I 758 IX. Regional Overview

Trudgill, Peteq ed., (1984) Language in the British - (1999) The Dialects of England,2nd edition, Ox- Isles, Cambridge. ford. (1984) "standard English in England", in'- Lan- - Newcastle upon Tyne guage in the British /s/er, Trudgill, P., ed., Cam- Li Wei, bridge,3244. (Great Britain)

171. The /Niederlande

1. Introduction victoriously and as an independent nation 2. The area from the war against the Spanish rulers. The 3. Flanders large number of (mostly wealthy and in- 4. The fluential) southern immigrants accounted 5. Linguisticintegration for a permanent live contact with Southern 6. German speaking Dutch, which was, at lhat moment, still the 7. Literature(selected) prestige variety of the language. Yet, it was gradually ruled out as far as its influence on of Standard Dutch was con- l. Introduction the evolution cerned. Holland's lTth century is known as Although the name is occasionally used, The Golden Age, reflecting both economic there is no political entity called The Low and cultural prosperity. Influential writers Countries.In unoflicial usage it may refer to as Vondel, Hooft, Bredero, Cats coined various regions but when the focus is on lan- the writing standard for ages to come in guage and culture it usually refers to the a Republic that had developed into one of Dutch language territory in Belgium and the super powers of that time. In the l7th, The Netherlands. The latter is also what the but mainly in the lSth century efforts were editors of this volume had in mind' The made to regulate and uniform the language main focus of the article will be on the multi- by means of dictionaries and grammars, a lingual situation, i. e. the contact of different tradition started previously by the southern languages as well as of varieties of the same spraeckconsteneers of the I 6tt century. From language. a contemporary point of view it was defi- nitely Lambert ten Kate (the first com- parative linguist in the Low Countries) who language arca 2. The Dutch proved to have the best insight in languagrc From the very beginning of the Middle change and linguistic evolution in general. It Dutch writing tradition a linguistic contrast were less gifted colleagues of his, though, between an easternly and a westerly shaped who were the most successful and influen- variety can be witnessed. The overwhelming tial. They deepened the gap between the majority of all texts displayed decidedly spoken and the (over formalized) written western language features and the written language and their linguistic views came to language of the period was be designated as 'language despotism'. Yet, firmly western (specifically ) in at the dawn of the l gtn century the northern its roots even in the non-Flemish parts of written language could boast a complete set the language territory. In the 16th century, of 'standardization instruments' : Weiland's though, the economic and political center of grammar (1805) and Siegenbeek's ortho- gravity of the Dutch language area shifted to graphy (1804) were there for the use of all Brabant. During this period a standard var- who wanted to write standard, 'cultivated' iety of the written language was gradually Dutch (De VriesAMillemyns/Burger 1995, taking shape. After the political split of the 99ff). Meanwhile, and as a result of the Dutch language territory during the last Spanish War of Succession (1702-1713), quarter of the l6th century the center of the southern, 'Belgian' territories were pass- gravity of standardization passed from the ed on from the Spanish to the Austrian South to the North (more or less the pres- Habsburgs. Throughout the 18tn century the ent-day Netherlands) which had come out consolidation of French as the more socially 171. The Low Countries 1759

acceptable tongue continued and Dutch had munity of (9.5%). Since regional little official status, except at a local level. governments have legislative power the fron- Yet, during the lTth and lSth centuries the tiers of their jurisdiction, being language unity ofthe northern and southern language borders, are defined in the constitution. varieties was not challenged by anyone and 3.1.2. The 'language struggle' which was the great poets of Holland's Golden Age were going to dominate Belgian political life the important role models, highly recom- started in 1830. Although the new constitu- mended - yet much less complied with - by tion provided for 'linguistic freedom', it was 18th - century Flemish grammarians and obvious that this 'freedom' was only profit- poets alike. The