208

CASE STIIDY 5: Cultural Vitality and Creativity: The " Union"

1. One of the most recent and also strongest signs of cultural vitality and creativity in The (in the largest sense of that name, viz. "The Low Countries") has been the installment of the "Nederlandse Taalunie" ["Dutch Language Union"], as a consequence of the "Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk Belgie en het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden inzake de Nederlandse Taalunie" ["Treaty between the Kingdom of and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning the Dutch Language Union] which was signed in on 9 September 1980 and the instruments of ratification of which were exchanged in on27 January 198216. The text reads that "His Majesty the King of the Belgians and Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands ... have decided the installment of a union in the field of the Dutch language"17.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate why this has to be considered a very strong sign of cultural vitality and creativity in The Netherlands, by explaining the unique character of this treaty as far as international cultural and linguistic relations are concerned. In order to do so I will start with a short expose ofthe historic development of language planning in the Low Countries, then concentrate on the language planning mechanisms devised by the "Taalunie"18 and conclude with some ideas as to the future development and possible applications elsewhere.

2. Historical survey

In order to fully understand the Treaty one needs to be informed about the nature of the relationship between Dutch speaking people on both sides of the Dutch-Belgian border. First of all it should be remembered that the Dutch language community was undivided until the 17th century. Although there was some political separation due to feudal division in the Middle Ages, when different parts were owned by different lords, the whole of the Dutch community nevertheless constituted a more or less homogeneous linguistic and cultural unity in which the dialect boundaries did not correspond to present-day national frontiers. As a consequence of the Burgundian unification policy all the Netherlands constituted a very strong politically, culturally and linguistically united country in the 16th century (Willemyns 1995).

In the Middle Ages the provinces in the so-called Low Countries were prominent not only in the political and economic but also in the cultural field. Consequently, the language variety of these southern provinces was the prestige one and could have been expected to become the most important component of a growing supra-regional standard language.

16 The ofiicial text of the treaty is published in "De Nederlandse Taalunie" ('s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij 1980). p. 9-15. A French of the text is to be found in Govaert (1982), an English translation of the main clauses in Willemyns (1984).

t7 "Zijne Majesteit de Koning der Belgen en Hare Majesteit de Koningin der Nederlanden ... hebben besloten tot de instelling van een unie op het gebied van de Nederlandse taal"

18 "Taalunie" will be used to refer to the institution created by the Treaty and "NTU" will be used as an abbreviation. 209

This evolution, however, was interrupted and the fate of Dutch has been directly influenced by the following three historical events (Willemyns 1992):

-the splitting up of the Dutch language community in the early 17th century, politically separating present-day Holland and Belgium;

-the fact that the latter part has been occupied and governed by foreign rulers (Spanish, Austrian and French successively) from the early 17th to the early 19th century;

-the emergence of an independent Belgian state in 1830 .

2.1The period directly preceding the political split of the Dutch language territory (second half ofthe i6th century) was the period in which language standardization gradually took shape (Van den Branden 1956) and it could, therefore, be expected that the falling apart into two politically separated entities would have dramatic consequences, the more so since the direction of ongoing standardization also changed as a result of the political evolution. The center of gravity of standardization passed from the South to the North mainly because the North (more or less the present-day Netherlands) came out victoriously and as an independent nation from the war against the Spanish rulers. The South (present-day Belgium) remained under Spanish rule, underwent an economic and cultural decline and was soon ruled out as far as its influence on the evolution of Standard Dutch was concerned (De Vries, Willemyns & Burger 1993).

An important part of the political and cultural elite having fled to the North, the Dutch community in the South was deprived of its leaders and its language variety could only survive on a dialectical level, the more so since the affairs of state were run, by the successive foreign governors, in French which definitely became the prestige language of the nation . Dutch remained the vehicular language of the majority of the population but only in its dialectical form and under a superstructure of French as the language of culture (Willemyns 1992).

2.2. I shall now highlight some ofthe efforts made in both parts ofthe Dutch language community to minimize the consequences of centrifugal tendencies. These efforts towards cultural integration can be exemplified by three interesting language planning developments (Willemyns le88).

