Multilingual Landscapes and Ethnolinguistic Vitality in the Case of Brussels-Capital: an Empirical Study

Ghent University

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

MA Literature and Linguistics: English and Scandinavian studies

Academic year 2009 – 2010

Multilingual Landscapes and Ethnolinguistic Vitality in the Case of Brussels-Capital: An Empirical Study

Master Dissertation

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. S. Slembrouck

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of “Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels – Scandinavistiek” by Mieke Vandenbroucke Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor prof. dr. Stef Slembrouck for his advice and guidance in my research and writing process. Special thanks go to Niels Cuelenaere without whom this would not have been possible, to prof. dr. Jannis Androutsopoulos who acquainted me with the concept of linguistic landscaping, and to my parents.

Table of contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Theoretical framework ...... 8 2.1. Ethnography ...... 8 2.2. Linguistic anthropology ...... 9 2.3. Ethnolinguistic vitality ...... 10 2.4. Linguistic landscapes ...... 12 2.6. Geosemiotics ...... 15 3. Methodology of research ...... 17 3.1. Objective of this study ...... 17 3.2. Scene and setting ...... 17 3.3. Unit of analysis ...... 18 3.4. Ethnolinguistic vitality analysis ...... 19 3.5. Categories and subcategories ...... 23 3.6. Code preference in multilingual signs ...... 24 3.7. Qualitative analysis ...... 28 4. Brussels-Capital and its linguistic history ...... 29 4.1. Sociological, historical and linguistic evolution ...... 29 4.2. Present situation ...... 34 4.3. Problematics ...... 36 5. Choice of researched areas within Brussels-Capital ...... 38 5.1. Antoine Dansaertstraat ...... 38 5.2. Grote Markt ...... 40 5.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 41 Chapter 2: Quantitative analysis and discussion ...... 43 1. General landscape results ...... 43 1.1. Grote Markt ...... 43 1.2. Dansaertstraat ...... 45 1.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 47 1.4. Comparative discussion ...... 48 2. Code preference in multilingual signage ...... 56

2.1. Results ...... 56 2.2. Discussion ...... 57 3. Category: international chain commercial spaces results ...... 59 3.1. Grote Markt ...... 59 3.2. Dansaertstraat ...... 60 3.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 62 3.4. Comparative discussion ...... 64 4. Category: national chain commercial spaces results ...... 66 4.1. Grote Markt ...... 66 4.2. Dansaertstraat ...... 67 4.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 68 4.4. Comparative discussion ...... 70 5. Category: privately owned commercial spaces results ...... 72 5.1. Grote Markt ...... 72 5.2. Dansaertstraat ...... 74 5.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 75 5.4. Comparative discussion ...... 77 6. Subcategory: bookshops results ...... 80 6.1. Grote Markt ...... 80 6.2. Dansaertstraat ...... 80 6.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 81 6.4. Comparative discussion ...... 82 7. Subcategory: immigrant-run commercial spaces results ...... 84 7.1. Grote Markt ...... 84 7.2. Dansaertstraat ...... 84 7.3. Elsensesteenweg ...... 86 7.4. Comparative discussion ...... 87 8. Conclusion ...... 90 Chapter 3: Qualitative discussion of the material ...... 93 1. Combining quantitative and qualitative ...... 93 2. Qualitative observations ...... 97 2.1. Official notices ...... 97 2.2. Creativity as compromise ...... 99

2.3. Time scales ...... 102 2.4. Axis centre – periphery ...... 107 2.5. Non-equivalent multilingualism ...... 111 2.6. Large and smaller signs within the same façade ...... 114 2.7. Job vacancy signage ...... 117 2.8. Memorial signage ...... 121 Chapter 4: Conclusion ...... 126 References ...... 128 Appendices ...... 134 1. Disk photographs Grote Markt, Dansaertstraat and Elsensesteenweg ...... 134 2. Disk quantitative analysis Grote Markt, Dansaertstraat and Elsensesteenweg ...... 135 3. Text interview with D.S...... 136

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. Introduction

The country of Belgium, inhabited by three distinct linguistic communities - the Dutch- speaking community predominantly living in Flanders, the French-speaking community mainly residing in Wallonia and the smaller German-speaking community living in the east of the country - finds its symbol of unity in its capital, the region of Brussels-Capital 1, by law officially bilingual in both French and Dutch. This region, predominantly French-speaking as a result of a historical language shift to French despite its official bilingualism, is the area of interest central to this study. Due to its economic, political and cultural importance and its rich linguistic nature and history, this region has already been the object of many previous studies in many various fields of academic study elaborately focussing on its many different aspects. The focus of this study will rest on the presence of multilingualism within the region, as expressed in its ‘linguistic landscapes’2. By examining the occurrences and configurations of specific languages in the linguistic landscape of three different areas within the region, the Antoine Dansaertstraat, the Elsensesteenweg and the Grote Markt respectively; the symbolic strength or ethnolinguistic vitality of each language present, in particular French, Dutch 3 and English, will be determined by means of a quantitative analysis. In addition to the quantitative analysis which will also address the implications of these ethnolinguistic vitality scores for each of these languages, the linguistic landscapes of the three areas will also be approached from a qualitative perspective. Before turning to the quantitative analysis of the material in chapter two, this first chapter will discuss several introductory issues and backgrounds. First of all, the theoretical framework and chosen methodology of this study will be dealt with. In this section, the theoretical notions of ethnography, linguistic anthropology, ethnolinguistic vitality, linguistic landscaping and geosemiotics will be extensively discussed, along with the methods of research and analysis used in this study. Subsequently, the historical background of Brussels-

1 The term “Brussels-Capital” refers to the nineteen municipalities that together make up the region within Belgium, while the term “Brussels” will be used to refer to the central pentagon municipality of this region. 2 A specific area’s ‘linguistic landscape’ encompasses all instances of language in signage on public display. A more elaborate and profound definition of the term will be provided in the next section. 3 Throughout this study the term “Dutch” will be used to refer to the standardized official language of Flanders and, consequently, Belgium, whereas the term “Flemish” denotes the various dialects of Dutch spoken within the region of Flanders.

Capital and its linguistic development will be discussed with reference to the historical language shift, the current legislation and the problematics related to this specific region. Finally, this introductory chapter will discuss the motivations for choosing the linguistic landscapes of the Antoine Dansaertstraat, the Elsensesteenweg and the Grote Markt as the researched areas in this study. The second chapter will deal with the quantitative analysis of the findings in the multilingual landscapes of the three areas in Brussels-Capital by means of a specifically devised EV score system that will be fully explained in the methodology. The results, as quantified in the Excel documents accompanying this study, will be discussed for each area and category both separately and comparatively. The penultimate chapter encompasses the qualitative discussion of the photographic material of the three areas. After an introductory section about the need to combine quantitative and qualitative research methods in this study, I will qualitatively discuss several observations, both tendencies and peculiarities, I made in the photographic material that were not addressed in the quantitative analysis. Finally, the fourth conclusive chapter will recapitulate the results and observations from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses and will touch upon the implications of these results and the possibility of further research on the material.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Ethnography

According to Scollon & Scollon (2003) ethnography is “the study of human behavior and action and sociocultural systems” (210). In this light, ethnography is a field of academic study related to anthropology and sociology. However, an ethnography can also refer to “the written description”, for example a book or article, of such an ethnographic study of “the social organization, social activities, symbolic and material resources, and interpretive practices characteristic of a particular group of people” (Duranti 1997: 85). Thus, in general, the object of ethnographic research is the conduct of a certain human community. When selecting a certain community or group of people as the subject of an ethnography, the “criteria” are multiple: they can be “political, geographical, racial, theoretical, and methodological considerations” (Duranti 1997: 87). The features of a certain group of individuals that makes an ethnographer think of them as a community can also differ greatly, “ranging from shared living space to affiliation with the same political, religious, or educational institution” (Duranti 1997: 87-8). So the object of an ethnography does not necessarily have to be limited to a certain ethnic group or population, as people living or working in the same space (“the same town, village, island, building, and factory”) or people who share a certain period in each other’s company (such as class mates, religious affiliations, etc) can be the object of an ethnography as well (ibid.). When the community of observation is determined, the ethnographer will start searching for “patterns”, i.e. “recurrent configurations in people’s behaviors” in this specific community (Duranti 1997: 88). Ethnographers gather as much of information about these patterns as possible in order to answer two basic questions: (1) how is social order constructed (created, managed, reproduced), that is, what makes this particular group of people a functioning unit of some sort? And (2) how do individuals make sense of their way of living, that is, how do they explain (to themselves first) why they live the way they do and differently from others (sometimes even their neighbours)? (Duranti 1997: 90)

