Growth and Development of Standard Dutch in Belgium

Roland Willemyns & Piet van de Craen

0. Standardization is not a linguistic change affecting large areas of groups and peoples simultaneously and to the same extent, but an ongoing change affecting certain areas and certain groups of people in different ways. In this paper we intend to analyze the growth and the development of Dutch in Flanders, i. e. the part of Belgium (occupying 43 Vo of the national territory and compris- ing 57Vo of the population) where Dutch is the sole official language.l Dutchspeaking inhabitants of bilingual Brussels are also part of this community but there are no official figures as to the number of Dutch and French speakers in the capital (information concerning the complicated linguistic make up of Brussels is to be found in De Vriendt & Willemyns 1987). Flanders shares its official language with Belgium's northern neighbour, the Nether- lands. After a historical survey, this paper will focus on standardization after Belgium's independence (1830) and the present-day standardization processes; finallywe shall turn to the language situation of Brussels, since this city is considered to have a considerable impact on the linguistic evolution in Belgium.

1. Historical Survey

1.1. Unlike some other Germanic languages there are only a few written records of Dutch before the 12th century. Although there is no doubt that Dutch was used in writing earlier than then, we have to wait until the second half of the 13th century to see the beginning of an uninterrupted written tradition.2 What is clear from this early period is the contrast between an eastern and a western variety and since the overwhelming majority of all texts produced had western features it is certain that the language of the west prevailed. The written language of the Middle Dutch period was firmly Flemish (i. e. western) in its roots even in the non-Flemish parts of the Dutch language territory (cf. Goossens 1986). In the 16th century the economic and political centre of the Dutch language area moved to Brabant, the central area. During this period a standard form of the language r Since regional governments have (restricted) legislative power the frontiers of their jurisdiction, being language borders, are defined in the constitution. The language status ol each Belgian town or village is therefore easy to determine, as it is for every inhabitant outside Brussels, since one's official language is not a matter of personal choice, but of the territory one lives in (see also Baetens Beardsmore 1980). z Willemyns (1979a) lists the available texts before the 12th century. 118 Roland WillemynslPiet van de Craen was gradually taking shape (cf. Van den Branden 1956), with considerable influence of Flemish and Brabantic forms. The political split of the language area which occurred at the end of the 16th century as a result of the Revolt of the Netherlands against the Roman-Catholic Habsburg monarchy (Willemyns 1984), had a decisive impact on the evolution of Dutch. From the L7th century onwards the Low Countries were divided into two separate parts (more or less present-day Holland and Belgium) each with its specific political, cultural, religious and social development. These events had a dramatic impact on the evolution of the standard language. While the north went on to become one of the leading economic nations of the 17th century, the southern regions stagnated culturally, economically and intellectually. In the north, the standardization of Dutch, strongly influenced by the southern writing tradition and the numerous immigrants who had fled the South gathered momentum. In the South, on the other hand, where French became more prominent, the elaboration of the Dutch standard language decreased and eventually stopped. Therefore, the original west-east opposition was gradually replaced by a north-south opposition. Yet, from a purely linguistic point of view, the original opposition between west and east was decisive in shaping standard Dutch. As a result of the War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713) the territories were passed on from the Spanish to the Austrian Habsburgers. Throughout the 18th century the consolidation of French as the more socially acceptable tongue continued. Dutch had almost no official status, except at a local level and certainly did not have the functions of a standard language. The language situation deteriorated even more when in 1795 the territories were annexed by France. Its inhabitants were considered citizens of the newly created French Republic and for the first time in history there was a massive official attempt to change the linguistic habits of the masses by suppressing the Dutch language. As far as linguistic evolution is concerned, the short reunion of Belgium and Holland as one United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-1830) was a spectacular event. This union, although short-lived, was of the utmost importance to the Flemings who suddenly rediscovered their language for administration, politics, the courts and education, areas where it had not been used for almost two centuries. Yet, it has to be stressed that many Flemings had great difficulty in recognizing the language now used by the Dutch as their own, and for many people the linguistic situation was hardly affected by this new turn of events. However, a small group of cultural leaders and intellectuals were strongly influenced by both the Dutch standard language and the new linguistic opportunities. In this way the short period of reunion was decisive for the future foundation and success of the Flemish Movement.