- The North having become a protestant state, was badly in need of an appropriate translation of the Bible. The commission appointed to this end was very carefully composed of members representing all dialect regions from the South as well as from the North. The language of the resulting Statenbijbel (Bible of the States, 1637), actually created for the purpose, carefully combined northern and southern characteristics and became the basis of the northern written language and writing tradition, thus preventing northern and southern varieties of the language of growing too far apart (De Vries, Willemyns & Burger 1993,82-87).

- From the beginning of the 18th century onwards there appeared to be great need for a comprehensive dictionary of Dutch and here also we witness constant negotiations 2t0

between northem and southern scholars on how to start and accomplish this project. The real work only started some 100 years later, sponsored by the Linguistic and Literary Congress bringing together writers and scholars from the Netherlands and Belgium on a regular basis. Serious editing started in 1851 and the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal can be considered the second major project aiming at closer cultural integration of both parts of the Dutch language community (Moerdijk 1994).

- A third initiative very essential to language unity is the mutual concern for orthography. The Dutch speaking people have a tradition of regular orthographic reforms. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards it was acknowledged that reforms needed administrative approval and reinforcement and we witness governmental action to maintain orthographic uniformity in both countries. Three or four ofiicial reforms and almost as many attempts made it a difficult task to secure this uniformity which was nevertheless always maintained. This, by the way, was the first mutual language planning action taken by ofiicial bodies on both sides of the border (Couvreur 1975).

These three examples show that there has been a constant desire for cooperation and integration in spite of political separation. Yet language planning from 1830 onwards was going to be of a completely different nature, viz. much more unilateral, a consequence of the fact that the integrational effort was always stronger in the South than in the North.

2.3.In 1830 Belgium became an independent constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system dominated by the bourgeois elite for which French was a natural choice. Although the constitution proclaimed that the use of language was to be free (Lorwin 1972), in reality French was the only language used in administration and indeed in public life in general in both the French and the Dutch-speaking parts of the country. Yet, this had been preceded by a short reunion of Belgium and Holland as one United Kingdom of the Netherlands. This union, although short-lived, was of the utmost importance to the Flemings who suddenly rediscovered their language for administration, politics, court and education, areas where it had not been used for almost two centuries. Especially a small group of Flemish cultural leaders and intellectuals was very much influenced by both the Dutch standard language and the new linguistic opportunities. After 1830 they were to form the hard nucleus of the so-called Flemish Movement, a cultural pressure group trying to secure linguistic and cultural rights for the Dutch language in the young Belgian state . Their views on language evolution and the way it could possibly be planned was entirely dominated by the political goals they wanted to achieve. Language planning indeed was not an aim in itself but only a means in a much broader plan. It appeared very soon that to obtain linguistic rights for Dutch-speakers was only possible by the means of a linguistic legislation which only could be brought about by enhancing the prestige of the language. At the same time increased linguistic rights for Dutch speakers was a necessary condition for the language planners mentioned to obtain a position in which they could at all hope to influence language development.

Several problems emerged simultaneously, one of them being that the Dutch language as it had been preserved in 19th century Belgium was not at all prepared to assume the functions its advocates had in mind. It needed standardization, it needed to be transformed into a tool fit to perform all the functions a language has to perform in a modern, industrialized state. The situation, therefore, was theoretically favorable for language planning activities, because linguistic 2tt systems have a tendency to adapt to changing communicative needs, brought about by societal change, Since, however, similar adaptations usually occur with some retardation there is plenty of room and time for language planners to try to interfere.

Among those who displayed this willingness two factions may be discerned: those advocating a standard language development on the basis of the local varieties, i.e. domestic standardization, called particularists, and those insisting that the northern model should be followed and that, in other words, the Flemings should take over as much as possible the standard language as it already existed in the North. They were called the integrationists and after a few decades of struggle it clearly appeared that the integrationist solution was victorious, a victory that was never more to be challenged afterwards. One ofthe reasons for this victory was undoubtedly a political one: the only possibility for successfully repelling the competition of French - it was felt - was the elaboration of a language that could be accepted as being the same as the one used in The Netherlands, in order to profit domestically from the prestige the language had acquired abroad (Willemyns 1993)!

