldbe noted, however, that the interpretation of this difference is somewhat ambi-guous in case of a non-linear relation.

With respect to the parental choice of language, a total of 27% of all theparents in the Netherlands in 1995 spoke a regional language or dialectamong themselves. In 2003, this number declined to 18%. Although the accom-panying eta is no more than 0.08 and thus reflects a very weak correlation, areduction of one third is still apparent. Limburgish is spoken most in each ofthe years, followed by Frisian, Zeelandic, Low Saxon and Brabantish;Hollandish is hardly spoken. Although the relation between language choiceand year is not always perfectly linear, a declining trend is nevertheless appa-rent for each of the regional languages and dialects. In 1995, for instance, Frisianwas spoken by 60% of the parents living in Friesland; in 2003, this percentagehad dropped to 41%. This is a decline of no less than 19 percentage points oralmost one third. The use of Limburgish, however, remained rather stableand only showed a small decrease between 2001 and 2003 with 57% of theparents living in Limburg still speaking Limburgish in 2003.


Table 1 Percentage of respondents reporting using a regional language or dialect forvarious domains of functioning, according to language region and year

Language region Domains 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2003–1995 eta r

Frisian Mother-Father 60 51 52 45 41 219 0.14 20.13

Child-Mother 51 41 46 40 32 219 0.13 20.12

Child-Father 53 43 47 42 33 220 0.13 20.12

Child-Siblings 52 41 46 40 34 218 0.13 20.11

Child-Friends 48 33 41 34 23 225 0.18 20.15

Low Saxon Mother-Father 34 28 30 24 28 26 0.07 20.05

Child-Mother 7 6 6 5 5 22 0.04 20.03

Child-Father 8 7 7 6 6 22 0.03 20.03

Child-Siblings 7 6 6 5 4 23 0.03 20.03

Child-Friends 6 5 6 5 4 22 0.04 20.03

Limburgish Mother-Father 63 65 66 64 57 26 0.06 20.03

Child-Mother 50 53 55 49 46 24 0.06 20.03

Child-Father 51 54 56 50 46 25 0.07 20.03

Child-Siblings 50 54 54 51 47 23 0.05 20.02

Child-Friends 42 42 50 40 39 23 0.08 20.01

Brabantish Mother-Father 19 15 14 13 12 27 0.07 20.06

Child-Mother 4 3 4 3 2 22 0.03 20.03

Child-Father 4 3 3 4 3 21 0.02 20.01

Child-Siblings 4 3 3 3 3 21 0.03 20.02

Child-Friends 5 3 3 3 3 22 0.04 20.03

Zeelandic Mother-Father 33 38 36 25 32 21 0.10 20.05

Child-Mother 17 23 17 12 12 25 0.11 20.08

Child-Father 17 25 22 14 13 24 0.12 20.08

Child-Siblings 17 26 22 15 14 23 0.12 20.07

Child-Friends 14 24 20 14 16 þ2 0.10 20.04

Hollandish Mother-Father 4 2 2 1 3 21 0.07 20.03

Child-Mother 2 1 1 0 1 21 0.06 20.02

Child-Father 2 1 1 1 1 21 0.06 20.01

Child-Siblings 2 5 1 0 1 21 0.07 20.01

Child-Friends 2 5 1 0 1 21 0.07 20.01

The Netherlands Mother-Father 27 22 20 18 18 29 0.08 20.08

Child-Mother 13 12 10 8 8 25 0.07 20.07

Child-Father 14 12 10 9 8 26 0.06 20.06

Child-Siblings 13 12 10 9 8 25 0.06 20.06

Child-Friends 12 9 9 7 7 25 0.06 20.06


The data with respect to the children show a different picture. In general, thechildren spoke a regional language or dialect much less than their parents did.The differences for the Low Saxon and Brabantish language regions are particu-larly marked. While roughly 30% of the parents in the Low Saxon region spokethis regional language, only 6% of their children did so. For Brabantish, thepicture is about the same. In the provinces of Limburg and Friesland,however, the differences between the parents and children are much lesspronounced.