1.2. In 1830 Belgium became an independent constitutional monarchy with a parliamen- tary system dominated by the bourgeois elite which secured its position by adopting the polling tax system. For the bourgeoisie, French was a natural choice as the language of the state and although the constitution proclaimed that the use of language was to be free, in reality French was the only language used in administration and indeed in public life in general (Lorwin 1972). Moreover, the government appointed only civil servants who spoke French (Witte & Craeybeckx 1981). Growth and Development of Standard Dutch in Belgium L19

1.2.1. After 1830 both the Flemish and the Walloon communities developed movements which started out as cultural pressure groups but eventually developed into strongpoliti- cal movements campaigning for the autonomy of their respective communities. The Walloon Movement is not dealt with here; the Flemish Movement will be discussed according to Lefdvre's (1979) analysis. He distinguished three periods which we shall discuss against the background of the standardization process. The first period is called the period of historical identification.In the years following Belgian independence, being pro-Dutch meant virtually the same as being anti-Belgian. This created an unfriendly climate for the Dutch language promotors leaving pro-Dutch intellectuals in a kind of stalemate position. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that these people were not politically inspired at all. They were mainly philologists, literary figures and artists, floating on the waves of the romantic ideas of their time looking for the roots of their own and the Flemish people's identity. In spite of this a-political attitude and the lack of interest on the part of the power elite towards Dutch, this period engendered a far-reaching decision with respect to the standardization of the langua ge. ln t844, after many polemical articles and heated debates,3 it was officially ratified that the Netherlands and Flanders would have one and the same orthography. From L860 onwards the Flemish Movement attempted to unite the Dutch-speaking forces in Flanders regardless of political differences. During this period ol structural idenffication the linguistic issue became increasingly political. Although the difference between catholics and liberals, the dominating political forces since independence, proved to be great, from 1873 onwards an impressive body of linguistic legislation was passed, affecting the use of Dutch in the courts, the administration, the education and the army. These laws, however, produced no fundamental change. Frenchification in Flan- ders continued and there were no guarantees that bilingualism would prevail, let alone that Dutch would become the only official language in Flanders. Rather than being a radical change of policy in favour of Dutch, passing these laws was much more the result of political compromise between different factions of the predominantly French speaking catholic and liberal parties, who were desperately looking for allies (Witte & Craeybeckx 1981). As a consequence enforcing linguistic legislation became a problem, albeit that the influence of the supporters of the Flemish Movement within the political parties in- creased steadily. Until the end of the 19th century few people were aware that the language situation had social repercussions. This changed drastically during the period of mobilizing identification. Linking social factors to linguistic ones created the conditions for a growing linguistic nationalism. Instead of bilingualism, the leaders of the Flemish Movement now advocated a monolingual Flanders with a new, proud Flemish elite whose eventual aim would be to surpass the traditional Francophone elite. The Dutchifi- cation of the educational system, especially of the University of Ghent, became the overriding demand at the beginning of the 20th century. The Compulsory Education Act

g For an overview see Suffeleers (1979). For an overview in English of the history of the Flemish Movement see Clough (1968). 120 Roland WillemynslPiet van de Craen of l9t4 was already a major step in this direction, since it stipulated that in primary schools the mother tongue of the child was to be the language of instruction. For various reasons the Dutchification of the University of Ghent, a symbol for the Flemish Movement, was not achieved until 1930. It is fair to say that this decision completed the Dutchification of Flanders. Prior to this, the one man, one vote system (1921) and an increasing Flemish representation in parliament had already led to a period of rearguard actions by Francophones. Flanders was now on its way to becoming a monolingual region again, although many battles still has to be fought. Continuing legislation in the thirties made sure that Dutchification also continued on institutional levels. This stage was finally completed at about 1960. From a linguistic viewpoint a spontane- ous standardization process started only then.

1..2.2. For a better understanding of Belgian political life one should realize the compartmentalization of Belgian politics, alternatively separating and bringing together various factions along different lines. The first compartment is of an ideological nature, separating the catholic party from those that are not religiously inspired; the second is of a socioeconomic nature separating conservatives (liberals and catholics alike) from the socialists, while the third one is the linguistic compartment separating supporters of Dutch from supporters of French (see also Lorwin 1972). Throughout the history of Belgium we can see how, depending on the issues at stake, party coalitions evolved along these three lines. Between 1830 and 1860 the political parties could afford to ignore the language issue in Flanders. After 1860 this attitude changed drastically for three main reasons. 1. The change in the voting system permitted the Dutch-speaking middle class to increase its influence; 2. the economic changes favouring the same class made this group even more aware of its potential political irnpact; 3. the emergence of the workers' movements in Flanders compelled the traditional parties, i. e. catholics and liberals, to adapt their policies (see also Van Velthoven re87). To prevent any misunderstandings we have to stress that in the 19th century the leadership of the parties remained strongly in favour of French as a lingua franca. This also applied to the catholic party, although from the 1830s onwards, part of the lower clergy had been quite active in the Flemish Movement. As late as L922, factions of the catholic party, encouraged by the influential Cardinal Mercier, still organized meetings against the Dutchification of the University of Ghent. In the 19th century the catholic supporters of the Flemish Movement tried rather successfully to link the catholic ideology to the so-called Flemish cause in an attempt to keep its grip on the masses and to defend itself against the growing popularity of the socialists. The leading Flemish liberals also tried to link the Flemish language and social situation to ideological factors. They blamed the oppressive clergy for the inferiority of the Flem- ish people of the 19th century and, in their view, the emancipation of the Flemings thus implied an ideological struggle. The socialists reacted differently because, at first, in contrast to the other parties they did noy pay much attention to the language problem. Three reasons may account for this state of affairs. 1. With respect to the ideological position of the party, internationalism Growth and Development of Standard Dutch in Belgium t21