The strategy used to convince the population was quite simple and straightforward and indeed the same as the one used before to beat the particularist adversaries. if you want rights for your language (and for those who speak it) you should use the prestige variety which, in the course of centuries, has only been preserved in Holland. To adopt it now means only to gain repossession of the heritage which has always been there for you to collect!

It is obvious that this action was essentially of an ideological nature, appealing to political feelings which, as years went on, grew more and more intense in large portions of the population. The results of this first period of language planning in modern Belgium are, therefore, essentially of an attitudinal nature, trylng to convince the population that they ought to speak the same language as their northern neighbors. Attempts to bring actual performance in line with the convictions and attitudes sta(ed from about 1930, the year the first Dutch language university in Belgium opened its doors.

Dutch in Belgium had, obviously, been used in writing before i930 and, therefore, a partial domestic standardization had occurred drawing essentially on three resources: the written language as handed down from the Middle Ages, the local dialects and French, the language all Belgians were permanently in contact with. In the eyes of the second generation of language planners Flemings had to abandon most ofthat and preferably in the reversed order of what I just mentioned. Especially French influence had to be banned. It is no coincidence that the first major corpus planning publication in , Peeters' Nederlandsche Taalgids was subtitled Lexicon of Belgicisms, since it was meant to provide language users with "good", i.e. northern equivalents for the countless gallicisms, i.e. French influenced words and expressions the Flemings had adopted in their language in the course of many centuries. Yet, the lack of direct and frequent contact with the Netherlands made the implementation of the northern norm a precarious and difEcult problem. The practical obstacles, for one, were so huge that it was only after World War II that substantial success could be expected and actually occurred. The popularization of radio and, afterwards, television was undoubtedly the first major means helping to overcome practical problems and another one was the massive "entrance into battle" of almost all Flemish linguists. Especially in the sixties and seventies the Flemings were not only constantly exposed to the northern norm in the media, but the Flemish media also contributed actively by giving linguists 2t2

the opportunity of addressing the audience and of spreading their views. All radio and television channels and almost every newspaper had a daily column, resp.. prime time program to help Flemings to gain proficiency in the standard language which was, as was constantly repeated, their own. Most of these programs were of the "do not say ... but say ..."-kind. Following the column title of one of the prestigious newspapers all of these activities were called language gardening and mostly the gardeners were established linguists and university professors. The results of this combined effort were quite amazing since apparently one succeeded in what is a very tough and unusual task, viz. to provide almost an entire population in a couple of decades with a more or less new language or, to put it more conectly, with a hardly known variety of their own language.

Before analyztngthe mechanism in itself and the real impact it had another unusual factor should be stressed, viz. that this massive language planning effort was performed with almost no official government backing. Although is must be understood that this integrational policy was morally supported by the entire cultural establishment one could hardly mention any governmental action to officially endorse what was going on and the main effort was performed via private initiative.

As a result of the historical evolution mentioned above the use of regional dialects in Flanders was, and to a certain extent still is, very popular. Banning dialects, then, meant to persuade over 90 % of the population to give up the language variety they were used to speak in all informal and even in many more or less formal situations (Willemyns 1987).

Unexpected consequences of language planning on the macro level are definitely matched on the micro level. In order to adapt performance to the northern norm as urged in the massive campaign mentioned above, the Flemish standard language learner had to come to grips with pronunciation, lexical aspects and morphological and syntactic problems.

- Pronunciation is undoubtedly the aspect which caused the least trouble. Flemings are progressively abandoning their habit of regarding the spelling as the ultimate norm of pronunciation and convergence towards the northern norm is almost complete (Goossens 1973,1985; Cassier-Van de Craen i986) except for some prosodic features no one ever urged to abandon (Willemyns 1987).