Gathering information to answer these central questions is done by means of specific ethnographic methods. Methodologically, ethnographic study is a particular kind of qualitative research which implies a considerate amount of fieldwork. The ethnographer conducting field work implies that he interacts with the community by continuously asking them questions and interviewing (Duranti 1997). The fieldwork of the ethnographer is, thus, a

8 combination of participation and observation (ibid.). As Duranti (1997) observes, there are different degrees of “participation-observation”, ranging from passive participation in which the ethnographer tries to be as unintrusive as possible to complete participation , in which researchers intensively interact with other participants and might even get to participate in and perform the very activity they are studying. (99)

However, the observation of a community’s conduct implies a certain degree of “objectivity” and “an ability to step back and distance oneself of one’s own immediate, culturally biased reactions” in order to fully comprehend and objectively describe the conduct; while the ethnographer’s participation implies an achievement of “sufficient identification with or empathy for the members of the group in order to provide an insider’s perspective” (Duranti 1997: 85). Ethnographic research is, therefore, concerned with finding a balance between objective observation and subjective participation. Acquiring this insider’s perspective that is needed for a thorough ethnography, is “clearly not the work of a day or a week or a month” (Smart 2008: 58). In this light, ethnographic research is “normally carried out over an extended period of time such as an annual cycle” (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 210). As Green and Bloome (1997) observe, there are three different ways of conducting ethnographic research: doing ethnography, adopting an ethnographic perspective and using ethnographic tools (Green & Bloome in Street 2010: 204). On the one hand, this study clearly adopts an ethnographic perspective as it focuses and investigates one particular aspect of everyday life, namely the linguistic landscape reality and dynamics of three different areas within the region of Brussels-Capital and, on the other hand, as it is using ethnographic methods and techniques associated with fieldwork for conducting this research, namely photographic material that captures the linguistic landscape elements and qualitative analysis methods in addition to quantitative analyses (ibid.). These ethnographic research tools are also useful for linguistic anthropology research.

2.2. Linguistic anthropology

The academic field of linguistic anthropology is concerned with “the study of linguistic forms as constitutive elements of social life” and is generally accepted to be a subdiscipline of anthropology (Duranti 1997: 84). In academic circles, the term ‘anthropological linguistics’ is often used as a synonym for linguistic anthropology (Duranti 2009). However, while linguistic anthropology is situated “within the field of anthropology”; anthropological

9 linguistics, though often used interchangeably as a synonym, is a rather different field of study that has “a strong identification with the discipline of linguistics” (Duranti 2009: 31). 4 The term ‘linguistic anthropology’ was first introduced in the 1880s as “an attempt to document and describe aboriginal North American languages” but was at that time “not quite adopted by the practitioners” (Duranti 2009: 32, 4). This changed in the 1960s, when Dell Hymes proposed to use the name ‘linguistic anthropology’ to “designate a distinctly anthropological approach to the study of language” (Duranti 2009: 4). From that moment onwards, linguistic anthropological research was considered to be “one of the four traditional branches of anthropology”, along with archaeological, biological or physical, and sociocultural anthropology (Duranti 1997: 4). As linguistic anthropology is “the study of language as a cultural resource and speaking as a cultural practice” (Duranti 1997: 2); linguistic anthropologists look at the role of language in social interaction, such as “everyday encounters, language socialization, ritual and political events, scientific discourse, verbal art, language contact and language shift, literacy events, and media” (Duranti 2009: 5). The object of their research is, thus, both the speaker as ‘social actor’ and language as “a resource for and product of social interaction” in a certain speech community 5 (Duranti 1997: 6). Alessandro Duranti (1997) summarizes that [a]s a domain of inquiry, linguistic anthropology starts from the theoretical assumption that words matter and from the empirical finding that linguistic signs as representations of the world and connections to the world are never neutral; they are constantly used for the construction of cultural affinities and cultural differentiations. (5)

This implies that linguistic anthropological research is concerned with the relationship between linguistic forms, i.e. language, and the culturally determined constructions of the social world of a speech community. In order to fully comprehend and describe this, linguistic anthropologists rely on qualitative analysis and ethnographic methods (ibid.).

2.3. Ethnolinguistic vitality

The theoretical concept of ethnolinguistic vitality6 was first introduced in an article by Giles, Bourhis & Taylor in 1977 as “the sociostructural factors that affect a group’s ability to behave and survive as a distinct and active collective identity within multilingual settings” (Landry &

4 For a more detailed discussion of the theoretical and methodological differences between linguistic anthropology and anthropological linguistics see Duranti 2009. 5 A speech community is a social unit whose members “share knowledge of the communicative constraints and options governing a significant number of social situations” (Gumperz & Hymes 1972: 16). 6 Throughout this study I will use the term ‘ethnolinguistic vitality’ interchangeably with its abbreviation ‘EV’.

Bourhis 1997: 30). In this light, if the vitality of a specific ethnolinguistic group in a specific multilingual setting is weaker in relation to these sociostructural factors than more dominant ethnolinguistic out-groups [...], the stronger the likelihood that this group will tend to assimilate linguistically and cease to exist as a distinct ethnolinguistic collectivity. (ibid.)

If, on the other hand, this group’s ethnolinguistic vitality (as determined by its sociostructural factors) holds a stronger position in the multilingual setting, it would be able to resist such assimilation and survive as “a distinct ethnolinguistic collectivity” (ibid.). The sociostructural factors mentioned in this respect by Giles et al (1977) are a group’s demographic, political, economic and cultural resources, or “capital” within the multilingual setting (Landry & Bourhis 1997: 32). Each of these capitals contribute to the strength of a specific ethnolinguistic community’s vitality. When determining the demographic capital of an ethnolinguistic community different “measures” can be used: one might assess the number and the proportion of group members relative to the overall population, the degree of concentration of group members within a territory, the relative birth rate, the degree of endogamy and exogamy, and rates of emigration and immigration. (ibid.)

All these measures taken together make up the demographic capital of a community. The political capital of an ethnolinguistic community’s language, on the other hand, can be determined by examining “the institutional support” the community enjoys in official and private domains (ibid.). This support includes “the degree of use of the language in government functions and services including government signs”, the number and nature of language rights and “the incorporation of these rights in administrative policies and language laws” (ibid.). If a certain ethnolinguistic community’s language is officially protected in public and private domains by means of language laws, its EV will be strong. An ethnolinguistic community’s economic capital is the degree to which the group’s language is used in economic domains, such as commerce and industry (ibid.). Landry & Bourhis (1997) include the commercial signs of shops in the linguistic landscape in this category (ibid.). Another measure for economic capital is the control of “important sectors of financial and commercial activity” a community enjoys. If a community’s control of these sectors is fairly large, the community’s language would be established as a language used in the work environment and in advertisements (both private and commercial) (ibid.). The final capital that contributes to an ethnolinguistic community’s vitality is the cultural capital. This capital is assessed “by monitoring the extent to which the group controls

11 its own linguistic, educational, and cultural institutions and the degree to which the media reflect and portray the language and culture of the group” (ibid.). These sociostructural capitals that form a group’s ethnolinguistic vitality are considered to be “the objective vitality of an ethnolinguistic group” (ibid.). The “subjective ethnolinguistic vitality” of a community, on the other hand, refers to the “group members’ cognitive representation or perception of the relative vitality of different groups” in the same multilingual environment (ibid.). As Landry & Bourhis (1997) observe, the most apparent indicator of the ethnolinguistic vitality of several ethnolinguistic communities inhabiting the same territory, is the territory’s linguistic landscape, as public signage in the territory’s linguistic landscape express the different communities’ economic, political, cultural capitals directly (34.). As Coulmas (2005) correctly observes, “there is no more obvious way for a group to assert its existence than by putting up billboards” written in the group’s language in the public space of their everyday life (in Backhaus 2007: 55). The relation between a territory’s linguistic landscape and its ethnolinguistic community’s vitalities in Landry & Bourhis’ (1997) bilingualism model will be further discussed in section 2.4.