was more important than concern for any national problem; 2. if the workers came to power, minor issues such as the linguistic problem would, in their mind, automatically be solved; 3. the conservative attitude of many catholics and liberals alike towards the language issue prevented the socialists from analyzing the situation in terms of the class struggle. This reasoning did not prevent the Dutch-speaking socialist leaders to have outspoken, often subtle sociolinguistic ideas avant la lettre about language planning. After a number of years the socialists started realizing the social importance of the linguistic struggle and, eventually, they became strong advocators of standard language usage. In summarizing the role of the political parties in the 19th century it is clear that, initially, the linguistic issue was considered important only in so far as it was related to other party concerns. However, from 1911 onwards the various Flemish factions joined forces for the Dutchification of the university of Ghent. This heated debate, continuing until 1930, can be considered as the first of many examples of the increasing prominence of the linguistic compartmentalization of Belgian politics.

l.2.3.Inwestern capitalist societies a well-documented mechanism refers to the challenging role of a rising middle class vis i vis the power elite. At the beginning of the 20th century such a middle class was present in Flanders. In challenging the French-speaking power elite, language was chosen as an important issue. According to Van Belle & Jaspaert (1985), this social development was also an important factor in the way the Dutch language was standardized. Attempting to stem the tide of French, the rising middle class felt the need of a standard language but, since such a code was not yet available in Flanders at that time, they turned to the Netherlands for a model. According to Van Belle & Jaspaert (1985) this is why the northern norm was adopted in the first place and is still adhered to today. While the authors' approach is certainly not devoid of interest and seemingly coroborates other sociolinguistic findings stressing the importance of the middle classes in language change, we feel reluctant to emphasize the role of this group to the same extent. Certainly, the middle class played an important role throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, but, it was neither the only factor stimulatingstandardi- zation in Flanders, nor the only group to be in favour of the northern norm. We feel that in order to fully appreciate the role of societal change in the standardization process a more differentiated perspective is needed and that the result of language evolution in Flanders has to be seen as a combination of intertwining factors moving in the same direction. The following arguments corroborate this view. To begin with, 1. the middle class Van Belle & Jaspaert (1"985) refer to did not emerge until the beginning of the 20th century. Prior to then the so-called (see below) had already opted for the northern norm since this seemed the natural way to re-establish the linguistic links with the North which had been broken by political events. Yet, in both cases, as far as the spoken language was concerned, the northern norm was an ideal to which only lip service could be paid, since for the majority of the people it consisted of a language they had never even heard. At that time the tide of French was certainly not stemmed by this factor alone. 2. The Dutch language has always been an issue in the history of Belgium, one which from time to time became very prominent. From the very foundation of the 122 Roland W illemy ns I Pict v an de Cr aen

Belgian state the linguistic situation had the potential of a time bomb. 3. The economic development, or rather underdevelopment, of Flanders in the second half of the century created a tremendous inherent mobilizing power which sooner or later had to make the language issue a number one problem, since societal wealth was distributed more or less along linguistic lines. 4. During the 19th century many groups rose, e.g. the pre-social- isti, who referred to the linguistic issue and who saw the solution of this problem as a means for self-fulfillment. It is against the background of such social and linguistic unrest that we should interpret the process of language standardization in Flanders. At the beginning of the 20th century Flanders witnessed the emergence of self-conscious middle class entrepreneurs. They not only continued the achievements of previous generations but could also rely on other mobilizing forces who saw the Dutchification and standardization of Dutch as a means to improve their own social position' We shall further demonstrate this point when discussing the language situation of Brussels. First, we shall give an overview of the linguistic aspects of the ongoing standardization process.

2. Standardization in progress

2.1. Language usage in Dutch-speaking Belgium has always been strongly influenced by language-in-contact phenomena, i.e. the cohabitation oftwo standard languages (Dutch and French) in the country as a whole, and of standard Dutch with regional dialects thereof in Flanders in particular. The latter contact is responsible for a considerable amount of interference which is to be regarded as the main basis for the breaking down of the language continuum into several codes. In this section an overview is given of the various codes used within the Flemish community.