Principal component analyses were next performed for the four domains oflanguage functioning involving the children. One general factor was found toexplain 89% of the variance in the language choice scores with a reliability of0.97. A new variable was thus constructed by counting the relative numberof domains in which the child used a regional language or dialect across thefour domains of functioning. The score on this variable could thus rangefrom 0% (Standard Dutch spoken in all four domains) to 100% (regionallanguage or dialect spoken in all four domains). In addition, a variable includ-ing the language choice of the parents was constructed and found to explain79% of the variance in the parent and child language choice scores consideredtogether with a reliability of 0.94. This variable involved the relative number ofdomains in which a regional language or dialect was used by the child and hisor her parents. The score on this variable could range from 0% (Standard Dutchspoken in all five domains) to 100% (regional language or dialect spoken in allfive domains). In Table 2, an overview of the scores (in percentages) for the useof the different regional languages and dialects in the strictly child versus child

Table 2 Relative number of times respondents report using a regional language ordialect in strictly child versus child plus parent domains of functioning, according tolanguage region and year

Language region Domains 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 eta r

Frisian Child 40 31 35 30 24 0.15 20.14

Childþ parents 52 42 47 40 33 0.15 20.13

Low Saxon Child 5 4 5 4 4 0.03 20.03

Childþ parents 13 11 12 10 10 0.05 20.04

Limburgish Child 38 39 41 36 34 0.07 20.03

Childþ parents 51 54 57 51 47 0.07 20.02

Brabantish Child 3 3 3 2 2 0.03 20.02

Childþ parents 7 6 6 5 5 0.04 20.04

Zeelandic Child 13 19 16 11 11 0.11 20.07

Childþ parents 19 27 24 17 18 0.11 20.06

Hollandish Child 2 0 0 0 1 0.07 20.01

Childþ parents 2 1 1 1 2 0.07 20.02

The Netherlands Child 10 9 8 6 6 0.07 20.06

Childþ parents 16 14 12 11 10 0.07 20.07


plus parent domains of functioning is presented for the different languageregions and years between 1995 and 2003.

For the Netherlands as a whole in 1995, a regional language or dialect wasused in an average of 16% of the five domains (i.e. in less than one domain).By 2003, this percentage had dropped to 10. The most substantial decrease isapparent for Friesland with usage of Frisian in half of the domains in 1995and only one third in 2003. The data for the strictly child domains show a com-parable trend.

Language choice, SES, parental age and urbanisation

To examine the relations between socio-economic status and language choicethe data from the most recent PRIMAmeasurement in 2003 were used. The cor-relations between the children’s use of a regional language or dialect or the chil-dren’s plus the parents’ use of a regional language or dialect and parentaleducational level were computed. The results for the total sample are shownin Table 3.

They show a linear relationship to exist between parental education and useof a regional language or dialect: the higher the level of education, the less theregional language or dialect is used. In families with a university education,the regional language or dialect is rarely spoken. When the relations areexamined for each of the six language regions separately, the results showthe correlations to be strongest for the Low Saxon region (up to 20.30) andless for the Hollandish region (as weak as 20.07). While the total correlation(eta) for Limburgish was found to be 0.19, the linear correlation (r) wasonly 20.06. This suggests differences across differently educated families butnot that less Limburgish is necessarily spoken by the higher educated families.The discrepancy in the correlations is caused by the fact that the senior generaleducated families speak Limburgish most (i.e. in 58% of the five domains)while the university educated families speak Limburgish least (i.e. in only19% of the five domains).

Whether a relation possibly exists betweenmaternal age and language choicewas next examined using the data from the second PRIMA measurement in1997. The results for the total sample are presented in Table 4. Only veryweak correlations were found for maternal age and language choice and,insofar a relation was found, this was mainly caused by the oldest age category(i.e. over the age of 40). Contrary to our expectation, however, the relation was

Table 3 Relative number of times respondents report using a regional language ordialect in strictly child versus child plus parent domains of functioning, according toparental level of education (PRIMA measurement 2003)

Parental level of education

Domains Primary Junior

vocational

Junior

general

Senior

vocational

Senior

general

Higher

professional

University eta r

Child 15 10 7 7 7 4 1 0.13 20.12

Childþ

parents22 17 12 12 11 7 2 0.16 20.15


negative: the older the mothers, the less the regional language or dialect wasspoken. But once again, the correlation was very weak. When analysed separ-ately, the results per language region differed only slightly from those for thetotal sample. In contrast to the other language regions, the correlations forFriesland and Limburg were positive: The older the mothers, the more theregional language or dialect was spoken. But once again, the correlationswere very weak at most (0.06).

The possibility of a relation between the degree of urbanization and languagechoice was examined using the data from the fifth PRIMA measurement in2003. The results for the total sample are presented in Table 5. The correlationsare both linear and positive with the regional languages and dialects beingmainly spoken in rural areas and rarely spoken in the Big 4 cities. When ana-lysed separately per language region medium correlations are found for theFrisian, Limburgish and Zeelandic regions (up to 0.26) and very weak corre-lations for the Brabantish and Hollandish regions (as weak as 0.01). In contrastto the other regions, the Low Saxon region produced correlations which werenonlinear. This was due to the fact that Low Saxon was spoken most in urba-nized rural areas.