2.4. Linguistic landscapes

The concept of linguistic landscape 7 is a relatively new sociolinguistic discipline and was first introduced within the field of sociolinguistic research on language policy and planning (Landry & Bourhis 1997, Backhaus 2007). It is commonly referred to with Landry & Bourhis’ (1997) definition, which states that “ linguistic landscape refers to the visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region” (Landry & Bourhis 1997: 23). This means that “the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shops signs, and public signs on government buildings” all combined form “the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration” (Landry & Bourhis 1997: 25). The study of linguistic landscapes, therefore, is an analysis of the languages present on signage in an area’s public space and is considered to be useful in particular multilingual environments because, as Backhaus (2007) claims, it can provide valuable insights into the linguistic situation of a given place, including common patterns of language and script use, official language policies, prevalent language

7 Throughout this study, I will use the term ‘linguistic landscape’ interchangeably with its abbreviation ‘LL’.

attitudes, power relations between different linguistic groups, and the long-term consequences of language and script contact, among others. (11)

Research on linguistic landscaping was initiated at the end of the 1970s when linguists and language policy planners started showing interest in the concept of language on signs in regions with pronounced linguistic conflict (Backhaus 2005), such as the Flemish-French situation in Belgium and the French-English situation in Québec (see Backhaus [2005: 104] for reference). Since that time, sociolinguistic research focussing on the topic of linguistic landscapes in specific multilingual areas has increased over the years. 8 This increase might also be explained by the introduction of “digital cameras with sufficient memory for a reasonable price”, as this allowed linguistic landscape researchers to gather as much photographical material as needed for their studies and analysing them by means of computer databases (Gorter 2006: 2). As Backhaus (2007) observes, the study of linguistic landscape presupposes a multilingual environment or society as its object, most likely a multilingual “urbanized environment” (14). In this light, the term ‘linguistic landscape’ is not a precise description of the study, as the term “linguistic city scape” would be more accurate (ibid.). Only in cities or urbanized environments did writing evolve and unfold “its full potential” and develop complex interaction patterns (ibid.). This is also illustrated by the fact that the first studies of linguistic landscapes were about cities (see Backhaus [2007] for references). The linguistic elements or signs found in a specific (urban) environment’s linguistic landscape can be categorized according to the “LL-actors” (Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Amara & Trumper-Hecht 2006: 9). The term ‘LL-actors’ refers to the actors who concretely participate in the shaping of LL by ordering from others or building by themselves LL elements according to preferential tendencies, deliberate choices or policies. (Ben-Rafael et al 2006: 27)

If these actors are individuals or private companies who created signs in the private sector domain (e.g. commercial signs or advertising), then this type of signage is referred to by a ‘bottom-up’ element (Landry & Bourhis 1997). Conversely, if governmental language policies are responsible for the choice of language(s) in the domains of road signs, streets names, or official inscriptions on buildings, these signs are called ‘top-down’ elements (ibid.). Despite the fact that in this study I will use the top-down and bottom-up terms, several other distinctions have been made in other studies. Calvet’s (1993) study of the linguistic

8 As previous approaches to linguistic landscape research, Backhaus (2007) mentions the studies on Brussels (Tulp 1978; Wenzel (1996); Montreal; Jerusalem (Rosenbaum et al 1977; Ben-Rafael et al 2006); Ljouwert and Donostia (Cenoz & Gorter 2006); Paris; Dakar; Lira Town (Reh 2004); Hong Kong; Beijing; Vienna; Paris; Washington; Rome; Bangkok; Tokyo (Backhaus 2005, 2007) (see Backhaus 2007).

13 landscapes of Paris and Dakar, for example, makes the same distinction between signs issued by the state, which he refers to by “in vitro”, and signs produced by citizens, which he calls “in vivo” (in Backhaus 2007: 32). Huebner (2006), on the other hand, uses the terms “overt” for official signage and “covert” for private signage in his study of the linguistic landscape of Bangkok (in Backhaus 2007: 46). Despite the differences in names and terms, the distinction between public and private signage remains the same in all studies. This distinction between these two types of signage is also useful, as different tendencies in the languages exposed are expected from them: ‘top-down’ is supposed to reflect “a general commitment to the dominant culture”, whereas ‘bottom-up’ should correspond to the individual’s free choice (Ben-Rafael et al 2006: 10). The combination of these two types of signage make up the whole of a territory’s linguistic landscape. The linguistic landscape can serve two distinct functions, as explained by Landry & Bourhis (1997): the informational and the symbolic function. The former function refers to the landscape’s ability to provide information about the community/communities that inhabit(s) the territory and is, therefore, an indication of language boundaries between adjoining language communities (Landry & Bourhis 1997). If one language is widely displayed on linguistic landscape elements, then this also informs an outsider that communication in that language is possible within those premises (ibid.). The latter symbolic function refers to linguistic landscapes as symbolic markers that indicate the power, vitality, and status of an ethnolinguistic community in a territory (ibid.). In this light, the linguistic landscape of a territory plays an important role in determining the ethnolinguistic vitality of languages spoken in this environment (ibid.). As discussed above, the ethnolinguistic vitality of a certain group refers to that “which makes a group likely to behave as a distinct and collective entity within the intergroup setting” (Giles et al 1977 in Bourhis 2001: 101), and is influenced by demographic and institutional support and status factors of a certain group (Bourhis 2001). Thus, when public signage in a certain in-group language appears, this implies that the demographic, political, economic and cultural capital “is substantial enough to warrant such signs in the linguistic landscape” (Landry & Bourhis 1997: 28). The presence of the in-group language in the linguistic landscape will provide the group members with local strength and determination to maintain the language in the setting. Conversely, if this language is excluded from the public signage in the intergroup setting, this indicates the low value and status (i.e. vitality) the language enjoys in this setting (ibid.). In this case, the in- group language is not powerful enough to impose its language on the area of residence. As a consequence of this absence, group members of this ethnolinguistic community may

devalue the strength of their own language community, weaken their resolve to transmit the in-group language to the next generations, and sap their collective will to survive as a positively distinctive ethnolinguistic group. (ibid.)

As a result of this low vitality and devaluation, language shift and the disappearance of the in- group language may occur. Thus, the prevalence or exclusion of “rival languages” in certain domains of the linguistic landscape, symbolizes “the strength or weakness of competing ethnolinguistic groups in the intergroup setting” (ibid.). This study will determine the ethnolinguistic vitality of the languages (and, therefore, the ethnolinguistic communities) inhabiting three distinct areas within Brussels-Capital by examining the signage in the linguistic landscapes of these areas. By determining these vitalities, the intergroup dynamics in the areas (and, hence, Brussels-Capital) will be uncovered and discussed.