2.1.1. Regional dialect. Regional dialect in Flanders is not used in informal situations only. Rather, it is an omnipresent code which strongly determines the linguistic scene : almost everyone has a mastery of a local dialect and almost everyone uses a dialect regardless of social class, although there is a difference in frequency of use along lines of age and social and geographic origin. We consider the regional dialect to be one pole of the linguistic continuum and a rather influentual one at that, since it exercises great influence on the other codes. Umgangssprache.4 This term refers to an intermediate variant between regional dialect and the standard language. As far as its linguistic shape is concerned, it is based mainly on the structure of the dialect system with more or less significant interference from the standard, especially with respect to phonetics and vocabulary. For the less educated and many elderly people this code constitutes the most formal variety at their disposal. n We prefer (Jmgangssprache to vernacular, the latter term being more inaccurate than the former one. Unlike in Germany the Flemish Umgangssprachen are not to be considered the regional standards of smaller geographical units. Growth and Development of Standard Dutch in Belgium r23

B el gi an D u tch . Unlike American English for instance which is the coOe considered by most Americans to be their standard language, Belgian Dutch is definitely not the code considered by the Flemings to be their standard. Although it may be regarded as such by some and used as such by even more, it is scarcely ever viewed as the standard variety Flemings are supposed to use (cf. Geerts, Nootens & Van den Broeck 1978). It is interesting that this code indeed lacks some of the main characteristics that are usually attributed to standard languages : there is no real codification; there is no real authority to turn to in case of doubt since there are neither authoritative dictionaries nor gram- mars; there is no leading group of speakers and no real centre of gravity, although Brabant has been frequently considered as such (Goossens t970; Deprez 1985); and finally, interference from less prestigious language varieties exceeds the point considered by most to be acceptable in a standard language. The origin of the code is clearly a written one and the characteristics of a written language remain fairly present even when it is used in speech. Standard Dutch. This code is considered to be the other pole of the continuum, the common national language based on the same linguistic norms in both the Netherlands and Belgium. Since all exoglossic languages show some variation as compared to the centre (cf. Willemyns 1986) it is obvious that in Flanders the common norm is sometimes actualized in a way betraying that its command is smaller than the amount of recognition and acceptance it gets.

2.l.2.The more codes a speaker controls, the easier it will be to cope with anysituation, i.e. to adjust one's speech to various circumstances. In order to be able to meaningfully relate the notions of continuum and of communicative competences it is necessary to refine the former notion so as to turn it into a pluridimensional device not only rendering the range of the codes but also reflecting their functional value. The competence of an individual speaker is unlikely to span the entire continuum; certain varieties may thus not be available to certain groups of speakers. The slowly increasing group of native speakers who have no command of the local dialect is presumed to have a minimal competence of Umgangssprache + Belgian and/or Standard Dutch. The most frequent combination for a large group of Flemings comprises dialect, Umgangssprache and Belgian and/or standard Dutch. Non-standard speakers may be limited to dialect, and Umgangssprache for formal interactions. Further, there may be considerable differences in code usage according to age, level of instruction, geographical, social and interactional variables (see e.g. Van den Broeck 1977;Deprez 1980, 1985; Deprez & Geerts L976; Geerts, Nootens & Van den Broeck 1978; Willemyns 1979b, 1981a, 1981b, 1983). Dialect usage and the mastery of various codes may differ considerably from one region to another. In West-Flanders where dialect mastery reaches 98%,it is obvious that not only the usage of this code but also the attitudes towards it, the amount of

s Communicative competence is considered here as the amount of sophistication with which a speaker is able to switch from one code to another according to the situation. r24 RolandWillemynslPiet van de Craen solidarity it expresses and the domains in which it is used (Willemyns, forthcoming) differ considerably from areas such as Brussels where only 66Vo of the population masters the local dialect (cf. De Vriendt & Willemyns 1987). The social value of the codes and the discriminating use made of them by members of various social segments is rather particular in Flanders. In most Westeuropean societies the usual linguistic situation is that the standard language is (among other things) the sociolect of the upper class. Moreover, a considerable gap exists between the linguistic habits of different classes. In Flanders, although both power and solidarity are expressed by language, this happens in such a peculiar way that a supplementary factor which we shall call "linguistic tolerance" has to be taken into account. This tolerance is the result of the vacuum which was left when French lost its dominating position. Members of the upper class, having been taught and trained almost exclusively in French, could or would no longer use this language. This state of affairs often entailed an insufficient command of standard Dutch and caused a rather tolerant attitude towards deviant linguistic behaviour in general. To a certain extent this tolerance still exists today and strongly impedes the implicit penalization one might expect for inappropriate linguistic behaviour. It is therefore neither the possession of the means of production, nor wealth, birth or income that are the decisive factors but rather the level of education (cf. Geerts et al 1985b).