Language choice and children’s language proficiency

In order to gain insight into the effects of the use of a regional language ordialect on Dutch language proficiency, two sets of analyses of variance wereperformed. The data used are those from the most recent PRIMAmeasurementin 2003. The results for the first set of analyses are presented in Table 6. In thefirst column, the average Dutch language proficiency scores per languageregion are given. In the second column, the deviations from the total meanscore, which was 46.0 with a standard deviation of 6.4, are presented. As

Table 4 Relative number of times respondents report using a regional language ordialect in strictly child versus child plus parent domains of functioning, according tomaternal age (PRIMA measurement 2003)

Maternal age

Domains Less than30 years

30–34 years 35–39 years 40 years andolder

eta r

Child 11 9 9 6 0.04 20.04

Childþ parents 16 14 14 10 0.05 20.04

Table 5 Relative number of times respondents report using a regional language ordialect in strictly child versus child plus parent domains of functioning, according todegree of urbanisation (PRIMA measurement 2003)

Degree of urbanisation

Domains Big 4 cities Other big cities Urbanisedrural areas

Ruralareas

eta r

Child 0 5 5 10 0.11 0.10

Childþ Parents 1 7 9 15 0.12 0.12


there are differences in the social milieu for the different language regions, thepossible influence of parental level of education was controlled for next (see thethird column). In the final column, the number of domains in which the parentsand children used the regional language or dialect was also controlled for. Inthe bottom row of the table, the correlations (eta) and partial correlations(beta) are further presented. The latter indicates the relation between languageregion and Dutch language proficiency after parental education and degree ofusage for the regional language or dialect have been controlled for.

As can be seen, only small differences in Dutch language proficiency arefound to occur for the different language regions. The difference betweenthe highest and lowest performing regions, namely Zeeland and Friesland,nevertheless amounts to 2.2 test items – which is one third of a standard devi-ation and therefore considered educationally relevant. The third column alsoshows the differences to remain almost unchanged after correction for parentaleducation. As can be seen from the last column, moreover, minimal or maximaluse of the regional language or dialect also does not change the children’sDutch language proficiency.

In the second set of analyses of variance, a slightly different perspective wasadopted. First, the deviation scores for the different language regions anddegree of regional language or dialect use were computed. For this purpose,three possible categories of regional language or dialect use were distin-guished: (1) use of the regional language of dialect in 0% or none of the fivedomains; (2) use in 20–60% of the domains; or (3) use in 61–100% of thedomains. The results are presented on the left side of Table 7. The resultsafter control for the possible influence of parental education are presented onthe right side of Table 7.

Inspection of the results on particularly the right side of the table suggeststhat one should not consider the Netherlands as a whole when attempting toidentify the role of regional language or dialect use in the school performanceof Dutch children. While the effect for the Netherlands is extremely small

Table 6 Dutch language proficiency, according to language region (PRIMAmeasurement 2003)

Languageregion

Unadjustedmeanscores

Unadjusteddeviationscores

Deviation scoresadjusted forparentaleducation

Deviation scoresadjusted for

parental educationand degree oflanguagevariety use

Frisian 45.0 21.0 21.1 21.1

Low Saxon 45.5 20.5 20.4 20.4

Limburgish 45.6 20.4 20.1 20.3

Brabantish 46.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

Zeelandic 47.2 1.2 1.2 1.1

Hollandish 46.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

eta ¼ 0.08 beta ¼ 0.07 beta ¼ 0.08


(beta ¼ 0.02) and clearly not relevant, the effects for some of the languageregions are found to be much larger and therefore very relevant. The effectsfor some of the language regions are positive while the effects for otherregions are negative, moreover. The most interesting results are for Limburgand Brabant. For Limburg, the corrected effect is positive and amounts to abeta of 0.17, which means that Dutch language proficiency increases as moreLimburgish is also spoken. For Brabant, the opposite is the case: In familieswhere Brabantish is spoken the most, the children’s Dutch language profi-ciency is also lowest. The difference between the children who do not speakBrabantish at all and the children who speak Brabantish in 60% or more ofthe five functional domains is 3.6 or more than half a standard deviation andthus educationally very relevant.

ConclusionsIn 1999, Driessen and Withagen published an article on the usage of Dutch

regional languages and dialects and the relations of such to the Dutch languageproficiency of primary school children. The 1995 data from the first measure-ment round of the PRIMA cohort study were analysed in that study. In thepresent study, the PRIMA data from a total of five measurement rounds wereanalysed, which provides both an update and overview of any developmentsfor the period 1995–2003.

