Geert Driessen (2005) LCC In Dutch? Usage of Dutch regional languages and dialects.

In Dutch?1
Usage of Dutch Regional
Languages and Dialects
Geert Driessen
ITS – 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 the
Netherlands, and the relation of such to the Dutch language proficiency of primary
school pupils. The data from the large-scale primary education PRIMA cohort
study are analysed. A total of nearly 35,000 pupils participated in five measurement
rounds covering the period 1995 through 2003. Insight is thus provided into the
most recent situation and the developments during this period. Two developments
stood out in particular. A considerable intergenerational decrease in the use of
regional 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 and
dialects and language proficiency is detected, moreover. The conclusions do not
hold for each and every regional language and dialect studied here. The position of
Limburgish proved interesting in particular.
Keywords: dialects, regional languages, language proficiency, large-scale research,
The Netherlands
Regional Languages and Dialects in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the language for usage in formal domains is Standard
Dutch. In addition to Standard Dutch, a high-brow variety exists, namely
Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands (ABN, General Civilised Dutch). In contrast to
Standard Dutch, which can be regionally coloured, ABN is accentless,
spoken by few and therefore functions as a mental concept or norm for
all speakers of Dutch.
Beyond Standard Dutch and ABN, there are also three regional languages
which are recognised by the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages: Frisian, Low Saxon and Limburgish. In an initiative to protect the
smaller languages within the European Community, two levels of recognition
are discerned by the European Council. Frisian is spoken in the Dutch province
of Friesland (for an overview of the Dutch provinces, see Figure 1) and has the
highest level of recognition or level III. This means that the Frisian provincial
government is obliged to actively promote the use of Frisian. This is done by
presenting 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 a
compulsory subject and medium of instruction) and by permitting the courts
to conduct their proceedings in Frisian. The inhabitants of Friesland can also
choose 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 first
language and some 75% of the inhabitants can speak Frisian. Since 1980,
1
0790-8318/05/03 001-15 $20.00/0 # 2005 G. Driessen
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM Vol. 18, No. 3, 2005