language situation deterio- able to the rich and the powerful, i. e. the rated considerably when, in 1794,the South- bourgeoisie from Wallonia and Flanders, all ern Netherlands were annexed by : of whom were French speakers. Hence, des- for the lirst time in history there was a mass- pite the fact that Dutch speakers constituted ive oflicial attempt to change the linguistic the majority of the population, no legal habits of the masses by suppressing the use means was provided for their language. A of the Dutch language. The shortJived reun- so-called Flemish Movement started up al- ion of Belgium and Holland as one United most immediately and fought a long lasting Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-1830) was battle for cultural and linguistic rights for of the utmost importance to the Flemings, Dutch speakers. It took until 1889 for the who suddenly rediscovered their language gelijkheidswel to declare Dutch and French for administration, politics, the courts, and the two official languages of the country. higher education, areas where it had hardly It took a complete century to finally achieve been used for almost two centuries. A small the so-called Dutchification of the university group of cultural leaders and intellectuals of (in 1930), meaning that at last were strongly influenced by both the Dutch Dutch speaking university students were standard language and the new linguistic taught in their own language. Afterwards opportunities. In this way the short period things developed considerably faster: two ofreunion was decisive for the success ofthe sets of laws in 1932 and 1963 guaranteed Flemish Movement which would gradually what had been the ultimate goal of the Flem- succeed in turning the linguistic make-up of ish Movement i. e. the official and complete Flanders and Belgium upside down. By 1830 Dutchification of Flanders. The Walloons Belgium had become an independent consti- having been opposed to widespread bilin- tutional monarchy with a parliamentary sys- gualism throughout the country, Belgium tem dominated by the bourgeois elite, which gradually turned to the territoriality prin- secured its position by adopting a poll-tax ciple model to accommodate the various lin- system (out of 3.5 million peoplg only guistic groups. It officialized the language 46000 had the right to vote). For this bour- frontier as a domestic administrative border, geoisie, French was a natural choice as the made it virtually unchangeable and accom- language of the state. The government ap- plished the linguistic homogeneity of the pointed only French-speaking civil servants language groups and regions. Revisions of and the discrimination of Dutch throughout the constitution in 1970 and 1980 provided the l9th century was general and very delib- for cultural autonomy and a considerable erate (Willemyns 2003, l85ff.). amount of self-determination for the lin- guistically divided parts of the country. Sub- sequent constitutional 1988 Flanders changes in and 3. 1993 finally turned Belgium into the federal country it is now (Coudenberg 1989; Alen/ 3.1. Social and political aspects of Suetens 1993). multilingualism The most important exception to the ter- 3.1.1. Belgium (+10 million inhabitants) is ritoriality rule is Brussels, where there is no a trilingual and federal country, consisting geographical demarcation of Dutch and of 4 different entities constituted on the French speakers and, consequently, the per- basis of language: the Dutch speaking com- sonality principle is the only possible one. munity (called Flanders; 58oh of the popu- The case of the capital is rather special lation), the French speaking one (called in that it had turned into a bilingual city, Wallonia; 32o/o),the small German speaking although it is located entirely within the community (0.6%) and the bilingual com- . The Frenchification of the 1760 IX. Regional Overview capital started in the 18th century and devel- of the industrial gross added value was gen- oped considerably during the l9tn century erated in the Flemish region (58% of Bel- (Witte and Baetens Beardsmore 1987). Im- gium's population). Consequently, the cul- migration of Walloons and French certainly tural and linguistic balance of power shifted played a part in this but the decisive factor towards Flanders. The present-day social has been the Frenchification of considerable and economic unbalance between Flanders, parts of the indigenous population and of Brussels and Wallonia is to be considered Flemish immigrants, due to the fact that up- potentially