- In the lexical field a similar convergence is under its way, albeit that this evolution is not going as smoothly. Lexical standardization being one of the prominent sociolinguistic issues investigated during the past decades, we know that tenacious and often bitter discussions are and have been held on the amount of southern vocabulary that ought to be retained or even introduced into the general norrn. Vocabulary is undoubtedly what appeals most of all to the imagination of the public and lexical change hardly ever passes unnoticed. The controversy in general is a symptom oflinguistic insecurity which is, itself a hardly avoidable characteristic of rapid change. Another interesting example of linguistic insecurity is to be found in

- the morphological field. Morphological and syntactic problems as a result of language planning have hardly been investigated so far and the same goes for north-south variation in this field in general. A notorious exception, though, is the discussion on the pronominal system with respect to the forms of address. Most southern dialects have a one-pronoun 213

system of address, as opposed to the T-V distinction in Standard Dutch. For a long time and in spite of corpus planning efforts, this one-pronoun system remained characteristic in the standard language of many southerners to the extent that it was sometimes considered to be a core value of southern language use (Pauwels 1954). Yet, the campaign of the sixties and seventies succeeded in even taking this well defended stronghold. Yet, replacing a one-pronoun system by a T-V system is not only a matter of attitude and goodwill but may lead to practical problems even for those who made the theoretical decision to adopt the northern system (Deprez-Geerts 1977).

2.4. Summarizing, it is clear that the specific type of language planning (of an unofiicial nature) tryrng to conform southern language habits to northern standards has a long tradition in Dutch- speaking Belgium. After a period of status planning with mainly attitudinal purposes there has been a relatively short, but very intense and massive campaign in the field of corpus planning. From the viewpoint of its advocates it may undoubtedly be regarded as very successful and there can be no doubt that language standardization, as a continuous movement towards the northern norm (Van de Craen-Willemyns 1988) is proceeding steadily, be it often also unconsciously,

3. Offrcial contacts between The Netherlands and Belgium.

3. 1. Dutch being the mother tongue and vehicular language of some 630/o of the Belgian population it would seem altogether natural for the Belgian government to be concerned with its promotion and to be anxious to remain in permanent contact with the government of the Netherlands. As the preceding survey reveals, the Belgian government has for a long time been hostile to the language of the majority of its subjects and this has limited similar contacts until after World War II, when the "Convention on the Cultural and Intellectual Relations" between both countries was ratifiedle. It has always been the ultimate goal of the Flemings to associate the Dutch to their efforts and this has often proven to be a tough job. The conclusion of the "Cultural Treaty" has been acclaimed as a first step in the desire for integration2o but it was undoubtedly the "Taalunieverdrag" which has been felt to be the consecration of these efforts. The Treaty indeed installed De Nederlandse Taalunie, an international body, to which both the Dutch and the Belgian (and eventually the Flemish) government have delegated what are usually considered to be their own prerogatives, i.e. to decide autonomously on linguistic and cultural affairs. Consequently both governments are no longer responsible for the matters which are now under the jurisdiction of the supranational Taalunie. In the field of international law the status of the Taalunie is very much similar to that of e.g. the European Community meaning that although representatives of the different countries are involved, the decision-making is the prerogative of the international body itself and its decrees are compulsory for every member-state. To my

re complete text in Govaert (1982).

2o On xx January 1995 this Cultural Treaty has been replaced by a new one, this time concluded between the Government of the Netherlands and the autonomous Government of Flanders, to which the constitutional reform had granted the right to conclude treaties with foreign nations. 214

knowledge this is the only incidence of such an international body in the field of language, literature and culture.

3.2. The Treaty of Linguistic Union.

3.2.1. The explanatory Statement ("Memorie van toelichting")" states, among other things:

"Although the political separation which in 1648 has divided the Dutch language area into two parts has neither broken down nor totally weakened the language unity, it has caused a disintegration, extremely prejudicial to the proper usage of Dutch as the mutual vehicular language. In order to remedy this situation many private as well as official steps have been taken, particularly in recent decades. Although these efforts were undoubtedly successful it was nevertheless felt that to enforce linguistic unity there needed to be a legal framework. Thanks to the enlightened intellectual climate in both countries and to recent development in Belgian legislation22 it has now been made possible to set up the required framework".