Frisian is taught in all Frisian primary schools and together with Dutch, it is
used 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 the
pupils have been found to do so.
Low Saxon and Limburgish have level II recognition which means that the
government acknowledges the fact that these are not dialects of Dutch.
Unlike the Frisians, however, the inhabitants of the relevant regions cannot
choose Low Saxon or Limburgish as their official first language. There are no
clear regulations with regard to how the government should support the use
of 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 public
organisations and services, Low Saxon is spoken to differing degrees with
mutual comprehensibility holding as the criterion for use. Low Saxon as a
school 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 only
spoken by the lower classes, but also by the middle and elite classes.
Limburgish is also used in both formal and informal situations. Limburgish
enjoys high social prestige in the province of Limburg and certainly in the pro-
vincial capital, Maastricht. Although Limburgish is not taught as a school
subject, it is often used to communicate at school.
Many dialects are also spoken in the Netherlands. In the province of Noord
Brabant, Brabantish is spoken. However, no figures are available as to the
number of speakers of this dialect. Zeelandic is spoken in the province of
Zeeland by an estimated 60% of the population or some 250,000 inhabitants.
The regional and local governments do not show much interest in the
dialect, but the status of Zeelandic is nevertheless open to debate and efforts
are currently being made to have Zeelandic recognized as an official regional
language. The dialects spoken in the provinces of Noord Holland, Zuid
Holland, Utrecht and Flevoland are not considered separate dialects as they
hardly differ from Standard Dutch. This group of dialects is called
Hollandish, and most speakers of Hollandish do not see themselves as speak-
ing a dialect although their use of the language has the characteristics of a
dialect.
The economic, demographic, political and cultural centre of the Netherlands
or the so-called ‘Randstad’ is situated in the provinces of Noord Holland,
Zuid Holland and Utrecht. The Randstad is the area delimited by the four
biggest 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. Outside
the 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 a
relatively 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 a
regional language or dialect in the Netherlands and, if such information is
available, it is almost always based on local or regional surveys and small
samples. There is even less information available with regard to developments
in the use of different regional languages and dialects. In general, the loss of
regional languages and dialects has been found to occur first in cities and
then in the countryside, and first among the upper and middle social classes
and then the lower classes in the Netherlands. Degree of urbanisation and
social class are clearly interrelated with the use of regional languages and
dialects 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 and
dialects 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 or
regional identity and therefore not social status. It is also more often the case in
rural areas than in urban areas that people learn Standard Dutch without
giving up their language variety. Another factor inﬂuencing the use of language
variety is age: the number of young people who do not speak (or better, who do
not learn) a regional language or dialect is increasing faster than the number of
older people who no longer speak the language variety. In addition to smaller
numbers of speakers, the number of domains in which a regional language or
dialect is spoken may also decline (‘functional loss’). And a clear trend towards
regional language or dialect speaking parents increasingly speaking Standard
Dutch 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 the
relations between the use of regional languages and dialects and educational
achievement, they found only a very few studies. In fact, there were no more
than six studies across a period of 25 years. In some studies, no negative
effects of speaking a regional language or dialect were found for educational
achievement. In other studies, those pupils who spoke a regional language or
dialect were found to have a poorer command of Standard Dutch and do
follow lower forms of secondary education than pupils who did not speak a
regional language or dialect. On the basis of their own empirical data from
1995, Driessen and Withagen conclude that parents’ educational level and pro-
vince of residence are relevant for the explanation of differences in the Standard
Dutch and arithmetic test results for pupils. Most remarkable were the results
for the provinces of Limburg and Friesland. The children from both provinces
spoke a regional language in about half of the different language domains con-
sidered on average. Yet the pupils from Limburg performed best and the pupils
from Friesland performed worst on the achievement tests, even after control for
social milieu. Within the two provinces, moreover, no differences existed
between 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 van
Ruijven (2003), the achievement of Frisian primary and secondary school chil-
dren was examined and – in keeping with the ﬁndings of Driessen and
Withagen (1999) – found to be much lower than the achievement of children
from other provinces, even after control for social milieu. Although the study
by van Langen and Hulsen included information on the actual use of Frisian
by the pupils and their parents, the effects of this on the children’s Standard
Dutch language achievement were not examined. As already noted, van
Ruijven also found Frisian primary school children to achieve lower than
other primary school children but did not correlate home language with
achievement. Van Ruijven nevertheless concludes that differences in the level
of 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 languages
and dialects and achievement was undertaken. In their previous empirical
study, Driessen and Withagen (1999) examined (1) the use of a regional
languages and dialects by parents and their children, and (2) the relations
between the language or dialect spoken at home, parental background
characteristics 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 measurement
rounds have taken place with the last round conducted in 2003. The present
study therefore provides an update on the earlier study with a focus on the
situation in 2003 and the developments since 1995.
Sample, instruments and variables
As part of the PRIMA study, test and questionnaire data have been collected
once every two years from primary school pupils, parents, teachers, and school
administrators. The present analyses are based on the results of the first five
measurement rounds conducted in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003. A total of
60,000 pupils in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8 from 600 schools have been included in
each round. For the present analyses use was made of the data from the
fourth grade pupils (approximately eight years of age) measured in 1995 and
the second grade pupils (approximately six years of age) measured in 1997,
1999, 2001 and 2003. Those children with both parents born in the
Netherlands (i.e. the autochthonous children) were selected from the nationally
representative PRIMA sample. This restriction left a total of 34,240 pupils or
7000 pupils per measurement round for the analyses. For more extensive
descriptions of the PRIMA database, the reader is referred to Driessen and
Haanstra (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), age
of the parents and language choice patterns within the family. Socio-economic
status was operationalised as the highest level of education completed by the
parents. The categories ranged from (1) no more than primary education to
(7) university education. Mothers’ age was available for only two measurement
rounds, 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 the
parents: which language do you generally speak with your partner: (1)
Dutch or (2) a Dutch dialect or Frisian?3
Four questions concerning language
choice from the child’s perspective for four domains were also posed: which
language does the child generally use: (a) with the mother, (b) with the
father, (c) with siblings, (d) with friends: (1) Dutch or (2) a Dutch dialect or
Frisian?
In addition to these data, information was available with regard to the village
or city and the province in which a pupil lived. The former provides an
indication 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 information
with regard to province of residence was used to distinguish the six regional
language 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 developed
by the Dutch National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO). The test
administered 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 for
this test were the total number of items answered correctly.
Results
Language choice of parents and children
In Table 1 the percentages of the parents and children reporting speaking a
particular regional language or dialect in various domains of functioning are
presented according to year and language region. In the bottom part of the
table regional language and dialect usage for The Netherlands as a whole is
presented. Five domains of functioning were distinguished: mother with
father, child with mother, child with father, child with siblings and child with
friends. The question here is whether there are any developments in the
usage 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, the
Pearson r coefficient is presented to indicate the linear correlation. To interpret
these 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
Â 100 indicates the per-
centage of the variance in language choice explained by year. The coefficients
eta and r both give an indication of the correlation between language choice
and the year of measurement. If there is no difference between both coefficients
this indicates that the development is a linear or straight-lined process. In
addition to the percentages per year the difference between the last and first
year of measurement are presented in the form of percent points. It should
be 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 the
parents in the Netherlands in 1995 spoke a regional language or dialect
among 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, a
reduction of one third is still apparent. Limburgish is spoken most in each of
the years, followed by Frisian, Zeelandic, Low Saxon and Brabantish;
Hollandish is hardly spoken. Although the relation between language choice
and 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, Frisian
was spoken by 60% of the parents living in Friesland; in 2003, this percentage
had dropped to 41%. This is a decline of no less than 19 percentage points or
almost one third. The use of Limburgish, however, remained rather stable
and only showed a small decrease between 2001 and 2003 with 57% of the
parents living in Limburg still speaking Limburgish in 2003.