disruptive for the continuation ward social mobility seemed hardly possible of Belgium's existence, since it requires a without shifting to French (Demetsenaere considerable amount of so-called 'solidarity 1988). It was only after World War II that transfers' from Flanders to Wallonia (for serious efforts were made to safeguard Brus- 80%) and to Brussels (tor 20%). Most of sels' bilingual status and to secure the rights these transfers occur in the field of social se- of the Dutch speaking population which curity financing. had become a minority by then. Measures to slow down Frenchification started in the 3.2. Linguistic varieties early sixties not so much through local regu- 3.2.1. Flanders is characterized by a rather lations but mainly by extensive linguistic complicated use of several codes. The theor- legislation on the level of the national, Bel- etical range of the linguistic continuum gian legislator (Willemyns 1997a). Yet the reaches from dialect on the one side to stan- actual balance of power is uncertain since dard Dutch on the other, with several in- no oflicial figures are available (Gubin 1978 termediate codes in between. The decisive explains why it is impossible to collect re- criterion is dialect interference: the more liable data). According to Baetens Beards- one goes into the direction of the standard, more (1983) at least six different categories the less interference can be noticed. The di- of speakers are to be discerned using, in a glossic and bilingual situation as it used to combination of bilingualism and diglossia, exist in the 19th century (Willemyns 1999) from one up to six different languages and has gradually been dissolved during the first codes. Also, the rapidly expanding popu- half of the 20th century. Linguistic legis- lation offoreign origin accounts for the fact lation already mentioned and the gradual that for probably one third of the capital's loss of all functions for French resulted citizens none of Belgiumt languages is their in Flanders becoming monolingual. Dialect mother tongue. For the overwhelming ma- loss and dialect leveling, having gained mo- jority of those, French is their first'national' mentum after WW II, are responsible for the language. disappearance of the former diglossic situ- 3.1.3. The Belgian language struggle has ation in Flanders atlarge, with the exception never been an exclusively linguistic problem of the province of West-Flanders, where the but has always been intertwined with social former situation: regional dialect in infor- and political issues as well. Yet, a consider- mal and the (intended) standard in formal able change in nature is to be discerned from and some semi formal situations still per- the early sixties onwards when language sists. The use made of the various codes also problems were definitively replaced by so- depends on the communicative competence Called'community problems' and the border of the individual. During the last few dec- between Wallonia and Flanders ceased to be ades the mastery and the use of regional dia- a mere linguistic one in order to become a lects have declined dramatically and, at the social one as well. This can be accounted for same time, the use of and the proficiency by major domestic economic changes. From in the standard variety has considerably in- the late fifties onwards a dramatic industri- creased. Consequently, the communicative al development was witnessed in Flanders, competence of most youngsters and most in- turning this formally agricultural territory habitants of the central regions of Flanders into a highly industrialized region, largely has shifted towards the right pole of the con- dominating the national political, social and tinuum. economic scene. At the same time the out- 3.2.2. The close contact which exists be- dated industrial equipment of Wallonia was tween French and in slowly breaking down, giving way to a se- general and in bilingual Brussels in particu- rious economic recession of which it has not lar has led to a considerable amount of lin- recovered to the present day. In 199674.5% guistic interference (Willemyns 1996). The 171. The Low Countries t76t contact situation also entailed consequences to loose ground rapidly, there is no unanim- for the standardization process of Dutch ity among scholars as to the pace of their itself. Aware of the fact that the societal in- disappearance. Based on the observation fluence of French in Flanders could only be that certain morphonological rules which successfully repelled by an equally standard- are typical for