2.Z.When the need for a standard language was felt in the second part of the 19th century one of the problems the language planners of that period were faced with was the direction of the standardization process. Two opposing factions participated in the debates. Those advocating a standard language with strong influences ofthe local varieties, the so-called particularists, and those insisting that the Northern model should be followed, the so-called integrationalists. The victory of the integrational solution has been explained by language political motives : "The only possibility for successfully repelling the competition of French was the elaboration of a language that could be accepted as being the same as the one used in the Netherlands" (Willemyns 1984 :222). Sincethe turn of the century the integrationalist option has never been seriously challenged any more. A potential model for the process itself is given by Geerts et al (7985a). They discern first an artificial adoption of the standard language which later changes into a more natural standardizatior, process, involving broader masses of the population. The idea was that in the second stage the necessity of relying on the standard set in the Netherlands would gradually diminish. An alternative way to describe the ongoing standardization process in Flanders is by considering the exoglossic nature of the language region in that the centre of gravity is situated outside the country. A common characteristic to all peripheral territories is that language usage to a certain extent diverges from the evolutions in the centre. Therefore, the'standardization of Dutch in Flanders can never proceed along exactly the same lines as in the centre of gravity, viz. the Northern Randstad (Willemyns 1986).

2.2.1. Although after 1930 Dutch was supposed to be used on all levels, the Dutch language as it was spoken in Flanders was hardly ready to play such a role. Lack of direct Growth and Development of Snndard Dutch in Belgium 125

and frequent contact with the Netherlands made the implementation of the northern norm a precarious and difficult problem. Therefore, a partial domestic standardization process occurred drawing mainly on three resources : the written language, local dialects, and French. In order to adapt his actual performance the Flemish standard learner had to come to grips with 1. orthography, 2. pronunciation, 3. lexical aspects and 4. morphological and syntactic problems. As far as orthography was concerned there were hardly any problems since the unifi- cation of the spelling was carried out simultaneously in the North and the South. As far as pronunciation is concerned, many Flemings regarded the spelling as the ultimate norm of pronunciation. Convergence towards the northern norm has become stronger in the last two decades and it can safely be stated that in general the "quality" of the pronunciation of the population as a whole has come much closer to standard Dutch (see e. g. P6e 1948; Goossens 1973, t985; Cassier & Van de Craen 1986). In the lexical field a similar convergence is under way, A considerable part of vocabulary in Flanders deviates from the standard, due to the language-in-contact situation with French and is, therefore, quite stigmatized. Yet a not negligible portion of it is not detected as such and tenacious and often bitter discussions are held on the amount of southern vocabulary that ought to be retained or even introduced into the general norm. Lexical standardization has been one of the prominent sociolinguistic issues investigated during the past decades (cf. Willemyns 1986 for a detailed study with many examples) and it seems that southern attitudes towards lexical variation are influenced by three main factors : 1.. the rapidly penetrating northern influence, 2. linguistic insecurity as to how to cope with regional influence (cf. Deprez & Geerts L977) 3. the rejection of French influence though not always in a systematic and straightforward way. Morphological and syntactic features surfaced only recently in the debates (cf. Braecke 1985). A notorious exception, however, is the discussion on the pronominal system with respect to forms of address. Most southern dialects have a one-pronoun system of address as opposed to the T - V distinction in standard Dutch. This leads to interesting problems even for those who made the - theoretical - decision to adopt the northern system (cf. Deprez & Geerts 1977). This apparently transitional period has been described as "pronominal chaos" (Willemyns 1983) but there is little doubt about the eventual outcome in favour of the northern system.

2.2.2. The attitudes of the Flemings towards their own linguistic habits have been studied in a variety of ways (Deprez 1982). Asked about the quality of typically northern and southern language variants, the Flemings seem to reject both the northern and the southern ways of speaking (Geerts et al t978) and they opt for an alternative solution which, as these authors observe, does not exist. Consequently, they call this state of mind, following Haugen, schizoglossia. It is hard to evaluate the influence of similar attitudes to actual linguistic behaviour since schizoglossia never seems to have an impact on official language policy or on the actual ongoing standardization process. The most acceptable Dutch in Flanders seems to be the language spoken by the journalists of the national TV-channel, using a clearly recognizable southern variety with (almost) no traces of regional interference on the phonological or lexical level, and without specific 126 RolandWillemynslPiet van de Craen northern characteristics (cf. Deprez 1985). All investigations reveal a considerable amount of linguistic insecurity with the average Fleming, distrusting endogenic elements as much as exogenic ones, yet still strongly influenced by a number of language contact phenomena deriving from French. In the younger generation an increasing self-con- sciousness can be seen, which may well be the start of a new standardization stage, a combined evolution of northern and southern streams, leading to one big flow and recognized as such by the whole Dutch-speaking community (cf. Willemyns 1983; Geerts et al L985a).

3. Brussels

The city of Brussels and its linguistic situation has increasingly preoccupied Belgian political life since 1830.6 Although situated in Flanders, Brussels underwent a process of Frenchification from independence onwards, culminating in the beginning of the 20th century but gradually loosing ground since the early 1970s.