Table 1 Percentage of respondents reporting using a regional language or dialect for
various 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, the
children 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 spoke
this regional language, only 6% of their children did so. For Brabantish, the
picture is about the same. In the provinces of Limburg and Friesland,
however, the differences between the parents and children are much less
pronounced.
Principal component analyses were next performed for the four domains of
language functioning involving the children. One general factor was found to
explain 89% of the variance in the language choice scores with a reliability of
0.97. A new variable was thus constructed by counting the relative number
of domains in which the child used a regional language or dialect across the
four domains of functioning. The score on this variable could thus range
from 0% (Standard Dutch spoken in all four domains) to 100% (regional
language or dialect spoken in all four domains). In addition, a variable includ-
ing the language choice of the parents was constructed and found to explain
79% of the variance in the parent and child language choice scores considered
together with a reliability of 0.94. This variable involved the relative number of
domains in which a regional language or dialect was used by the child and his
or her parents. The score on this variable could range from 0% (Standard Dutch
spoken in all ﬁve domains) to 100% (regional language or dialect spoken in all
ﬁve domains). In Table 2, an overview of the scores (in percentages) for the use
of the different regional languages and dialects in the strictly child versus child
Table 2 Relative number of times respondents report using a regional language or
dialect in strictly child versus child plus parent domains of functioning, according to
language region and year
Language region Domains 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 eta r
Frisian Child 40 31 35 30 24 0.15 20.14
Child þ parents 52 42 47 40 33 0.15 20.13
Low Saxon Child 5 4 5 4 4 0.03 20.03
Child þ parents 13 11 12 10 10 0.05 20.04
Limburgish Child 38 39 41 36 34 0.07 20.03
Child þ parents 51 54 57 51 47 0.07 20.02
Brabantish Child 3 3 3 2 2 0.03 20.02
Child þ parents 7 6 6 5 5 0.04 20.04
Zeelandic Child 13 19 16 11 11 0.11 20.07
Child þ parents 19 27 24 17 18 0.11 20.06
Hollandish Child 2 0 0 0 1 0.07 20.01
Child þ parents 2 1 1 1 2 0.07 20.02
The Netherlands Child 10 9 8 6 6 0.07 20.06
Child þ parents 16 14 12 11 10 0.07 20.07

plus parent domains of functioning is presented for the different language
regions and years between 1995 and 2003.
For the Netherlands as a whole in 1995, a regional language or dialect was
used 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 is
apparent for Friesland with usage of Frisian in half of the domains in 1995
and 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 choice
the data from the most recent PRIMA measurement 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 parental
educational level were computed. The results for the total sample are shown
in Table 3.
They show a linear relationship to exist between parental education and use
of a regional language or dialect: the higher the level of education, the less the
regional language or dialect is used. In families with a university education,
the regional language or dialect is rarely spoken. When the relations are
examined for each of the six language regions separately, the results show
the correlations to be strongest for the Low Saxon region (up to 20.30) and
less 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) was
only 20.06. This suggests differences across differently educated families but
not that less Limburgish is necessarily spoken by the higher educated families.
The discrepancy in the correlations is caused by the fact that the senior general
educated families speak Limburgish most (i.e. in 58% of the five domains)
while the university educated families speak Limburgish least (i.e. in only
19% of the five domains).
Whether a relation possibly exists between maternal age and language choice
was next examined using the data from the second PRIMA measurement in
1997. The results for the total sample are presented in Table 4. Only very
weak 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
parental 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
Child þ
parents
22 17 12 12 11 7 2 0.16 20.15