the dialects, yet are not pres- ized and normalized version of their own ent in the standard language, are still pro- language, a majority of Flemings advocated ductive (e. g. morphological umlaut alter- strict language uniformity with Holland and nations) some linguists believe that the in so doing pushed the standardization pro- dialects are still very much alive and that cess in a northern direction. their existence is not (yet) threatened (e. g. Hamans 1985, 135). Other studies, though, demonstrate that such prognoses are dan- 4. The Netherlands gerous for one because there are different ways to evaluate the data but also because 4.1. Linguistic varieties the importance of attitudes is either ne- 4.1.1. The fact that almost half of Holland's glected or overestimated. A discrepancy has + 16 million people lives in the Randstad indeed been observed between positive atti- (the large urban agglomerations in the west tudes towards the dialects on the one hand ofthe country) is very revealing, not only for and yet a rapid decrease ofthose dialects on the social but also for the linguistic make-up the other hand. Also, there appears to be no of the country. From the Randstad, where more direct relationship between dialect the modern Dutch standard language took proficiency and dialect usage: even in places shape from the 17th century onwardq it spread where proficiency is still high, we observe a geographically as well as socially over the dramatic and rapid decrease in the figures of rest of the territory, at first only within dialect usage (Willemyns 1997). the borders of the Netherlands, and after- 4.1.2. lt has never been possible to ident- wards also in Belgium. A map shown in ify a clear cut border between the dialects Hagen (1989) illustrates how dialect use and spoken on both sides of the Dutch-German mastery increase the further one moves away border which have in common such import- from the Randstad. Yet, more recent studies ant features (not existing in the Dutch stan- (all discussed in Willemyns 1997) demon- dard language, nor in the more western dia- strate that very often matters are much lects) as e. g. the so-called Saxon common less straightforward and more complicated. plural, morphological umlaut alternations Both the acceptance of and the attitudes to- in the building of the diminutive or of the wards linguistic varieties are determined plural, or the tone opposition (stoottoon > by the fact that the western flavored stan- < sleeptoon) shared by Limburg and the dard language is not only the supra regional bordering German Rhineland. Yet, due to means of communication but also the so- dialect decline and the ever increasing pen- ciolect of the so-called 'better situated' etration of the respective standard lan- classes in the country at large. Negative atti- guages on both sides of the border, what tudes mainly derive from social resentment used to be a is rapidly fal- against this particular sociolect-function of ling apart into two different language areas. the standard language. Socially determined Studies published in Bister-Broosen (1998) linguistic attitudes are the strongest in the detail all aspects of this evolution and dem- Randstad itself: the habitual language of the onstrate how the differing standard lan- popular classes in this highly urbanized re- guages even affect the dialects themselves. gion, called stadsdialecten (urban dialects) As far as the state border between The Ne- mostly provoke negative attitudes. Despite therlands and Flanders is concerned, the the fact that, from a purely linguistic point most relevant observation is that not a single of view, the so-called regiolecten differ more distinctive bundle of isoglosses is running widely from the standard than the urban parallel with it. Consequently, the West- and dialects do, the attitudes towards them are East-Flemish dialects constitute a continu- generally more favorable, mainly because um with those spoken in the Dutch province they mostly (still) lack the social stigma. The of Zeelar.d, as do the dialects of the Belgian regiolect, Hoppenbrouwers (1990) says, is ooa provinces Antwerpen, Vlaams-Brabant and complex of non-standard varieties in a given Limburg with those of the Dutch provinces region". Although, overall, dialects appear of Noord-Brabant and Limburg. Yet, here t762 IX. Regional Overview too, dialect decline is disrupting linguistic and the patterns of usage reveal that it is the ties of old but since these dialects are roofed habitual tongue of some 70o/o of the rural by the same