3.1. To avoid any misunderstanding it is to be stressed that the French language has always been part of Brussels. Like in any other Dutch-speaking city of Flanders the higher classes spoke French. After becoming the capital of Belgium and the centre of its political life, numerous government officials followed by all kinds of other services came to the city, strengthening even more the prestigious character of French. In 1850, half of the ruling class, i.e. half of those who could afford the polling tax, lived in Brussels. (Roossens 1981) French became the symbol par excellence of upward social mobility; as Gubin (1978) found out, the high number of self-declared French speakers (37 Vo in language census figures from 1842 onwards) is much more to be interpreted as an indica- tion of the willingness to speak French than proof of actual proficiency. Another feature that has contributed to the Frenchification of Brussels is the social composition of its population. In contrast to other big cities in Flanders, such as Antwerp and Ghent, there was no industrial proletariat in Brussels. This accounts for the fact that the lower classes of Brussels were much more influenced by middle-class values than elsewhere in the country. Eventually, this resulted in the Frenchification of the lower classes as well, which is a rather unique phenomenon. In spite of all this, the real explosion of Frenchification did not occur until the beginning of the 2fth century. By then the linguistic situation had taken shape that would dominate Brussels until the end of the 1960s. It was a completely diglossic situation with Dutch as the L-variety and French as the H-variety. In some parts of the city and in certain lower class groups a variety came into existence which was neither French nor Dutch but a mixture of both (see Baetens Beardsmore 1971). Bilingualism existed in the sense that almost only Dutch speakers were bilingual and that it was regarded as a transition stage towards language shift and French monolingualism. This process con-

6 See Witte et al (l9M) and Witte & Baetens Beardsmore (1987). Growth and Development of Standard Dutch in Belgium L27

tinued throughout the 20th century: at the last language census in 1947 only 9,L6Vo declared themselves to be monolingual Dutch speakers, 36,997o were monolingual French speakers and 43,93Vo were self-declared bilinguals.T

3.2. During the 19th century and deep into the 20th century the francophone factions have tried to increase their influence in the city while the Dutch-speaking ones have tried, first, to survive and, later, to gain back (part of) the lost ground. Today, Brussels consists officially of 19 bilingual municipalities but with French clearly as the dominant language. From a historical viewpoint the impact of the Flemish Movement on the language situation in Brussels has been very small. At the time when in the rest of Flanders Dutch was firmly gaining ground, Frenchification of the local Brussels population and of immigrants from Flanders was culminating. Apart from the class composition of society favourable to Frenchification there are two other reasons for the discrepancy between Brussels and the Flemish hinterland. During the 19th century and up to 1947 a number of language censuses were carried out showing a continuously increasing number of French-speakers and, at the same time, a decreasing number of Dutch-speakers, even though immigration figures from Flanders surpassed those from Wallonia. While these figures show ongoing tendencies, they do not give an accurate description of the real linguistic situation, since the questionnaires, the interpretation of the figures, as well as the way the censuses were carried out were strongly biased in favour of French. After each census the results were politically in- strumentalized in order to tighten the French grip on Brussels. It is easy to understand that the position of Dutch was constantly undermined, despite the linguistic legislation, which, if enforced at all, was always modified and weakened (Van Velthoven 1981a), Apart from the political instrumentalization of the census data education was the other key to Frenchification on the political level. (Van Velthoven 1981b). With respect to the standardization of Dutch, it is interesting that the Francophones used the dialect status of Dutch in Brussels as an argument in favour of French. Since the dialect of the capital and standard Dutch, they reasoned, were two different languages, and since French was that important, why not study French immediately? In the next section the importance of the standardization of Dutch for Brussels will become even clearer. In the 1960s the political situation of Brussels, which was relatively stable between the World Wars, changed drastically. It was then that the long-standing Flemish demands regarding the linguistic boundary of Brussels and self-government in a federal state were granted to a certain extent.8 This has produced a new generation of conscious Dutch- speakers who greatly influenced the attitudes towards Dutch and French.

3.3. Recently a number of fundamental new attitudes can be witnessed in the city of Brussels. Whereas in the past Dutch lived a kind of hidden life and Frenchification of

z The methodology and the results of the 19th century language censuses are discussed by Gubin (1978). Note that the last census took place in 1947. Continuous Flemish protests against the political exploitation of the figures led to the abolition of the language censuses in 1961. s See Haagdorens (1986) for the political development in the sixties. t28 RolandWillemynslPiet van de Craen

Dutch-speakers continued steadily, there are strong indications today that this process is not irreversible. Studies by Willemyns (1979c), Van de Craen & Langenakens (L979), Deprez et al (forthcoming) have demonstrated that standard Dutch has become 1.. a prestigious language in its own right, which is 2. able to stem the tide of Frenchification, as well as 3. potentially able to overcome feelings of inferiority previously connected with Dutch. As a consequence we witness a gradual decrease in the use of local Dutch dialects in favour of standard Dutch. At the same time the attitudes of the Francophones seem to be changing as well: Recently some of them have started to send their children to Dutch-speaking schools (Deprez et al, forthcoming). Yet not all feelings of inferiority seem to have been overcome on the part of the Flemings (Persons 1986). Most of the research findings reported are corroborated by a number of interesting observations. First, during the last twenty years the streetimage of Brussels has changed from an almost exclusively French one into a bilingual one. Second, bilingualism has again become an issue in Brussels since more and more Francophones are becoming aware of the importance of proficiency in Dutch and start learning the language. It is significant that for the first time bilingualism is propagated in French-speaking circles, too. This is due to the availability of standard Dutch as well as to the economic importance attached to Flanders. By now the employment market in Brussels has become thoroughly bilingual and it is rare that less than at least receptive bilingualism be re- quired. Judging from this state of affairs it is possible to envisage the future sociolinguistic situation of Brussels. It is highly probable that massive Frenchification has come to a halt, and that the increasing importance of Dutch, together with the increasing prestige of that language, will create a much more balanced bilingual situation (see also Van de Craen & Langenakens 1979 and De Vriendt & Willemyns 1987).