The commission which had the task of preparing the Treaty felt that for the two governments to further the promotion of Dutch culture it was necessary to "create a climate in which this culture, free of political frontiers, could give birth to appropriate structures and mutual institutions intended to be both the reflection of its unity and the instrument of its development". The commission thus advocating linguistic, literary and cultural integration made the following statement:

"Based on real unity beyond political separation, the aim should be to achieve recognition and acceptance of this unity [i.e. of Dutch language and culture] in all classes of the population in the North and in the South as well as beyond the borders of the Dutch language territory"

and thus accounts for the intentions as well as lor the concrete form it eventually assumed.

3.2.2.Bothgovernments agreed with the propositions of the commission, expressing hopes that its realization would "favor and reinforce, both with reference to cooperation between their countries and their mutual relations with foreign countries, the unity of language and literature which had for so long been endangered by political separation". The uniqueness of this treaty lies, among other things, in the fact that the two governments solemnly declare that in all matters concerning the Dutch language neither can claim preeminence, declaring that "unilateral decisions can only be prejudicial", since "the Dutch language constitutes an indivisible cultural heritage for all Dutch speakers and an irreplaceable means of social, cultural and literary communication

2r The text of which is published in "De Nederlandse Taalunie" ('s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij 1980), p. 17-32.

22 reference is made here to the constitutional change of 1980 215

within the two nations and between them". Such an unequivocal statement in this field seldom occurs and the two governments appear to be well aware of it since they declare themselves to be "conscious that the consolidation of the unity of the Dutch language community by means of a treaty between the two countries involved is to be considered something totaily new in international relations". In fact it rarely happens that governments willingly give up any right of primogeniture stating that "not only should there be a common policy in the field of Dutch Ianguage and literature but, more important still, this policy should be mutually agreed upon as the only possible one". This seems to be an absolutely indispensable attitude for any language planning activity of this kind.

3.2.3. The Treaty, art.Z says, aims at :

" integrating as far as possible the Netherlands and the Dutch speaking community of Belgium in the field ofthe Dutch language and literature in the broadest sense" and "aims at a responsible use of the Dutch language, especially in education and in official communications"

and both parties

-" wish to promote the Dutch language and literature and to stress the necessity that by doing so the unity of the language should be taken into particular consideration".

This constitutes a considerable shift of responsibilities from both governments to the international body. In art. 4 it is decided to create and maintain joint institutions and to let the Taalunie fix the orthography and the official grammar of the language. Attention must also be drawn to the intention ol both parties to "determine a uniform terminology for legislation and ofticial publications" which is indeed rare and difficult to achieve. Rare, because it seldom occurs that two countries agree to change their terminology, that has been established over centuries; difficult because juridical terminology is often related to institutions and customs peculiar to a given country. Frequently a change in terminology would effect a change in these institutions themselves.

The Treaty also stresses that "the notion of the unity of the Dutch language and literature is to be diffi-rsed", which means that more efforts still are to be made to leveflanguage differences on both sides of the border. Finally the Treaty states in art. 5 that the Taaluni.'r ,.rporribility will also be to "further or organize the teaching of the Dutch language, literature and culture abioad" and to see to it that the Dutch language situation gets better known outside their borders.

3 .2.4. Institutions.

In order to be able to execute what is mentioned above the treaty decrees the creation of the 216

following mixed institutions:

- A Committee of Ministers. This committee consists of 4 ministers(2 from both countries) and they constitute the ultimate deciding instance of the "Taalunie";

- A Parliamentary Commission, comprising MP's of both countries; they assume the normal functions a parliament assumes in a democracy;

- A Secretary General, the ultimate administrative body of the "Taalunie"

- A "Council for Dutch Language and Literature"; this is the real advising body consisting of specialists from both countries and advising on all aspects of language, literature and culture, covering such fields as linguistics, literature, translation, EU-legislation, education, editing, libraries, theatre, cinema, press, radio, television and scientific research in all of these domains.

- A new instance and instrument not mentioned in the Treaty but created in the early nineties to enhance efficient work is the so called "Beleidsoverleg", meaning that there are regular and institutional consultations between the secretary general on the one hand and high ranking officials of the four ministers constituting the "Committee of Ministers" on the other hand (Beleidskader 1993,15).