With regard to the use of the PRIMA data, it is important that the followingbe mentioned. The participants in this study were parents and their children.The children’s age was six to eight years; 42% of their mothers were betweenthe ages of 35 and 39 years; only 15% of the mothers was 40 years or older;44% of the fathers were between the ages of 35 and 39 years; and 33% of thefathers was 40 years or older. This not only means that people without childrenwere not represented at all, but also that the sample was rather young andunderrepresented the older generations. This situation may have implications

Table 7 Dutch language proficiency, according to language region and degree ofregional language or dialect use (PRIMA measurement 2003)

Unadjusted deviation scores perdegree of regional language or

dialect use

Deviation scores per degreeof regional language or dialect

use adjusted for parentaleducation

Language region 0% 20–60% 61–100% eta 0% 20–60% 61–100% beta

Frisian 0.4 21.3 20.2 0.08 0.3 21.3 20.1 0.07

Low Saxon 20.1 0.6 21.8 0.07 20.3 1.0 20.3 0.09

Limburgish 21.3 0.3 1.0 0.15 21.2 20.5 1.2 0.17

Brabantish 0.2 0.0 24.4 0.13 0.1 0.4 23.7 0.11

Zeelandic 20.0 20.2 0.4 0.03 20.1 20.1 0.6 0.04

Hollandish 0.0 20.5 21.0 0.02 0.0 20.0 20.3 0.01

The Netherlands 0.1 21.0 21.0 0.03 20.0 0.3 20.2 0.02


for the representativeness of the results although virtually no relation wasobserved between parental age and use of a regional language or dialect.

The findings of the present study reveal two developments. First, there is aconsiderable intergenerational decrease in the use of regional languages anddialects within families: Compared to their parents, less than half of the chil-dren studied here spoke a regional language or dialect. Second, a markeddecline can be seen to have occurred over the years. In the period studiedhere, the number of parents and children who spoke a regional language ordialect decreased by more than one third. It should be mentioned, however,that these conclusions do not hold for each and every language region. Tworegions stand out in particular. The Limburgish situation is fairly constantand the Frisian situation is very much in decline. With regard to the relationbetween usage of regional language or dialect and Dutch language proficiency,the results for 2003 show this to be only very weak and to therefore not differfrom the results for 1995. Just as in 1995, significant differences between thelanguage regions were also seen in 2003. While use of a regional language ordialect virtually does not affect Dutch language proficiency for theNetherlands as a whole, the effect of speaking Limburgish is found to be edu-cationally relevant and positive, which means that children who speak moreLimburgish also have a relatively better Dutch language proficiency. ForBrabantish the opposite is found, which means that children in familieswhere Brabantish is spoken show relatively lower Dutch language proficiency.

With respect to the process of language shift and the erosion of regionallanguages and dialects, opinions differ with regard to the pace at which thisis happening. The present findings, which cover less than a decade, suggestthat things do not look good for most Dutch regional languages and dialects.Limburgish appears to constitute an exception to this general process ofdecline and dying out (cf. Kroon & Vallen, 2004). There is also debate withregard to whether this development is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Some feel the need toreverse language shift and see the loss of a language as the destruction of arooted identity (Fishman, 1991). Others see the loss of linguistic diversity as athreat to our future (Dalby, 2003). And still others are of the opinion thatlanguages do not die but are abandoned by their users for a more widelyspoken language and typically for purely practical reasons (Bentahila &Davies, 1990). There are also others who think that the promotion of minority,local and immigrant languages – which are all too often ill-equipped for con-temporary usage – only serves to strengthen the position of the dominantlanguage as the only common idiom: the more languages, the more English(de Swaan, 2003). Just who is right and who is wrong for many is of little rele-vance, however, as the development appears to be irreversible in light of theongoing and pervasive processes of internationalisation and globalisation.

Acknowledgements

The Social Sciences Research Council of the Netherlands Organization forScientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged for provision of thePRIMA data on which the empirical part of this article is based.


Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Geert Driessen, ITS – Institutefor Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9048,6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands ([email protected]; URL: www.geertdriessen.nl).

Notes1. In disgrace, in trouble (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).2. Note that mothers’ age was chosen for inclusion in the present analyses because

mothers are the primary caretakers, particularly with respect to very young children.3. At the time of the first PRIMAmeasurement rounds, Low Saxon and Limburgish had

not as yet been officially recognized as regional languages.4. It should be noted that the boundaries of the provinces do not exactly coincide with

the boundaries of the areas in which a regional language or dialect is spoken.