standard language nothing as population and of only some 40o/o of the dramatic is happening as on the German city dwellers. Its use in the educational sys- side of the border. tem is still very limited. Since 1980 it has become an obligatory part of the primary 4.2. Langtage contact school curriculum and since 1993 it has 4.2.1. A considerable amount of foreign "obtained a modest place in the first three languages are spoken by immigrant groups grades of secondary school" (Gorter 1996, in The Netherlands. According to Van Bree I 155). The use of Frisian in the educational and De Vries (1996, 1144) the largest ethnic system is considered one of the spearheads minorities are (1) Turks, Kurds, Moroccans of language policy, which is mainly coordi- and other Mediterranean groups (2) Surina- nated by lhe Fryske Akademie, a mostly mese (3) Antilleans from Aruba, Bonaire scholarly body engaged in both status and and Curacao (4) Moluccans, and (5) Chi- corpus planning. The publication of a scien- nese. Also, there is the special group of tific dictionary (with normative authority) the Indo-Dutch, the descendants of mar- is under its way and the spelling system the riages between the Dutch and the indigen- Akademie has devised has been officially ous people of the former Dutch East Indies authorized by the provincial government (Indonesia). All groups, with the exception in 1980. There is no prescriptive grammar of the first and (partly) the fifth speak yet; Tiersma (1985) is a reference grammar Dutch, alongside with (sometimes even written in English. Dutch authorities have without) their languages of origin. To the always been insecure and often rather hos- first group "Dutch is a second language with tile in dealing with the Frisian situation. high prestige used particularly in formal si- Most of the time they have been reluctant to tuations and informal situations where grant official rights to Frisian speakers and speakers do not share a common tongue" as of today the official policy is mainly one (Van Bree/De Vries 1996, ll47). Special of tolerating rather than of promoting or educational provisions are made not only to supporting the Frisian language. The Fri- help them acquire mastery of Dutch but also sians, on the other hand, are increasingly in- to keep or gain prof,tciency in their native fluenced by Dutch and this contact not only tongues. There are no such provisions for affects the language itself but still gives way Surinamese and Antilleans, since Dutch is to language shift, mainly in the upper social the official language of their country of ori- strata and the urban population. Also, the gin. Consequently, the Dutch as spoken by migration pattern (with yearly some 25000 those people is often considered a distinct Frisians leaving the province and approxi- variety of European Dutch. This is also mately an identical number of non-Frisian partly the case with the language variety of Dutch immigrating) is potentially threaten- the Indo-Dutch. ing for the use and eventually the survival of 4.2.2. The only autochthonous contact Frisian (Gorter 1996). language in The Netherlands is Frisian which has regional official status in the 5. Linguisticintegration province of Friesland (l 4% of the total population). It is in limited official use as a In both parts of the Dutch language com- language of provincial and city adminis- munity efforts towards cultural integration trations, of education, of the media and of (i. e. to minimize the consequences of cen- the courts. There is some active promotion trifugal tendencies) started almost immedi- of the language by the regional and almost ately after the political split and can be none by the national authorities. No census exemplified by three interesting language figures are available as to the mastery and planning initiatives: (a) The North, having the use of Frisian. According to surveys become a protestant state, was badly in need some 94o/o of the Frisians can understand of an appropriate translation of the Bible. Frisian, 73Yo can speak it, 650/o can read it The language of the resulting Statenbiibel and only some 100/o can write it (Gorter (Bible of the States 1637), actually shaped 1996, 1154). The active usage of the lan- for that purpose by a commission carefully guage is mainly concentrated in the do- composed of members representing all dia- mains of the family and the neighborhood lect regions from the South as well as from l7l. The Low Countries 1763