4. Recent achievements.

Although the Treaty was signed in 1980 real functioning started only in 1984. A lot of energy has been spent to set up a competent and effective framework able to administrate what, according to the treaty, were the prerogatives of the NTU. A subsequent administrative effort was required to integrate tasks previously perlormed by both governments separately and now transferred to the NTU. Along with some smaller transfers came the Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie ("Institute for Dutch Lexicology"), the Regionale Woordenboeken ("regional dictionaries", i.e. dialect dictionaries) and the so-called "Neerlandistiek extra Muros", i.e. the stimulation of Dutch Departments at Universities Abroad. Although this transfer policy is undoubtedly going to continue, the real challenge for the NTU is to find ways of better "integrating the Netherlands and the Dutch speaking community of Belgium " as art. 2 of the Treaty suggests.

Since, within the limits of this article, it is impossible to describe all the achievements of the Nederlandse Taalunie so far, let alone evaluate them, I shall restrict myself to a brief enumeration of the fields in which the Taalunie has been especially active during recent years.

4.1. Language.

- continuing integration will implicate the necessity to reach and affect other social classes than the "intellectual elite" alone. How to meet this challenge is now being studied rather than implemented already. 217

- within the framework of traditional policy on "language", the commission preparing the next orthographic reform has already issued a report, the Committee of Ministers has taken an official decision and within a year or so new spelling rules will be effective.

- after the publication, under NTU auspices, of the authoritative ANS (: "Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst" ["General Grammar of Dutch"]) research is now funded on "grammatical norms in Dutch" and on "practical relevance of grammars". Another current project is the production of Dutch grammars for non-native speakers. Newly initiated projects are the production of an electronic version of the ANS and the development of derived products of it for specific target groups (Actieplan 1994, 12). Also a purely scientific grammar of Dutch will be produced and published in English in order to accommodate linguists all over the world (ib.).

- the lexicographic and lexicological projects are mainly continuations of work already in progress. This includes the bringing to an end of the "biggest dictionary of the world", the 40 volume Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, of which the last volume will be published in 1998 (Moerdijk 199a). Yet, the setting up of data banks and similar electronic lexicological devices has progressed rapidly since the Taalunie's involvement in the matter. A totally new project is a new and authoritative pronunciation dictionary of Dutch, the production of which is supposed to start in 1995 (Actieplan 1994,13).

- as far as the "quality of the language" is concerned, the NTU is not only continuing funding of existing institutions but is stimulating the research to improve language instruction in both primary and secondary schools in both countries. Also, a professional committee was installed to advise both individuals and public offices on "correct" language usage on the basis of a coherent policy on language quality improvement, something that has never existed before and has been devised by the Taalunie. We distinguish a "Taaladviesoverleg" ["Committee on language consulting policy"] and a "Taaladviescommissie" ["Expert Committee on language consultation"] . It is the task of the former to "further the mutual agreement between and the professionalization of all existing committees on language consulting. The main instrument is a data bank storing language advice, destined for professional usersx. The latter is a "normative committee authorized to issue the "quality label Taalunie". This committee comprises both Flemish and Dutch linguists, media experts and writers. It is an additional task of this committee to advise on a number of linguistic projects of the Taalunie, involving normativity and language normalizationza. As far as "normativity" is concerned the NTU wants to take a rather reserved stand yet, it also wants to provide those who ask for it with professional advise on language usage

- terminological commissions are currently working to accommodate with the part of the Treaty "to determine a uniform terminology for legislation and official publications". The "Samenwerkingsverband Nederlandse Terminologie" (SaNT) are now publishing terminological lists in various domains, thus furthering the standardization of technical terminology in both countries.

23 "Annual report 1993" of the NTU.

24 ib. 218

4.2. Literature.

- Since both the production of and the policy on literature are much more in the field of private initiative than is language policy, the NTU is practically restricted to encouraging and funding projects and has less possibilities to really initiate new things. Yet, it sees to it that the ofticial policy of both countries in the field of literature is harmonized as much as possible and that there will be a common policy as far as the "production, distribution and accessibility" of literature in Dutch is concerned. The NTU, therefore, participates directly in subsidizing increasingly literary exchange (ofboth authors and books) between both countries and stimulates research to promote the integration to the maximum.