2.6. Geosemiotics

Geosemiotics is a system of analysis introduced by Ron Scollon and Suzie Wong Scollon in their work Discourses in Place: Language in the material world (2003). As a theoretical framework, geosemiotics provides a system of analysis for “the study of the social meaning of the material placement of signs in the world” (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 110). With “signs” Scollon & Scollon (2003) refer to “any semiotic system including language and discourse” (ibid.). According to geosemiotics, the true meaning of a sign in the material world is not only to be found in the language of the sign itself but also in the social and physical reality the sign is located in. The signs that Scollon & Scollon (2003) analyse from a geosemiotic perspective can be all informational signs that they encounter when crossing a street corner (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 2). These can be “commercial advertisements, public official notices, street and building identifications, graffiti, and pasted up notices for legal and even illegal goods and services”, as well as physical actions performed by people (ibid.). As an example of such physical action, Scollon & Scollon (2003) describe a chance encounter with a friend at a street corner: “this friend and all others present are also signs in place which we ‘read’ in taking our actions” (ibid.). In this light, the geosemiotic system of analysis provides a framework for analyzing the signs encountered in a certain area’s linguistic landscape. The theory of geosemiotics is built up by three broad systems of social semiotics: the interaction order, visual semiotics and place semiotics (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 7-8). While each of these systems separately has already been the subject of extensive research, they are

15 taken together in the study of geosemiotics as the main properties of social action (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 8-9). This means that each social act is formed by these three systems. The first system is based on Erving Goffman’s concept “the interaction order” (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 7). Its aim is to develop “an understanding of the ways in which humans form social arrangements and produce social interactions amongst themselves” and, as a consequence, its central “organizing system” is human discourse (ibid.). In this light, the interaction order analyzes human “speech, movement, [and] gesture” (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 13). Such analysis might, for example, focus on the human conduct and interaction in a social encounter between relatives. The second system of visual semiotics is based on Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen’s visual semiotics theory as described in their Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (1996) and Multimodality (2001). This theory can be used for the analysis of signage (text and images) as it is found in the material world. Scollon & Scollon (2003) use Kress & van Leeuwen’s subsystems ‘represented participants’, ‘modality’, ‘composition’, and ‘interactive participants’ in their geosemiotic framework of analysis (see Scollon & Scollon 2003: 86-98). The third system of place semiotics is concerned with “the huge aggregation of semiotic systems which are not located in the persons of social actors or in the framed artifacts of visual semiotics” (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 8). Instead, it looks at how visual images “take their meaning from where they are located in the world” (85). It is made up by three components: code preference, inscription and emplacement. Examples of these components will be discussed in the following sections. Each of these components look at different properties of a sign in the material world. The code preference component analyses a sign’s inner composition in terms of place when more than one language (or code) is used in the sign. The inscription component, on the other hand, looks at “the physical materiality of language” or other code systems, such as the font used or the material qualities of the sign (129). Finally, the component of emplacement is concerned with the signage’s physical location in the material world and what information might be derived from it. Scollon & Scollon’s (2003) framework of geosemiotics and, in particular, its components of place semiotics can be useful in the study of linguistic landscapes when analyzing and interpreting multilingual signage. In this study, this geosemiotic perspective will be adopted in the methodology of research.

3. Methodology of research

The field of linguistic landscapes within sociolinguistics and language policy planning is a recently developed field of research and, as a consequence, many pioneering studies investigating the LL of urban multilingual settings have been written in the past decade. However, these various studies were not always carried out in an identical manner, and “nor was the methodology of surveying and analysing data collected” in each of them (Barni & Bagna 2009: 126). Clarity is still very much needed in “the various aspects of the [LL] approach: from observation and sampling methods to data analysis and classification procedures, to ensure the comparability of the different data” (ibid.). While the general theoretical concept of LL is agreed upon (cf. infra), at the “operational level” some “clarification” is still needed (Huebner 2009: 70). To avoid this lack of clarification, this study will attempt to combine and include several previous LL studies’ methodological approaches in its own methodology, while also stating and defining as clearly as possible how this study has conducted its data collection and subsequent analysis.

3.1. Objective of this study

First of all, it must be put forward that this is a study of the languages that occur in the Brussels-Capital region, more specifically about how these languages relate to one another in terms of power and vitality in Brussels-Capital’s linguistic landscape. This study will thus look at the ethnolinguistic vitalities of the capital city’s most relevant languages, which are French, Dutch and English; French and Dutch being its official languages and English being of European and international importance in the urban capital. Apart from these three languages, a fourth language category is discerned, the group of ‘Other’ languages. These may include every language that is encountered that is not French, Dutch or English and, thus encompasses all tourist and migrant languages, such as German, Spanish, Arabic, Thai, etc. These four languages (French, Dutch, English and ‘Other’) form the central core of this study, which attempts to investigate how they occur in the LL of Brussels-Capital.

3.2. Scene and setting

Secondly, it is important to point out where this study is conducted and from which setting or scene the LL material will thus be obtained. Gorter (2006) already addresses this problem of sampling in raising the question: “Where do you take pictures and how many?” (2). Different

LL studies have seemingly always taken up different locations in the area of research: Backhaus (2007) studied the LL of Tokyo by means of 29 stations of a train line, Huebner (2006) studied Bangkok’s LL in 15 neighbourhoods, Ben-Rafael et al (2006) looked at 8 localities in the LL of Israel, Cenoz & Gorter (2006) compared Basque country with Friesland in two main commercial streets, etc. In my study, I decided to choose three different areas in Brussels-Capital with different ethnolinguistic make-ups and, thus, diversified clientele and audiences for their LLs. In order to compare the findings in these areas and discuss the occurrences of the languages comparatively, I chose three areas in which respectively French, Dutch and English were presumably significant and important. I opted for Elsene, the Dansaert area and the city’s historical centre. A more detailed motivation and background of these areas’ implied readership will be given in section five of this chapter. In accordance with the methodology applied by Rosenbaum et al (1977) and Cenoz & Gorter (2006), I focused on the LL of the main central commercial shopping street or place in each of these areas: the Elsensesteenweg, the Antoine Dansaertstraat and the Grote Markt, respectively. The sampling in this study is thus a complete inventory of the LL in these three areas.

3.3. Unit of analysis

The next methodological issue to be addressed is in which unit of analysis the linguistic configurations and occurrences of French, Dutch, English and ‘Other’ will be investigated and analysed. In determining this unit of analysis I relied on Cenoz & Gorter’s (2006) decision to consider “each establishment” and “not each sign” as the unit of analysis. They based this decision “on the fact that all the signs in one establishment, even if they are in different languages, have been the result of the languages used by the same company” and “because each text belongs to a larger whole instead of being clearly separated” (Cenoz & Gorter 2006: 71). This implies that all the signage displayed in one commercial space’s façade or storefront is analysed as a whole in this study because they are all the result of the same LL-actor, the shop owner. However, it may occur that more than one LL-actor is responsible for the signage in an establishment’s façade. The restaurant “La Rose Blanche” on the Grote Markt, for example, has both the restaurant’s signs and official memorial inscriptions displayed on its façade. While the restaurant’s signage belongs to the restaurant owner, the memorial plaque is the result of the decisions made by the official authority responsible for the establishment of the plaque and thus has nothing to do with the restaurant. Because of this complexity, I chose to divide this façade in the restaurant part and in the memorial sign part according to the two

18 different LL-actors. 9 This also implies that all public government-issued signage, such as for example the street name sign, is considered to form a separate unit of analysis, regardless of the storefront it is attached to.

3.4. Ethnolinguistic vitality analysis

Now that I’ve established in what unit of analysis I will conduct the investigation, I will now turn to how I will analyse the occurrences of these four language categories (French, Dutch, English and ‘Other’) in the LLs’ façades in terms of ethnolinguistic vitality. In order to determine how relatively powerful and vital each language category was within a certain area, a specific system was designed to measure the ethnolinguistic vitality scores for each language by means of the LLs. As Landry & Bourhis (1997) observed, the linguistic landscape is “a distinct variable contributing to the sociolinguistic character of ethnolinguistic groups” and “the most visible and most salient marker of [...] ethnolinguistic vitality” (45). This is the LL’s symbolic function (cf. supra). The LL will thus be used as a means to gather information about the vitality of the languages and the inner power and dominance dynamics in the areas of study. The system devised for this purpose was based on the dominance of specific languages in linguistic configurations in façades’ signage. Based on the four linguistic categories (French, Dutch, English and ‘Other’), four values are attributed to languages in a specific position within the façade’s linguistic configuration. The highest value is the occurrence of monolingualism in one language within a façade. This language is then attributed with the value of 4. Figure 1 details an example in which the entire storefront of the hairdresser “Olivier Dachkin” is monolingual in French. In the linguistic EV analysis of this façade French would thus be given the value of 4, while Dutch, English and ‘Other’ would not receive any value because they do not occur. The second possible configuration is equivalent bi- or multilingualism, in which the façade’s informational content is displayed in more than one language. These languages are thus displayed as equals or equivalents, and as a consequence both receive the value of 2. An example of such equivalent multilingualism is shown in figure 2 which details a sign from the cleaning shop “Pressing N°1”. In this sign all the information is shown in both French and Dutch, which makes it equivalent bilingual. An analysis of this façade’s linguistic configuration would thus provide both French and Dutch with the value of 2.