the North, carefully combined northern and so far conceded to a supra-national institu- southern language features; (b) From the tion what is generally considered to be beginning of the l8th century onwards its own prerogative, i. e. to decide auton- there appeared to be great need for a com- omously on linguistic and cultural affairs. prehensive dictionary of Dutch and here The activities of the Nederlandse Taalunielie also we witness constant negotiations be- both in the fields of corpus and of status tween northern and southern scholars on planning. how to start and accomplish this project. The real work only started some 100 years 6. German speaking Belgium later, sponsored by the Linguistic and Liter- ary Congress bringing together writers and Apart from Flanders, there is yet another scholars from the Netherlands and Belgium territory in Belgium where a Germanic lan- on an biannual basis. Serious editing started guage is spoken. It is divided into two parts in 1851 and the Woordenboek der Nederlqnd- which, in linguistic literature, though not sche Taal (WNf) can be considered the sec- in any administrative sense, are known as ond major project aiming at closer cultural Neubelgien and Altbelgien (Nelde 1979). integration of both parts of the Dutch lan- The former is Belgium's official German guage community. Also, the very existence speaking part, in the latter German has by of those biannual Linguistic and Literary now become a minority language in an of- Congresses is a considerable integrationist ficially French speaking territory (Wille- effort in its own right (Willemyns 1993); (c) myns/Bister-Broosen 1998). Both areas are A third initiative very essential to language situated in the eastern part of Belgium, unity is the mutual concern for orthography. adjacent to Germany and Luxembourg. In From the beginning of the l9th century the l3th century the Land van Overmaas, to onwards it was acknowledged that spelling which these territories belonged became reforms needed administrative approval part of the and shared its and reinforcement and we witness govern- general and linguistic fate for a long time. mental action to maintain orthographical Through the end of the Ancien Rigime a uniformity in both countries. A large triglossic situation had developed: Dutch number of official reforms as well as aborted was the language of the administration, attempts made it a difficult task to secure High German the language of the school this uniformity which was nevertheless al- and the church, and the population com- ways maintained. These three examples (and municated by means of a local dialect of others, not mentioned here) show that there which it is impossible to determine on the has been a constant desire for cooperation basis of linguistic criteria, whether it is to be and integration which finally culminated regarded a Dutch or a German dialect in the creation of De Nederlandse Taalunie (Nelde 1979,69). From the split of the Low [Dutch Linguistic Union]. It was installed Countries onwards the region was subject under a treaty passed by the Dutch and Bel- to the same Frenchification process already gian governments in 1980, transferring to discussed in $ 3.1 for Flanders at large. At this international body their prerogatives in the Congress of Vienna in 1815 the region all matters concerning language and litera- was split: part of it (later: Neubelgien) went ture. The'Nederlandse Taalunie' is composed to Prussia, the rest (Altbelgien) remained in of 4 institutions: a Committee of Ministers, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, comprising ministers of both countries; an after 1830 in Belgium. Yet, in 1839 a con- Interparliamentary Commission, comprising siderable part of the latter returned to the MP's of both countries; a Secretary General Dutch King Willem I and is known since as and a Scientific Council for Dutch Language the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. As a and Literature (Willemyns 1984). Aiming at result of the Frenchilication policy of "integrating as far as possible the Nether- the Belgian authorities and of the loss of lands and the Dutch Community of Belgium four fifths of its speakers to Luxembourg, in the field of the Dutch language and li- French gradually superseded German in all terature in the broadest sense" (art. 2), the official and formal domains in Altbelgien. Nederlandse Taalunie is undoubtedly a re- Since it is geographically situated in the markable piece of work and a very unusual Walloon part of Belgium, the Frenchifi- occurrence in international linguistic re- cation was never stopped and as of today lations, since