-Also "samenwerkingsverbanden" ["cooperation units"] with publishers and libraries have been installed so that harmonization will not be limited to governmental policy but will also try to incorporate the policy of private enterprises. As far as the first aspect is concerned strong emphasis is put on education and the way instruction is performed and the unity of the literature of both countries is stressed. As far as both the first and the second aspect are concerned a major effort has been achieved to integrate the media of both countries into this same kind of endeavor. By initiating and stimulating co-productions between networks the integrational policy will benefit a great deal, the NTU believes. All other kinds of media cooperation are stimulated and its initiation is subsidized.

4.3. Education.

- Apart from what has been said on education in the preceding chapters the NTU is mainly interested in adult education and instruction where it intends to stimulate initiatives to increase mastery of and proficiency in the standard variety of the language of

a) non-natives (so-called "guest workers") b) natives with social or educational deficits

- Also a project has been initiated aiming at "leesbevordering", i.e. encouraging and increasing the eagerness to read in pupils and students of both countries. It is the NTU's policy to coordinate and stimulate initiatives taken and projected by both countries (Actieplan 1994,17).

4.4. Dutch Abroad.

- The stimulation ofDutch Programs and Departments in universities abroad has become one of the top priorities of the NTU. A new policy was devised to subsidize existing programs, create new ones and stimulate or convince more and more countries and universities to enter Dutch on their curricula. Also a new policy will be implemented shortly in order to enlarge some departments as "cultural centers" and so broaden their activities in order to reach a larger public.

- The NTU stimulates the translation of Dutch literature by coordinating the activities of both countries in this area. As Actieplan 1994 (10) reports "this procedure has proven to be very effective since the number of of Dutch literary products in other languages has considerably increased". One of the most famous examples of the NTU's firm intention to only 2r9 promote foreign initiatives in which the "unity of the Dutch literature of Flanders and the Netherlands is stressed" (Actieplan 1994, 10) has been the Frankfurter Buchmesse of 1993 where the "Literatur aus Flandern und den Niederlanden" constituted the "Schwerpunkt Niederliindisch".

- Other points of interest are the Certificate Dutch as a Foreign Language, the active participation in the Erasmus project of the European Union and, last but not least, the instruction of Dutch in secondary schools and adult education of the so-called border regions of West and . This policy of stimulating the diffi-rsion of Dutch abroad in and outside universities has been one of the most innovating new initiatives of the NTU, the more so since a detailed list of priorities has been devised as on where and how to concentrate the efforts and the money.

- Another main actual concern of the Taalunie is the position of Dutch as an in the European Union. It is its firm intention to see to it that this position will not be harmed or belittled in any way. One of the priorities, therefore, is to concentrate financial and other efforts on language technology, i.e. programs for automized translation, which, in the current state, often tend to neglect all but the three "major languages" of the Union. Negotiations have also started with language planning organizations in other EU-countries to safeguard the position of all ofiicial languages of the member states.

- an interesting new evolution has been the initiative to also involve the French speaking part of Belgium into the concern of the NTU, thus creating a very special kind of "foreign territory" for which a special approach has been designed.

5. Conclusions.

- fu the foregoing has demonstrated the Nederlandse Taalunie has been extremely active during the past first decade of its functioning. Yet, this relatively short period has also shown an interesting change as far as its focus of interest is concerned. During the time of preparation of the Treaty and the first years of the functioning of the institution the saw the NTU in the first place as an instance of status planning, whereas The Netherlands were mainly motivated by corpus planning perspectives (Willemyns 1990). Yet, the Flemings wholeheartedly supported the many corpus activities developed during the initial working of the organization, whereas The Netherlands have come to realize that status planning activities have become very urgent during recent years. This is one of the examples demonstrating that the integrationist activities of the NTU were not oniy effective in the outside world but also within the organization itself (Beleidskader 1993, 11).

- Another change can be witnessed as far as the modus operandi of the NTU is concerned. Increasingly we see how the organization is encouraging what they call a "vliegwielfunctie"25, meaning that they are seeking and stimulating cooperation with external participants to realize their objectives, rather than to try to manage projects solely from within (Beleidskader 1993, 18). The Taalunie initiates and stimulates projects, raises starting funds and then creates "samenwerkingsverbanden" ["cooperation units"] with other interested parties. Examples of

" "fly wheel function" 220

similar projects already started are to be found in the fields of educational research (OORD), Dutch as a second language (SaNeTT), the Certificate "Dutch as a Foreign Language" (WGCNA). Projected cooperation units will cover such fields as "library and documentation" or "drama" (on radio and television as well as on stage)26.