9 This issue will be further discussed in the qualitative chapter where the implications of such complex façades will be addressed in relation to time frames.

Figure 1: Olivier Dachkin (EL)

Figure 2: N° Pressing 1 (DS)

The third option in linguistic configuration is non-equivalent bi- or multilingualism, in which more informational content is displayed in one language, namely the dominant language within the façade, while the other language(s) that are part of the façade only provide partial translations of this informational content or offer additional insignificant comments. In this case, the dominant language obtains the value 3, while the ‘dominated’ languages receive the value of 1. Examples of such non-equivalent multilingualism are shown in figures 3-4. The first figure represents the opening hours of the shop “Pearle” which is an example of non- equivalent multilingualism because most of the information is written in French (“magasin ouvert du lundi au samedi de 9h30 à 18h30”), while only a small portion of this information, the opening days of the shop, is translated in Dutch (“maandag – zaterdag”). Because of this French receives the value 3 in this sign, while Dutch receives the value 1.

Figure 3: Pearle (EL)

Figure 4: Avance (EL)

The second example is the banner sign on the façade of the shop “Avance” which displays the shop’s name (“Avance”) along with an English slogan accompanying this name (“QUALITY SHOES & FASHION”). This use of English as a slogan or cursory comment in façades in this study will be equated with the value of 1. In most cases, the sum of the values of a façade’s linguistic configuration is 4. For example, when this façade is monolingual in French and French thus receives the value of 4, the sum of the configuration is 4. Or, for example, when the linguistic configuration is equivalent bilingual in French and Dutch, then both French and Dutch receive the value of 2, which adds up to the sum of 4. Or, finally, if non-equivalent bilingualism is displayed in the storefront, then the dominant language in which most informational content is translated receives the score of 3, while the other language that is only used for partial translations or for cursory comments, such as slogans, receives the value of 1. This thus also adds up to 4. However, it is also possible that the sum is more than 4, when the linguistic configurations of multilingual signage is analysed. In this case, equivalent multilingualism can be expressed in more than two languages, for example Dutch, French and English, and the sum of the values would then be 6 (2+2+2). Or, for example, in non-equivalent multilingualism with most informational content displayed in French and with Dutch and English offering partial translations, the sum would be 5 (3+1+1). Because of this possibility I will always talk about equivalent or non-equivalent multilingualism instead of bilingualism from this point onwards. In other LL studies a similar distinction is made between monolingual and multilingual signs, in which the text or informational content is translated in more than one language. In their ‘mapping technique’ of linguistic landscapes Barni & Bagna (2009), for example, specify if a text (in a sign) is monolingual or “if it contains several different languages” (132). They argue that this distinction “points to the social function of the text observed: from closure to openness towards other linguistic communities” (ibid.). A monolingual text makes it immediately clear that it is intended solely for those belonging to that specific linguistic community (the only ones for whom the text is comprehensible) or that the language has the prestige and power to stand alone, without the support of other languages [...]. The fact that the text is written in two, or even more languages, indicates an intention to make it comprehensible to people belonging to different linguistic communities. (ibid.)

Similar to the system of dominance used in this study to calculate the EV scores of languages, Barni & Bagna (2006) analyse the signs they encountered in the LL of Rome by means of “a three-stage model focussing on (1) presence, (2) dominance, and (3) autonomy of the languages contained” (Backhaus 2007: 41). “Presence” refers to the occurrence of a language

22 in a sign, “dominance” refers to “which of the languages contained on a sign is assigned the main part of the contents to be conveyed”, and “autonomy” refers to “those languages appearing without any other language on a sign” (i.e. monolingual signage). These three stages resemble the different values in my analysis system. For each area the linguistic configurations of each storefront were analysed by means of this value system in Excel. 10 These values were then summed up for each language category to a total that represents the absolute ethnolinguistic vitality score for each language category. These absolute EV scores were shown in a graph figure. Secondly, a frequency table figure was also made that details how often each language occurred in each position (monolingual, equivalent, dominant or dominated). For the comparative perspective, a third figure is used to show the relative EV scores of each language category. This entire analysis can be found in the Excel documents accompanying this study and will be thoroughly discussed in the quantitative chapter.

3.5. Categories and subcategories

In order to attain more detailed information about the linguistic landscape of each area of study, I decided to divide the general landscapes into categories and subcategories. This was partly based on a similar subdivision made by Cenoz & Gorter (2006) when they talked about “different types of shops”, divided according to the product that they offer (clothing, books, food, furniture, computers) or according to the shop owner (“independent small shops”, “national or international chain”) (Cenoz & Gorter 2006: 71); and partly on Ben-Rafael et al (2006) who divided their data in “areas of activity” such as “clothing and leisure”, “food and house ware” and “private offices” etc. (Ben-Rafael et al 2006: 15, 21). In accordance with these two studies, I decided to describe the different commercial spaces according to the domain they belonged to (private or public), according to their branch (clothing shop, restaurant, etc), and according to the type of shop (privately owned, national chain or international chain) in the Excel documents. This last division was thus based on the LL- actors, the commercial spaces’ owners, which could be a private individual who owned a shop, a national (Belgian) corporate chain or an international corporate chain. Next to these categories, I decided to examine two additional subcategories in the areas: the bookshops and the immigrant-run commercial spaces. The first subcategory encompasses all commercial

10 In the coding of the façades according to the EV score system I have tried to be as consistent as possible, despite the fact that it was at times troublesome and implied choices made on intuition and, thus, implied subjectivity. Yet, such subjectivity is inherently connected to all ethnographic research (cf. supra).

23 spaces that offer literature or readable material, such as newspaper shops and bookshops. The second subcategory contains all commercial spaces run by immigrant people that I observed in the three areas’ landscape. In recognizing and determining what shops were immigrant-run, I was forced to rely to some extent on stereotypical conceptions about such shops. These stereotypes include commercial spaces such as night shops, call centres, foreign restaurants (e.g. Chinese, Thai, Italian) which are stereotypically owned by immigrant people. I considered a shop as ‘immigrant’ when the shop owner was of non-Belgian or foreign ethnicity. I thus included a Chinese tea shop, an Italian restaurant, a call centre, a ‘pita’ shop, amongst others. However, there might have been immigrant shops that were not noticed because they did not have an immigrant outlook and did not include foreign ‘Other’ languages in their façade. An immigrant-run shop displaying French and Dutch equivalent bilingualism and excluding all things foreign in its façade, for example, would have eluded me. This ‘visibility’ factor and the relativity of my perception in this subcategory of immigrant-run shops both emphasize the inherent subjectivity that occurs and is, in fact, implied in all ethnographic research (cf. supra). For both the general landscapes of the three areas and the (sub)categories of these areas, I formulated specific expectations and hypotheses about the results of the EV score analysis. In line with its lingua franca status within the region of Brussels-Capital, for example, I expect French to be the most powerful language in terms of EV score in all three areas. A more thorough presentation of my expectations for each (sub)category and area is given in the quantitative analysis chapter in which the comparative discussion sections will also discuss if the results of the EV score analyses confirm or contest these expectations.