no national government has French is its sole official language and Ger- 1764 IX. Regional Overview man, if still used at all, has become limited De Vries, Jan/Willemyns, Roland/Burger, Peter to the private domain (Nelde 1979). The (1995) Het verhaal van een taal. Negen eeuwen Ne' Amsterdam. fate of Neubelgien was completely different. derlands, During the time it was part of Prussia Goebl, Hans et al., eds., (1996) Kontaktlinguistik. (afterwards the German Empire) German Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgeni)ssischer s g, York. was firmly established not only as the offi- For chun Berlin/l'{ew cial language but also as the habitual means Gorter, Durk (1996) "Dutch-West Frisian", in: of communication of the population. The Goebl et al., 1152-1157. situation changed dramatically, though, when Gubin, Eliane (1978) "La situation des langues i after WW I the Versailles Treaty allocated Bruxelles au XIXe siecle i la lumiere d'un examen the region to Belgium. The Belgian author- critique des statistiques", in: Taal en Sociale Inte- ities provided for no autonomy or linguistic gratie 1,33-79. protection and both the habitual Frenchifi- Hagen, Anton (1989) "The Netherlands", in: So- cation policy and the usual mechanisms cio linguis tic a 3, 6l-7 4. of upward social mobility accomplished Hamans, Camiel (1985) 'Achteruitgang van het that French not only became the language dialect?", in: Dialect, standaardtaal en maatschap' of administration but also increasingly a pij, Taeldeman, J./Dewulf, H., eds., Leuven/ language mastered and used by the upper Amersfoort, 115-135. social strata of the population. Yet, the ap- H6raud, Guy (1989) "Deutsch als Umgangs- und proximately 65000 inhabitants eventually Muttersprache in der Europiiischen Gemein- profited of the struggle of the Flemings schaft. Synthesebericht", it Deutsch als Um- against Francophone domination. Lin- gangs- und Muttersprache in der Europdischen Ge' Briissel, 31-49. guistic legislation of 1963, installing the ter- meinschaft, Kern, R., ed., ritoriality principle, upgraded German to Hoppenbrouwers, Cor (1990) Het regiolect. Van an official language ofthe area, which, as a dialect tot algemeen Nederlands, Muiderberg. consequence of the constitutional changes Lamarcq, Danny/Rogge, Marc, eds., (1996) De discussed in 3.1 became an autonomous re- taalgrens. Yan de oude tot de nieuwe Belgen, gion. The Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft as Leuven. it is now officially called comprises the can- Nelde, Peter H. (1979) Volkssprache und Kultur- tons of Eupen and Sankt Vith (some 65000 sprache. Die gegenwtirtige Lage des sprachlichen people on 867 square kilometers) and has Obergangsgebietes im deutsch-belgisch-luxembur- identical qualifications as the Flemish and gis chen Gren zraum, Wiesbaden. Walloon communities. Through the means Tiersma, Pieter (1985) Frisian Reference Gram- of an own parliament and government its mar,Dordrecht. population now constitutes, as H6raud Van Bree, Cor/de Vries, Jan (1996) "Nether- (1989) observes, probably the best protected lands", in: Goebl et al., 143-152. linguistic minority in Europe. German is Willemyns, Roland (1984) 'A common legal the official language of the administration, framework for language union in the Dutch lan- education, the judicial system etc. and it is guage area: The Treaty of Linguistic Union (Taal- the every day language of the population. unieverdrag)" , irl. Multilingua 34, 215-223. - (1993) "Integration vs. particularism. The unde- at the first'Dutch Congress'in 1849", (selected) clared issue 7. Literature in: The Earliest Stage of Language Planning, Fish- man, J., ed., Berlin/New York, 69-83. Alen, A./Suetens, L. P., eds., (1993) Het federale Belgid na de vierde staatshervorming,Bttgge. - (1996) "Niederliindisch-Franzdsisch", in: Goebl et al., ll23-1130. Baetens Beardsmore, Hugo (1983) "The 'Su- preme-Language' hypothesis applied to Brus- - (1997) "Dialektverlust im niederliindischen und sels", in: Theory, Methods and Models of Contact- Sprachraum", in: Zeitschrift fiir Dialektologie linguistics, Nelde, P. H., ed., Bonn, l5-29. Linguistik 64, 129-154. (1997a) "Toward a plurilingual urban environ- Bister-Broosen, Helga, ed., (1998) Niederldndisch - ment: Language policy and language planning in am N ie der r hein, Frankfurt. Brussels", iln Language Choices. Conditions, Con- Coudenberg (1989) The New Belgian Institutional straints, and Consequences,Ptttz, M., ed., Amster- Framework, Brussels. dam,779-193. De Metsenaere, Machteld (1988) Taalmuur: So- - (1999) "sprachkontakt in Briigge im 19. Jahrhun- ciale muur? De lgde-eeuwse taalverhoudingen in dert", in: Beitrtige zur historischen Stadtsprachen- Brussel, Brussels. .for s chung, Bister-Broosen, H., ed., Wien, 2 I -48. 172. Die deutschsprachigen Liinder 1765