- All in all it appears to me that the "Nederlandse Taalunie" is to be considered an excellent example ofvitality and creativity. Not only it has an impressive record by what has been achieved in the past but the many plans and projected initiatives for the future guarantee a more creative and vital functioning still.

6. Reflerences.

Actieplan 1994 Publikatieblad NTU # 30 (1993).

Beleidskader voor de Nederlandse Taalunie in de jaren negentig ( 1993). 's-Gravenhage. Stichting Bibliographica Neerlandica.

Cassier, Luc & Van de Craen, Piet (1986). Vijftig jaar evolutie van het Nederlands. In Jos Creten, Guido Geerts & Karel Jaspaert (eds.), Werk in uitvoering, Leuven. Acco, 59-73.

Couvreur, Walter. (1975). Spellingoorlog. Encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging. Tielt. Lannoo, 1461-1463.

Deprez, Kas & Geerts, Guido (1977). Lexical and Pronominal Standardization in the Evolution of Standard Netherlandic in West-Flanders. Zeitschrift fiir Dialectolosie und Linquistik. Beihefte Neue Folse Nr. 22.

Devries, Jan, Willemyns Roland & Burger, Peter (1993). Het verhaal van een taal: Negen eeuwen Nederlands. Amsterdam. Prometheus.

Goossens, Jan (1973). De Belgische uitspraak van het Nederlands. De Nieuwe Taalgids 63,54- 70.

Goossens, Jan (1985). Herausl6sung und Herausbildung des Niederltindischen. In Store Ureland (ed.), Entstehung von Sprachen und V6lkern, Tribingen: Niemeyer, 287-304.

Govaert, Serge (1982). La Flandre et les Pays-Bas. Rapports nouveaux. Bruxelles: Cahiers du Crisp # 960-961.

Lorwin, YaL (1972). Linguistic pluralism and political tension in modern Belgium. In Fishman, Joshua (ed.), Advances in the Sociology of Language II,386-412.

26 Details on these cooperation units are given in Beleidskader 1993 (18 tr) 221

Moerdijk, Alfons (1994). Handleiding bij het Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal (WNT). Den Haag: SDU.

Pauwels, JanL. (1954). In hoeverre geeft het Noorden de toon aan? Nu Nog, 1-9.

Peeters, Constant H. (1930). Nederlandsche Taalgids. Woordenboek van Belgicismen. Antwerpen: De Sikkel.

Van de Craeq Piet & Willemyns, Roland (1988). The Standardization of Dutch in Flanders. The International Journal of the Socioloev of Laneuaqe 73 ,45-64.

Van den Branden, Lode (1956). Het streven naar verheerlijking.zuiverin-q en opbouwvan het Nederlands van de 16de eeuw. Gent: Kon.Vl.Academie.

Willemyns, Roland (1984). A Common Legal Framework for Language Unity in the Dutch Language Area. Multilingua 3-4. 215-223.

Willemyns, Roland (1987). Norm en Variatie in Vlaanderen. In Jaap de Rooij (ed).Variatie en

Norm in de Standaardtaal. Amsterdam: P. J.Meertens Instituut, 1 43 -164.

Willemyns, Roland (1988). Language Planning as an Initiator of Linguistic Change. Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Lin:euistics 1988. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown University Press. 349-357.

Willemyns, Roland (1990). Taalplanning door de Nederlandse taalunie. Publikatieblad Nederlandse Taalunie 3. # 2 ,25-29.

Willemyns, Roland (1gg2). Taalontwikkeling in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden na de politieke scheiding. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde , 99-115.

Willemyns, Roland (1993). Integration vs. particularism. The undeclared issue at the first "Dutch Congress" in 1849. In Fishman, Joshua (ed.), The Earliest Sta=ee of Lan-euage Planning. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 69-83.