3.6. Code preference in multilingual signs

Next to the EV score analysis, the multilingual signs observed in the photographic material of the three areas’ LLs were analysed in terms of code preference. Not every façade contained a multilingual sign, in which the exact same informational content is expressed in more than one language and which, thus, displays equivalent multilingualism. Examples of such multilingual signs are shown in figure 5 and 6 that detail a sign found in the façade of the shop “Olivier Strelli” and the opening hours sign of the bank “ING”. In my analysis of these multilingual signs, I relied on Scollon & Scollon’s (2003) place semiotics which also take up the issue of code preference and in which they address “the problem of multiple codes within a single sign or picture” (119). They pointed out that

“[t]he mere fact that these items in a picture or in the world cannot be located simultaneously in the same place produces a choice system” (121). This choice system is the arrangement of codes or languages within a sign according to code preferences.

Figure 5: Olivier Strelli (DS)

Figure 6: ING (EL)

Scollon & Scollon (2003) declared that [i]n most cases studied so far the preferred code is located above the secondary or peripheral codes if they are aligned vertically; if they are aligned horizontally the preferred code is located in the left position and the peripheral code is located in the right position. A third possibility is that the preferred code is located in the center and the peripheral code is placed around the periphery (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 120).

The preferred code in the Western world system is thus located at the top, in the centre or in the left side of the sign. In this discussion of code preference in terms of placement within the sign, Scollon & Scollon (2003) rely on Kress & van Leeuwen’s (1996) information structures which can be “centered or polarized” (in Scollon & Scollon 2003: 92). Figure 7 shows the “overall system” that Kress & van Leeuwen (1996) have developed for informational structures within signage. This figure illustrates the centred and polarized information structures: the centred system dichotomy is the central circle and the ‘margins’ of the sign; while the polarized structure is “in turn divided into two systems: the left/right (given/new) system and the upper/lower (ideal/real system)” (ibid.). This distinction of code preference in terms of placement is included as a category in my code preference analysis.

Figure 7: from Kress & van Leeuwen (1996: 208)

Apart from this code preference in spatial terms, Scollon & Scollon (2003) also discuss the inscriptions of signs in their ‘space semiotics’ framework. They distinguish four “meaning systems” that are associated with such inscriptions: “fonts”, “material” 11 , “layering” and

11 Their discussion of “the meanings of materials” of signs addresses the issues of permanence, durability, temporality, newness and quality (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 135). These meanings will be discussed in relation to the signage found in the LLs of the three areas in the qualitative chapter.

“state changes” (Scollon & Scollon 2003: 130). The concepts of font and material can also be included in a code preference analysis. If a code or language is preferred within a sign in terms of font, this implies that a different, more eye-catching font is used for this language and not for the other languages displayed within the sign. If, conversely, a code or language is preferred in terms of material, this implies that the carrier of this code is made of more durable or permanent material (e.g. marble) than the carriers of the other languages within the sign (e.g. a paper note stuck to a window). A similar framework of code preference is described by Huebner (2009) when he talks about the “spatial organization” of signs (75). He observes that “within a sign, certain elements may be more prominent or salient than others” and this salience is “determined on the basis of visual clues” such as “font type, font style, foregrounding, color, sharpness of definition, and upper versus lower case” (75-6). Apart from these visual clues, Huebner (2009) also includes the informational structures framework devised by Kress & van Leeuwen (1996) as a means to display code preference (cf. supra). Cenoz & Gorter (2006)’s study also involves an analysis of the “characteristics of bilingual and multilingual signs” in terms of code preference (74). Cenoz & Gorter (2006) state that they “can analyse the signs according to the place the languages occupy on these signs” and that “the way the languages are displayed vis-à-vis each other will give [them] information on the relative importance given to each language” (ibid.). In their code preference framework, they look at the order of the languages in which the first languages is considered to be most prominent, the size of the fonts the texts are written in, the type of font “used for textual display of the language”, and at the amount of information and translations that is displayed in each language (74-77). Inspired by all of these code preference methodologies, I devised my analysis to comprise five categories in which code preference can occur: colour, font, size, placement and material qualities. Code preference in terms of colour can, for example, occur when the preferred language is displayed in a more eye-catching colour (such as red or yellow), while the not preferred language is displayed in dull black. All multilingual signs encountered in the three areas’ LLs were then analysed according to which language was preferred in terms of these five categories. The results were then quantified and represented in percentages. These results as well as a discussion of the findings will be given in the quantitative chapter.

3.7. Qualitative analysis

Several ethnographic and thus qualitative methods of research are employed in this study. First of all, the material for the quantitative analysis was provided by means of field work which included data collection of the LLs by means of digital cameras and photographs. The documented LL-items (i.e. the signage in the storefronts) were then classified according to area of origin and stored in CD-Rom files, which are included in this study (see appendix). This collected photographic material was then ready to be quantitatively examined, as described above. The data included 249 units of analysis (i.e. storefronts) in total - 29 in the Grote Markt landscape, 101 in the Dansaertstraat and 119 in the Elsensesteenweg - and a total of 868 photographs were taken. In addition to this qualitative field work research, an interview was also conducted with a local resident of the Dansaertwijk about the area and its residents. In addition to the quantitative analysis of the material found in the three areas’ storefronts according to the EV score system, a more qualitative analytic approach is also included in this study. In the third chapter I will explain more extensively the need and motivations for such an approach in this study and I will describe several qualitative tendencies, peculiarities and idiosyncrasies I observed in the photographic material of the three areas.

4. Brussels-Capital and its linguistic history

4.1. Sociological, historical and linguistic evolution

The sociological and historical evolution of Brussels-Capital is a history of increasing complexity and change throughout the centuries. As Mackey (1981) puts it, [s]ince the stabilization of Frankish control in the fifth century of our era, Brussels has evolved from a Flemish town to a bilingual microcosm of all Belgium; and since mid-century it has been evolving into a microcosm of Western Europe. (Mackey 1981: 20)

Despite the fact that the region is nowadays the capital of Belgium, and beyond that officially considered to be the capital of Europe, one may trace the historical origins of the city as far back as the tenth century when it was founded as a mere “vestiging in het moeras” (‘a settlement in the marsh’), which is also the etymological explanation of its name (website www.brussel.be). Throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the settlement, located along the most important trade route between Bruges and Cologne, continued expanding and the small modest settlement gradually transformed into a city (ibid.). From the thirteenth century until the fifteenth century the Dukes of Brabant chose to reside in the thriving city, which further increased its importance and its local industries of luxury goods (ibid.). The city’s first experience as a capital “can be traced back to Burgundian times” in the fifteenth century when Burgundian Dukes united several autonomous princedoms between France and Germany under their rule, one of which being Brussels. They referred to these united princedoms as ‘the Netherlands’ (McRae 1986, Van Velthoven 1987). The city of Brussels served as its capital (ibid.). After the death of Maria of Burgundy in 1482, all princedoms of ‘the Netherlands’ were “included in the Habsburg Empire within which it received a separate status” (Van Velthoven 1987: 15). At that time Brussels had about 45.000 inhabitants and the reign of Charles V (1506-1555) is generally accepted to be its prime (website www.brussel.be). Yet, in the sixteenth century the Netherlands revolted against the Spanish rule by Philip II, Charles V’s successor. This resulted in “a schism”: “the Northern part became independent and developed into the present Kingdom of the Netherlands”, while the Southern part “remained under the rule of the Spanish Habsburgs” (Van Velthoven 1987:15). In later years, the southern part of the Netherlands was “governed by the Austrian Habsburgs (1715-1794), absorbed by France (1795-1814), and reunited with the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-1830)”, until it finally gained its independence by revolution in 1830 and “became the independent Kingdom of Belgium” (ibid.).