- (2003) Het verhaal von het Vlaams. De ge- Grosse, S./Mattheiet K., eds., BerlinlNew York, schiedenis von het Nederlands in de zuidelijke Ne- 7t-86. derlanden, Atnwerpen/Utrecht. Witte, Els/Baetens Beardsmore, Hugo, eds., Willemyns, Roland/Bister-Broosen, Helga (1998) (1987) The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilin- "Deutsch in Belgien im neunzehnten Jahrhun- gualism in Brussels, Clevedon, Philadelphia. dert", in: Sprache und biirgerliche Nation. Beitrrige zur deutschen und europiiischen Sprach- geschichte des 19. lahrhunderts, Cherubim, D./ Roland Willemyns, Brussels ( Belgium )

172. Die deutschsprachigen Liinder/The German-Speaking Countries l. Gegenstandsbestimmung regionale staatliche Amtssprache in Nord- 2. Zur Geschichte der deutschsprachigen italien in der Provinz Bozen-Siidtirol und in Liinder Ostbelgien in der Deutschsprachigen Ge- 3. PlurinationalitiitundPluriregionalitiit meinschaft. Diese drei Liinder ziihlen jedoch (Plurizentrizitiit) der deutschen Sprache nicht zu den deutschsprachigen Lindern, da Verhiiltnis von Dialekt zu Standardvarietit 4. die Muttersprachler des Deutschen nur eine Sprachminderheiteninnerhalbdes 5. Verhiiltnis Gesamteinwohnerzahl geschlossenen deutschen Sprachgebiets im zur kleine Minderheit bzw. das Letzebur- 6. Schwindendelnternationalititder bilden deutschen Sprache gische, zu dem sich die autochthone luxem- 7. Literatur (in Auswahl) burgische Bevrilkerung als Muttersprache bekennt, als eigenstindige Sprache, nicht als Yarietiit der deutschen Sprache gilt (vgl. 1. Gegenstandsbereich Art. l9). Das Gebiet, in dem Deutsch staat- Zn den deutschsprachigen Liindern zihlen liche Amtssprache ist, bildet - abgesehen hier im Einklang mit dem vorherrschenden von Minderheiten (vgl. 5.) - ein geschlosse- Sprachgebrauch Deutschland, Osterreich, nes Sprachgebiet. Allerdings erstreckt sich die Schweiz und Liechtenstein. Kriterium das in der Fachliteratur oft so genannte ,,ge- fiir die Zuordnung ist der (Jmstand, dass die schlossene deutsche Sprachgebiet in Mittel- Muttersprachler des Deutschen die Bevolke- europa" noch auf die Randgebiete einiger rungsmehrheit bilden. Aufgrund dessen ist weiterer Staaten, niimlich Frankreich (El- Deutsch in diesen Liindern Nationalspra- sass-Lothringen), Dinemark (Nordschles- che. Dies entspricht jedenfalls dem giingigen wig) und Polen (Niederschlesien, Pom- Gebrauch des Terminus, wonach die Mut- mern). In Dinemark und Polen ist die tersprachen substantieller Bevolkerungstei- deutschsprachige Minderheit ausdriicklich le einer Nation zu ihren Nationalsprachen anerkannt; in Frankreich dagegen nicht, zdhlen, besonders also die Muttersprache trotz ihrer beachtlichen Zahlenstiirke (iiber der Bevcilkerungsmehrheit. Allerdings spe- I Mio., eine reprdsentative Sprachstatistik zifrziert nur die Verfassung der Schweiz existiert nicht). Die folgenden Ausfiihrun- Deutsch ausdriicklich als Nationalsprache gen beziehen Luxemburg und Ostbelgien (Art. 116), die Osterreichs dagegen als ein, da sie in anderen Regionalartikeln nicht Staatssprache der Republik (Art. 8 des Bun- beriicksichtigt werden, beriihren aber nur des-Verfassungsgesetzes). Ftir Deutschland die Schweiz, da ihr ein eigener Artikel (172 und Liechtenstein ist der Status als Natio- a) gewidmet ist. nalsprache so selbstverstiindlich, dass sich ein Hinweis in der Verfassung eriibrigt. Au- 2. Zur Geschichte der deutsch- Berdem ist Deutsch in allen vier Lindern na- sprachigen Liinder tionale (zentrale) staatliche Amtssprache, was indes wieder nur die Verfassungen der Die Liinder mit Deutsch als National- oder Schweiz und Osbrreichs ausweisen (Art. I 16 Amtssprache haben eine lange, komplexe bzw 8). Dariiber hinaus ist Deutsch natio- Geschichte, aus der hier nur wenige Sta- nale staatliche Amtssprache in Luxemburg tionen skizziert werden konnen. Aus ih- (neben Franzosisch und Letzeburgisch) und rem Verbund im mittelalterlichen Heiligen Sociolinguistics Soziolinguistik

An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft

2nd completely revised and extended edition 2., vollstiindig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage

Edited by I Herausgegeben von Ulrich Ammon ' Norbert Dittmar Klaus J. Mattheier ' Peter Trudgill

Volume3l3.Teilband

Offprint / Sonderdruck

Walter de Gruyter ' Berlin ' New York