4. Conclusion

In this contribution we have outlined various aspects of the standardization process of Dutch in Flanders. Linguistically this process can be considered a continuous movement towards the northern norm, although this development was never a straightforward one. It is best described as a meandering stream with both some loss of water en route as well as the rise of numerous tributaries, most of which never got very far. This accounts for the fact that the southern standardization stream has never completely joined the northern one, but both constitute an estuary consisting of several arms carrying water in the same direction, yet each at its own pace. Politically, the linguistic issue in Flanders and Brussels has become increasingly important to the extent that, in some ways, it dominates political life. Socially, the standardization of Dutch in Flanders in a situation of language contact is an interesting example of the interplay between societal and linguistic developments. Growth and Development of Sundard Dutch in Belgium L29

References

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1971). Le frangais rigional d Bruxelles. Brussels: University Press. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1980). Bilingualism in Belgium. lournal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 1, 145-154. Braecke, C. (1985). Tangconstructies: impliciete "norm" en aanvaardbaarheidsoordelen. It Stan- daardtaal en dialect op school, thuis en elders,P. Van de Craen & R. Willemyns (eds.), 279-31,8. Brussels, Studiereeks van de V.U.B. Cassier, L. & Van de Craet, P. (1986). Vijftig jaar evolutie van het Nederlands. ln Werk-in- uitvoering,59-73, J. Creten, G. Geerts & K. Jaspaert (eds.). Leuven: Acco. Clough, S. (1968). A History of the Flemish Movement in Belgium. New York, Octagon Books. Deprez, K. (1980). Hoe verspreidt zich in Vlaanderen de standaardtaal? Antwerp Papers in Lin- guistics. Deprez, K. (1982). Naar een eigen identiteit. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven. Deprez, K. (1985). Brabant: een eigen taalcentrum? ln Standaardtaal en di.alect op school, thuis en elders,P. Van de Craen & R. Willemyns (eds.), l3l-157. Brussels: Studiereeks van de V.U.B. Deprez, K. & Geerts, G. (1976). De verspreiding van het algemeen Nederlands in West-Vlaande- ren. De Nieuwe Taalgids 69,283-305; Deprez, K. & Geerts, G. (1977). Lexical and Pronominal Standardization in the Evolution of Standard Netherlandic in West-Flanderc. Zeiuchrift f. Dialektologic und Linguistik Beihefte Neue Folge nr. 22. Deprez, K., Persoons, Y. & Wijnants, A. (forthcoming) Minderheidsproblemen: over de vooruit- gang van het Nederlandstalige basisonderwijs in Brussel. De Vriendt, S. & Willemyns, R. (1987). Linguistic Research in Brussels. ln The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingualism in Brussels, 195-231., E. Witte & H. Baetens Beardsmore (eds.) Clevedon-Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Geerts, G., Hellemans, S. & Jaspaert, K. (1985a). Een alternatieve benadering van het standaardi- satieproces in Vlaanderen. ln Standaardtaal en dialect op school, thuis en elders, P. Van de Craen & R. Willemyns (eds.), 189-201. Brussels: Studiereeks van de V.U.B. Geerts, G., Hellemans, S. & Jaspaert, K. (1985b). Standaardnederlands en dialect in Leuven. Leuvense Bijdragen 74. Geerts, G., Nootens, J. & Van den Broeck, J. (1978). Flemish Attitudes towards Dialects and Standard Language in a Public Opinion Poll. International lournal of the Sociology of Language 15, 33-40. Goossens, J. (1970). ,,Belgisch Beschaafd Nederlands" en Brabantse expansie. De Nieuwe Taalgids 63, 54-70. Goossens, J. (1973). De Belgische uitspraak van het Nederlands. De Nieuwe Taalgids 66,230-240. Goossens, J. (1985). Herauskisung und Herausbildung des Niederliindischen. ln Entstehung von Sprachen und Vdlkern, S. Ureland (ed.), 287 -304. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Goossens, J. (1986). Het Nederlandse Taalgebied. Gedenkboek 1886- 1986: Koninklijke Academie Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 65-88: Gubin, E. (1978). La situation des langues i Bruxelles au XIXdme sidcle i la lumidre d'un examen critique des statistiques. Taal en socinle integratie 1, 33-79. Haagdorens, L. (1986). De mobilisatie van het ,,Vlaams aktiecomit6 voor Brussel en Taalgrens" voor de marsen op Brussel 1959-1963. Taal en sociale integratie 8, 85-183. Lefdvre, J. (1979). Nationalisme linguistique et identification linguistique: le cas de Belgique. International lournal of the Sociology of Language 20,37-58. Lorwin, V. (1972). Linguistic Pluralism and Political Tension in Modern Belgium. ln Advances in the Sociology of Language { J. Fishman (ed.),386-412. Mouton: The Hague. Pde, W. (1948). Standaard-uitspraak van het Nederlands in Belgie. Persoon en gemeenschap III, 3- 15. Persoons, Y. (1986). De identiteit van een minderheid. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ant- werp.