Linguistically, the city of Brussels was “originally inhabited by a unilingual population speaking Netherlandic 12 ” (Van der Plank 1978: 427). Yet, as McRae (1986) points out, the city was “exposed early to French influences” during several foreign reign periods (cf. supra), despite the fact that it was “situated in solidly Flemish countryside”, where Flemish dialects were predominantly spoken (294). The French language first occurred in the city in the royal medieval courts of the Dukes of Brabant, whose “court and chancellery were bilingual” in French and Flemish; and its importance and influence subsequently increased during the fifteenth century when Brussels became the capital of ‘the Netherlands’ under Burgundian reign (Van der Plank 1978: 428). During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the power of French expanded even further, when French “had become the universal language of intellectual and cultivated discourse throughout Europe” and, as a consequence, had infiltrated all European courts and nobilities (McRae 1986: 294). Yet, it was not until the eighteenth century that the French language began dominating the languages usages of the upper bourgeoisie (in addition to those of the nobility and court) in Brussels (Van der Plank 1978). This French-speaking minority of the court, nobility and higher bourgeoisie was estimated to comprise only about 5% of the city’s population, according to Verlooy (1788) (Verlooy in McRae 1986). Thus, Brussels was “still practically homogeneously Dutch- speaking” apart from “a small top stratum of French-speaking nobility and patricians” until the middle of the eighteenth century (Van Velthoven 1981:21). This changed in 1789 when the French Revolution brought thousands of French-speaking migrants to Brussels and, subsequently, in 1794 when the Southern Netherlands were annexed by France and the city underwent “two decades of coercive francisation 13 ”. This consolidated the French dominance in the city (McRae 1986: 294). During this period of French rule, which lasted until 1814, “Dutch was excluded from official use” in the region (Treffers-Daller 2002: 51), and “public administration, schools, theatre, newspapers, and the church were ordered to use French”, while the “old social, clerical, and economic structures, traditional households of the Netherlandic culture, were destroyed” (Van der Plank 1978: 428). From that moment onwards the French language “occupied a dominant and lasting position in Brussels life” which initiated the process of Frenchification in the city (ibid.). Despite the fact that the Southern Netherlandic provinces were subsequently united with the (Dutch-speaking) Northern provinces under King William I (from 1814 until their independence in 1830), the Dutch

12 When using the term “Netherlandic”, Van der Plank (1978) refers to the standard variety that had unified the medieval Netherlandic dialects at that time (Van der Plank 1978: 454). 13 ‘Francisation’ being a synonym for Frenchification.

30 language was not able to “strengthen [its] position” in Brussels and to reclaim the city by overcoming this French predominance (Treffers-Daller 2002: 50). Even after the independence of the Kingdom of Belgium in 1830, Dutch “continuously lost ground in Brussels” until well into the twentieth century (ibid.). This was the case because the independence of Belgium in 1830 was attained by the French-speaking bourgeoisie’s revolt. As a result, the French-speaking nobility gained power and the Flemish population was denied constitutional rights for their language and culture, since the French-speaking governing class wanted to create a linguistically homogeneous state with all Flemish citizens abandoning Dutch and shifting to French (Bourhis, Giles, Leyens & Tajfel 1979). However, it should be noted that this thorough process of Frenchification of all layers of the population only occurred in Brussels; in Flanders, on the other hand, French remained the language spoken solely by the elite, while the vast majority of Flanders’ population spoke Flemish dialects and remained virtually unaffected by the language shift (Janssens 2001b; Van Velthoven 1987). As Treffers-Daller (2002) states, there are various factors which help explain why the Frenchification process in Brussels was so thorough, drastical and voluntary (50). First of all; in the nineteenth century, the French language was the language of diplomacy, aspirations, upward social mobility and of power in all European courts (McRae 1986). The role nowadays fulfilled by English on a global level, was appropriated by the French language during the nineteenth century. When the citizens of Brussels were thus confronted with the choice between French and Dutch, they were “more likely to invest time in a language that may yield the highest returns in terms of cultural goods, mobility, availability and economic leaverage [sic]” (Mackey 1981: 24-5). At that time, this language was French, which was “the only official language of the country until 1898” and whose national and international prestige “contrasted sharply with the lack of prestige attached to the local variety of Dutch spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of Brussels” (Treffers-Daller 2002: 50-1). This ‘lack of prestige’ resulted from the fact that there was no standard language uniting the Flemish dialects to contest the power of French in the region (ibid.). Responsible for this lack of standardization in the Southern Netherlands was the historical split in the sixteenth century that divided ‘the Netherlands’ into a Northern and Southern part (ibid.) The Southern Netherlands “lost many members of its intellectual elite to the North” and was, as a consequence, “cut off” from the standardisation process of Dutch in the Northern provinces; this led to the French dominance in the region in “most of the functions Standard Dutch obtained in the North” (ibid.). Well after Belgium’s independence, one of the first steps

31 undertaken by Flemish cause fighters was “to provide a standardized norm for spelling and to arrive at a general Dutch language of culture” in order to oppose French dominance as the sole language of culture and power in the country (Van Velthoven 1987: 17). In the city of Brussels-Capital, it was probably this “transition, fusion or integration of some [dialects of Brussels] into a more and more standardized Dutch that permitted Flemish speakers in Brussels to replace during the twentieth century some of their language uses formerly reserved for French” (Mackey 1981: 27). Another factor that facilitated the language shift to French in Brussels-Capital during the nineteenth century was the Brussels school system (Treffers-Daller 2002). During the French period (1795-1814) using Dutch as the language of instruction in schools was prohibited, which resulted in all primary education being “exclusively in French” (Mackey 1981: 33). This situation did not change when Belgium became independent in 1830. Until the early twentieth century, Dutch-medium education in Brussels-Capital was limited to primary education, while secondary school and higher education were exclusively in French (Bourhis et al 1979). This only changed after the first World War, when “a Dutch-speaking school system was gradually built up” (Treffers-Daller 2002: 51). As a result of the Flemish movement strivings for education in Dutch, a series of laws were passed in the 1930s, which made Brussels officially bilingual and equated Dutch to French in secondary education (Bourhis et al 1979). Consequently, parents were free to choose between Dutch- or French- medium schooling for their children in Brussels-Capital (Mettewie & Janssens 2007, Verlot & Delrue 2004). In higher education, the University of Brussels was officially divided in 1969 into a French-medium university (ULB) and Dutch-medium university (VUB) according to the bilingual statute of the region (Gueldre 1991).14 A final factor that explains the successful Frenchification process in the city is the economically stronger position of (French-speaking) Wallonia during the nineteenth century due to “large-scale capital investment in heavy industry” (Treffers-Daller 2002: 51). Wallonia remained the industrial and economic centre of power in Belgium until the second World War, which stimulated a shift to French in Brussels-Capital’s economic circles (Bourhis et al 1979). After the second World War, however, the economic power centre shifted to Flanders, when Wallonia was confronted with “a fundamental crisis” in its heavy industries and when

14 At the same time the previously French-speaking university of Leuven (Flanders) was also divided into a Dutch-speaking (located in Leuven, Flanders territory) and French-speaking university (located in Louvain-La- Neuve, Wallonia territory).

Flanders had modernized “industrial development” (Treffers-Daller 2002: 51) 15 . This lead to Flanders’ economical, social and cultural flourishing and its overtaking of Wallonia’s power “for the first time in the 1960s” (ibid.). As has been mentioned above, in the twentieth century a lot of the dynamics between the Dutch and French language and Flemish and Walloon communities in Belgium have changed. Already towards the end of the nineteenth century, the Flemish movement began revolting against French dominance in Flanders and Brussels-Capital, “championing ‘the Flemish cause’”, and throughout the twentieth century the Dutch language would gradually attain official status next to French in a number of domains in the region of Flanders, as a result of these Flemish cause struggles for equality and official recognition (Van Velthoven 1987:17). In the 1930s, a number of laws were passed that gave Dutch official parity with French “as the official language in the administration, in primary and secondary education, and in the courts and the army” and that declared Flanders as “officially unilingual Dutch, while Wallonia in the south remained officially French” and Brussels-Capital “officially bilingual” (Bourhis et al 1979:162-3). This “regional unilingualism” for Flanders and Wallonia was established and accepted by the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking population as a “compromise between two alternative proposals: the status quo with French dominant or nationwide bilingualism” (Spolsky 2004: 164). The “issue of language parity” then made official in Brussels-Capital implied “a shift from traditional hierarchical diglossia to institutional bilingualism” in both French and Dutch (Mackey 1981: 20). In the 1960s, another set of language laws were passed to further consolidate the position of Dutch, in opposition to French, in the capital (ibid.). The first of these laws was the establishment of “the language frontiers between Flanders and Wallonia” in 1961 (Bourhis et al 1979:163). This official language border was drawn in Belgium according to the principle of territoriality in order to create regions “as linguistically homogeneous as possible” (ibid.). The second law passed in the 1960s was “designed to provide better educational and cultural facilities for the Flemish minority in Brussels[-Capital]”, while the third law was designed to improve the position of Flemish as a language in the administration of the municipalities of the Brussels region while, at the same time, creating certain French language facilities in some Flemish communes on the outskirts of Brussels. (ibid.)