negative: the older the mothers, the less the regional language or dialect was
spoken. But once again, the correlation was very weak. When analysed separ-
ately, the results per language region differed only slightly from those for the
total sample. In contrast to the other language regions, the correlations for
Friesland and Limburg were positive: The older the mothers, the more the
regional language or dialect was spoken. But once again, the correlations
were very weak at most (0.06).
The possibility of a relation between the degree of urbanization and language
choice was examined using the data from the fifth PRIMA measurement in
2003. The results for the total sample are presented in Table 5. The correlations
are both linear and positive with the regional languages and dialects being
mainly spoken in rural areas and rarely spoken in the Big 4 cities. When ana-
lysed separately per language region medium correlations are found for the
Frisian, 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 contrast
to the other regions, the Low Saxon region produced correlations which were
nonlinear. 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 or
dialect on Dutch language proficiency, two sets of analyses of variance were
performed. The data used are those from the most recent PRIMA measurement
in 2003. The results for the first set of analyses are presented in Table 6. In the
first column, the average Dutch language proficiency scores per language
region are given. In the second column, the deviations from the total mean
score, which was 46.0 with a standard deviation of 6.4, are presented. As
maternal age (PRIMA measurement 2003)
Maternal age
Domains Less than
30 years
30–34 years 35–39 years 40 years and
older
eta r
Child 11 9 9 6 0.04 20.04
Child þ parents 16 14 14 10 0.05 20.04
degree of urbanisation (PRIMA measurement 2003)
Degree of urbanisation
Domains Big 4 cities Other big cities Urbanised
rural areas
Rural
areas
eta r
Child 0 5 5 10 0.11 0.10
Child þ Parents 1 7 9 15 0.12 0.12