SOCIOLINGUISTICA 2N988 130 Roland WillemynslPiet van de Craen

Roosens, A. (1981). De Vlaamse kwestie. Leuven: Kritak. Suffeleers, T. (1979). Taalverzorging in Vlaanderen. Brugge: Orion. Van Belle, W. & Jaspaert, K. (1985). Mythe versus politiek-economische realiteit. Heibel 19(4), 62-94. Van de Craen, P. & Langenakens, A. (1979). Verbale strategieen bij Nederlandstaligen in Sint- Genesius-Rode. Taal en sociale integratie 2, 97-139. Van de Craen, P. & Willemyns, R. (1985). Standaardtaal en dialect op school, thuis en elders. Brussels: Studiereeks van de V.U.B. Van den Branden, L. (1956). Het streven naar verheerlijking, zuivering en opbouw van het Neder- lands van de 16de eeuw, Gent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie. Van den Broeck, J. (1977). Class Differences in Syntactic Complexity in the Flemish Town of Maaseik. Language in Society 6,149-182. Van Velthoven, H. (1981a). De taalwetgeving en het probleem Brussel 1830-1914. Taal en sociale integratie 4, 247 -259. Van Velthoven, H. (1981b). Taal- en onderwijspolitiek te Brussel 1878-1914. Taal en sociale inteSratie 4, 261,-387. Van Velthoven, (1987). The Process of Language Shift in Brussels: Historical Background and Mechanisms. ln The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingualism in Brwsels, 15-46, E. Witte & H. Baetens Beardsmore (eds.). Clevedon - Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Willemyns, R. (1979a). Het niet-literaire Middelnederlands. Assen: Van Gorcum' Willemyns, R. (1979b). Invloed van ,,power" en ,,solidarity" op het gebruik van dialect en standaardnederlands in Vlaanderen. De Nieuwe Taalgids 72,284-302. Willemyns, R. (1979c). Bedenkingen bij het taalgedrag van Vlaamse universiteitsstudenten uit Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde. Taal en sociale integratic 2, 141-159; Willemyns, R. (1981a). Die Sprachsituation in Belgien unter soziolinguistischen Aspekten. lingz- istische Berichte 75, 4L-59. Willemyns, R. (1981b). Taalgebruik en taalgedrag als klasse-indicatoren. De Nieuwe Taalgids 74, 134- 148. Willemyns, R. (1983). Taalvariatie en normbewustzijn. Verslag van het Sste colloquium docenten Nederlands aan buitenlandse universiteiten Den Haag-Hasselt, 79-96. Willemyns, R. (1984). A Common Legal Framework for Language Unity in the Dutch Language Area. Multilingua 3-4, 215-223. Willemyns, R. (1986). Regionalismen in het Nederlands. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Konin- klijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 108-131. Willemyns, R. (forthc.). Dialekt als Schiisselbegriff der belgischen Sprachverhiiltnisse. Verslagen en Mededelingen v. d. Kon. Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. Witte, E. & Craeybeckx, J. (1981). Politieke geschiedenis van Belgii sinds 1830. Antwerpen: Stan- daard Wetenschappelijke Uitgeverij. Witte, E. & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1987) (eds.). The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingua- lism in Brwseb. Clevedon-Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Witte, E. et al. (1984). Le bilinguisme en Belgique: le cas de Bruxelles. Brussels: University Press.

SOCIOLINGUTSTTCA 2N988 sociolin$tica

Internationales Jahrbuch ftir Europdische Soziolinguistik International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics Annuaire International de la Sociolinguistique Europ6enne

Herausgegeben von /edited by I 6dit€ par Urrucn AuuoN . Kraus J. MerrnBIrn ' Psrpn H. Nrror

2 Standardisierungsentwicklungen in europdischen Nationalsprachen: Rom ania, Germania Standardisation of European National Languages: Romania, Germania Standardisation des langues nationales europ6ennes Romania, Germania

Sonderdruck

Max Niemeyer Verlag Ttibingen 1988