ReferencesBelemans, R. (2002) Eindrapport over de Limburg-Enquete. Leuven: KU Leuven.Bentahila, A. and Davies, E. (1990) On the Evaluation of Arabic Language and Culture

Lessons: Another Perspective. Fez: University of Fez.Boves, T. and Vousten, R. (1996) Thuistaal en schoolresultaten. In R. van Hout and

J. Kruijsen (eds) Taalvariaties. Toonzettingen en Modulaties op een Thema. Dordrecht:Foris.

Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Council of Europe (1992) European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg:Council of Europe.

Dalby, A. (2003) Language in Danger. The Loss of Linguistic Diversity and the Threat to OurFuture. New York: Columbia University Press.

De Swaan, A. (2003) Bedreigde talen, sociolinguıstiek en taalsentimentalisme. ToegepasteTaalwetenschap in Artikelen 70, 15–26.

De Vries, J., Willemyns, R. and Burger, P. (1993) Het Verhaal van een Taal. Negen EeuwenNederlands. Amsterdam: Prometheus.

Driessen, G. and Haanstra, F. (1996) De Oudervragenlijst Basisonderwijs en SpeciaalOnderwijs. Technische Rapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek 1994/95. Amsterdam/Nijmegen: SCO/ITS.

Driessen, G. andWithagen, V. (1999) Language varieties and educational achievement ofindigenous primary school pupils. Language, Culture and Curriculum 12, 1–22.

Driessen, G., van Langen, A., Portengen, R. and Vierke, H. (1998) Basisonderwijs:Veldwerkverslag, Leerlinggegevens en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Tweede Meting 1996–1997. Nijmegen: ITS.

Driessen, G., van Langen, A. and Vierke, H. (2000) Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag,Leerlinggegevens en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. DerdeMeting 1998/99. Nijmegen: ITS.

Driessen, G., van Langen, A. and Vierke, H. (2002) Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag,Leerlinggegevens en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. VierdeMeting 2000–2001. Nijmegen: ITS.

Driessen, G., van Langen, A. and Vierke, H. (2004) Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag,Leerlinggegevens en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. VijfdeMeting 2002–2003. Nijmegen: ITS.

Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations ofAssistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hagen, A. (1989) The Netherlands. In U. Ammon, K. Mattheier and P. Nelde (eds)Sociolinguistica. Volume 3 (pp. 61–74). Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Hagen, A. and Giesbers, H. (1988) Dutch sociolinguistic studies. International Journal ofthe Sociology of Language 73, 29–44.


Hinskens, F., Hoppenbrouwers, C. and Taeldeman, J. (1993) Dialectverlies en regiolect-vorming, een inleiding. Taal en Tongval, 6, 5–10.

Hoppenbrouwers, C. (1990) Het Regiolect. Van Dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands.Muiderberg: Coutinho.

Kroon, S. and Vallen, T. (eds) (2004) Dialect en School in Limburg. Amsterdam: AksantAcademic Publishers.

Landenweb (2004) Nederland. Taal. On WWW at www.landenweb.com. Accessed07/12/04.

Streektaal.net (2004) Language in the Netherlands. on WWW at http://taal.phileon.nl.Accessed 16/1/04.

Stroop, J. (1998) Poldernederlands. Waardoor het ABN Verdwijnt. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.U.S. English Foundation (2004) Official Language Research. On WWW at http://www.

usefoundation.org/foundation/research/olp/, Accessed 16/11/04.Van Els, T. (2001) The European Union, its institutions and its languages: Some language

political observations. Current Issues in Language Planning 2, 311–360.Van Hout, R. (1984) Sociolinguistics in the Netherlandic language area. In K. Deprez

(ed.) Sociolinguistics in the Low Countries (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Van Hout, R. (1998) Het sociolinguıstisch onderzoek van taalvariatie in stadsdialecten.Taal en Tongval, 5, 48–65.

Van Langen, A. and Hulsen, M. (2001) Prestaties van Leerlingen en het Gebruik van Fries alsVoertaal op Basisscholen in Friesland. Nijmegen: ITS.

Van Ruijven, E. (2003) Voorsprong of Achterstand. Onderzoek naar het Onderwijsniveau vande Friese Leerlingen in het Basisonderwijs en Voortgezet Onderwijs. Ljouwert: FryskeAkademy.

Wikipedia (2004) Dutch Language. On WWW at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language. Accessed 16/12/04.