there are differences in the social milieu for the different language regions, the
possible influence of parental level of education was controlled for next (see the
third column). In the final column, the number of domains in which the parents
and children used the regional language or dialect was also controlled for. In
the bottom row of the table, the correlations (eta) and partial correlations
(beta) are further presented. The latter indicates the relation between language
region and Dutch language proficiency after parental education and degree of
usage for the regional language or dialect have been controlled for.
As can be seen, only small differences in Dutch language proficiency are
found to occur for the different language regions. The difference between
the 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 also
shows the differences to remain almost unchanged after correction for parental
education. As can be seen from the last column, moreover, minimal or maximal
use of the regional language or dialect also does not change the children’s
Dutch language proficiency.
In the second set of analyses of variance, a slightly different perspective was
adopted. First, the deviation scores for the different language regions and
degree 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 five
domains; (2) use in 20–60% of the domains; or (3) use in 61–100% of the
domains. The results are presented on the left side of Table 7. The results
after control for the possible influence of parental education are presented on
the right side of Table 7.
Inspection of the results on particularly the right side of the table suggests
that one should not consider the Netherlands as a whole when attempting to
identify the role of regional language or dialect use in the school performance
of Dutch children. While the effect for the Netherlands is extremely small
Table 6 Dutch language proficiency, according to language region (PRIMA
measurement 2003)
Language
region
Unadjusted
mean
scores
Unadjusted
deviation
scores
Deviation scores
adjusted for
parental
education
Deviation scores
adjusted for
parental education
and degree of
language
variety 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 language
regions are found to be much larger and therefore very relevant. The effects
for some of the language regions are positive while the effects for other
regions are negative, moreover. The most interesting results are for Limburg
and Brabant. For Limburg, the corrected effect is positive and amounts to a
beta of 0.17, which means that Dutch language proficiency increases as more
Limburgish is also spoken. For Brabant, the opposite is the case: In families
where Brabantish is spoken the most, the children’s Dutch language profi-
ciency is also lowest. The difference between the children who do not speak
Brabantish at all and the children who speak Brabantish in 60% or more of
the five functional domains is 3.6 or more than half a standard deviation and
thus educationally very relevant.
Conclusions
In 1999, Driessen and Withagen published an article on the usage of Dutch
regional languages and dialects and the relations of such to the Dutch language
proficiency of primary school children. The 1995 data from the first measure-
ment round of the PRIMA cohort study were analysed in that study. In the
present study, the PRIMA data from a total of five measurement rounds were
analysed, which provides both an update and overview of any developments
for the period 1995–2003.
With regard to the use of the PRIMA data, it is important that the following
be 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 between
the 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 the
fathers was 40 years or older. This not only means that people without children
were not represented at all, but also that the sample was rather young and
underrepresented the older generations. This situation may have implications
Table 7 Dutch language proficiency, according to language region and degree of
regional language or dialect use (PRIMA measurement 2003)
Unadjusted deviation scores per
degree of regional language or
dialect use
Deviation scores per degree
of regional language or dialect
use adjusted for parental
education
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 was
observed between parental age and use of a regional language or dialect.
The findings of the present study reveal two developments. First, there is a
considerable intergenerational decrease in the use of regional languages and
dialects within families: Compared to their parents, less than half of the chil-
dren studied here spoke a regional language or dialect. Second, a marked
decline can be seen to have occurred over the years. In the period studied
here, the number of parents and children who spoke a regional language or
dialect decreased by more than one third. It should be mentioned, however,
that these conclusions do not hold for each and every language region. Two
regions stand out in particular. The Limburgish situation is fairly constant
and the Frisian situation is very much in decline. With regard to the relation
between 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 differ
from the results for 1995. Just as in 1995, significant differences between the
language regions were also seen in 2003. While use of a regional language or
dialect virtually does not affect Dutch language proficiency for the
Netherlands as a whole, the effect of speaking Limburgish is found to be edu-
cationally relevant and positive, which means that children who speak more
Limburgish also have a relatively better Dutch language proficiency. For
Brabantish the opposite is found, which means that children in families
where Brabantish is spoken show relatively lower Dutch language proficiency.
With respect to the process of language shift and the erosion of regional
languages and dialects, opinions differ with regard to the pace at which this
is happening. The present findings, which cover less than a decade, suggest
that things do not look good for most Dutch regional languages and dialects.
Limburgish appears to constitute an exception to this general process of
decline and dying out (cf. Kroon & Vallen, 2004). There is also debate with
regard to whether this development is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Some feel the need to
reverse language shift and see the loss of a language as the destruction of a
rooted identity (Fishman, 1991). Others see the loss of linguistic diversity as a
threat to our future (Dalby, 2003). And still others are of the opinion that
languages do not die but are abandoned by their users for a more widely
spoken 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 dominant
language 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 the
ongoing and pervasive processes of internationalisation and globalisation.
Acknowledgements
The Social Sciences Research Council of the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged for provision of the
PRIMA data on which the empirical part of this article is based.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Geert Driessen, ITS – Institute
for Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9048,
6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands (g.driessen@its.ru.nl; URL: www.
geertdriessen.nl).
Notes
1. 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 PRIMA measurement 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.
References
Belemans, R. (2002) Eindrapport over de Limburg-Enqueˆte. 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 Our
Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
De Swaan, A. (2003) Bedreigde talen, sociolinguı¨stiek en taalsentimentalisme. Toegepaste
Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 70, 15–26.
De Vries, J., Willemyns, R. and Burger, P. (1993) Het Verhaal van een Taal. Negen Eeuwen
Nederlands. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
Driessen, G. and Haanstra, F. (1996) De Oudervragenlijst Basisonderwijs en Speciaal
Onderwijs. Technische Rapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek 1994/95. Amsterdam/
Nijmegen: SCO/ITS.
Driessen, G. and Withagen, V. (1999) Language varieties and educational achievement of
indigenous 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. Derde
Meting 1998/99. Nijmegen: ITS.
Leerlinggegevens en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Vierde
Meting 2000–2001. Nijmegen: ITS.
Leerlinggegevens en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Vijfde
Meting 2002–2003. Nijmegen: ITS.
Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of
Assistance 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). Tu¨bingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Hagen, A. and Giesbers, H. (1988) Dutch sociolinguistic studies. International Journal of
the 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: Aksant
Academic Publishers.
Landenweb (2004) Nederland. Taal. On WWW at www.landenweb.com. Accessed
07/12/04.
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 sociolinguı¨stisch 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 als
Voertaal op Basisscholen in Friesland. Nijmegen: ITS.
Van Ruijven, E. (2003) Voorsprong of Achterstand. Onderzoek naar het Onderwijsniveau van
de Friese Leerlingen in het Basisonderwijs en Voortgezet Onderwijs. Ljouwert: Fryske
Akademy.
Wikipedia (2004) Dutch Language. On WWW at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Dutch_language. Accessed 16/12/04.

Geert Driessen (2005) LCC In Dutch? Usage of Dutch regional languages and dialects.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Geert Driessen (2005) LCC In Dutch? Usage of Dutch regional languages and dialects.

Similar to Geert Driessen (2005) LCC In Dutch? Usage of Dutch regional languages and dialects. (20)

More from Driessen Research

More from Driessen Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Geert Driessen (2005) LCC In Dutch? Usage of Dutch regional languages and dialects.