As a result of these laws, the hostilities and problems between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities increased. They have become commonplace in Belgian

15 Similar industrial shift occurred in the United Kingdom at that time from the North to the South-East of the country.

33 politics, public life and press (ibid.). Bourhis et al (1979) quotes Lorwin’s (1972) summary of “the effect of these laws on the relationship between the communities by the mid 1960s” (164): [t]he nation has become an amalgam of one oppressed majority and two oppressed minorities. There are the old historical grievances of the Flemish, the newer grievances of the Walloons, and those of the Bruxellois under Flemish pressures. If the situation is new, it follows an old rule: many are oppressed, but no-one oppresses. (Lorwin 1972 in Bourhis et al 1979: 164)

From the 1960s onwards, Belgium experienced strong political problems, related to these fundamental hostilities and language issues. These will be discussed in section 4.3.

4.2. Present situation

The present outlook of the Belgian political landscape and federal structure is one that is built around one central and essential issue: language (Janssens 2001b: 14). This is the case because language in Belgium is not a neutral instance and has always played a central role in Belgian politics (Mettewie & Janssens 2007). Throughout the second part of the twentieth century, attempts to reconcile the sharp hostilities between the French- and Dutch-speaking communities resulted in constitutional revisions and gradual changes that provided the two regions and communities with “a certain degree of internal autonomy” (Bourhis et al 1979: 166). Throughout the decades this change led to the present federal state of Belgium being divided in three (linguistic) regions (‘Gewesten’ in Dutch), Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels- Capital; and in three cultural (and, therefore, also linguistic) Communities (‘Gemeenschappen’ in Dutch) 16 , the Flemish or Dutch-speaking Community, the French- speaking Community and the German-speaking Community (Janssens 2001b, Treffers-Daller 2002). The regions have the authority and responsibility to protect the rights and fulfil the needs of their inhabitants in the domains of economic policy, employment, agriculture, environment, energy, town planning and housing, transport, water provision, nature conservation and international trade (ibid.); while the Communities are responsible for the cultural and educational matters and personal affairs (such as health, minority policy etc.) of their members (ibid.). In short, this means that the Flemish Community is responsible for the region of Flanders, while the French-speaking Community is responsible for Wallonia, and the German-speaking Community for the German-speaking cantons in the east of Wallonia

16 When using the term “community”, without capitalization, a certain ethnolinguistic group in Belgium is referred to, for example the Dutch-speaking community; while the term “Community”, with capitalization, is used to refer to the official institution that is responsible for a certain community’s rights, for example the Flemish Community who safeguards the Dutch-speaking community’s rights.

(ibid.). However, the regions and Communities do not overlap entirely as no region is exclusively monolingual: Flanders harbours the Dutch-speaking community as well as several municipalities along the language frontier with linguistic facilities for French-speaking citizens; Wallonia has both French- and German-speaking municipalities and some of these French-speaking municipalities alongside the language border have language facilities for their Dutch-speaking inhabitants; and the nineteen municipalities of Brussels-Capital are officially bilingual in both French and Dutch (Mettewie & Janssens 2007, Janssens 2001b). This division of responsibilities in Belgium makes the social reality quite complex for the inhabitants of Brussels-Capital (both the French-speaking majority and the Dutch- speaking minority), as their rights are secured in very different ways. For the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Brussels-Capital, their cultural, educational and personal rights are attended to by the Dutch-speaking Community, while for the French-speaking citizens this is the responsibility of the French-speaking Community, and the region of Brussels-Capital is responsible for the regional affairs for both its French-speaking and Dutch-speaking inhabitants (Janssens 2001b). These complex stipulations have also fuelled the tensions between the two communities in the city. Despite all the political attainments for Dutch throughout the twentieth century (as described above), which put the language shift process in Brussels-Capital to a stop in the second part of that century, the linguistic situation of Brussels-Capital still remains still predominantly French-speaking. French still remains the city’s general lingua franca, mastered by 95% of Brussels-Capital’s inhabitants - regardless of their native language (Janssens 2008), while nowadays only more or less 20% of the capital’s population is natively Dutch-speaking (Verlot & Delrue 2004). An important contemporary aspect of Brussels-Capital relevant to this study is its multicultural nature as “a microcosm of Western Europe” (Mackey 1981: 20) or as “the new Babylon” (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 236); and the increasing role of English in the city. Nowadays, the city is inhabited by many different ethnolinguistic communities that all nurture the city’s multicultural outlook and turn it into “a multilingual space” with “more than 50 languages spoken by people from more than 30 countries” (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 237). The image of Brussels as a migrant city is confirmed by the observation that only 10% of Belgians live in their capital, while Brussels-Capital “houses one third of all non-Belgians and 40% of all people from outside the EU on Belgian territory” (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 224). Like most metropolitan cities in northern Europe, this migrant population derives from an “influx” Brussels-Capital experienced “of Italian, Spanish and Greek guest-labour immigrants” at the

35 end of the 1950s and an even greater immigration of Turkish and Morrocan guest-labourers during the 1960s (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 223). Though these immigrants were taken in as guest-labourers, the “vast majority [of them] stayed in Belgium and were joined by their wives and children, settling in the less attractive centre and south-eastern part of the city” (ibid.). Upon moving to Brussels-Capital, the newly arrived immigrant is confronted with the region’s two official languages, Dutch and French, and is more likely to acquire French, instead of Dutch. Thus, as Louckx (1987) observes, the immigrant population of Brussels- Capital contributes to the French dominance in the city. An explanation for their French preference might be the language factor in the integration process, which drives them to the powerful means of communication in Brussel-Capital, its lingua franca, French (Janssens 2001b). Moreover, immigrants coming from the Maghreb countries in Northern Africa often already have French competence in their pre-immigration context and will thus accept French as the lingua franca in Brussels-Capital, without considering Dutch. Apart from the city’s official languages, Dutch and French, and its immigrant languages, the English language also plays a prominent role in Brussels-Capital. From the 1970s until today the role of Brussels-Capital as “the seat of the European Commission and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance” has only increased in importance as its administrative and political functions grew (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 223). Yet, English is not only a language predominantly used in the “embassies, representations, lobbybureaux, and semi-official study- centres” that are built in the city (ibid.). Apart from this European function, English has also spread around the world (and, as a consequence, in the most important metropoles) as “a lingua franca in a globalising world, used ubiquitously in business, media, and popular culture” (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 234). It is beyond doubt that, apart from Dutch and French, English is also claiming its place in the region’s linguistic landscape.

4.3. Problematics

Problems between the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities in Belgium have occurred since the country’s independence in 1830. As McRae (1986) states, the “largest outstanding issue dividing the language communities” during twentieth century has been the region of Brussels-Capital (293). The first major issue related to this region is the Frenchification process that turned a Flemish city into a predominantly French-speaking one (ibid.). The conflict revolving around this issue can “be traced back to the 19 th century, when romanticist Flemish individuals fought for the recognition of their language and culture”

36 against Francophone oppression (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 225). In this light, the Dutch- speaking inhabitants of Belgium are “extremely sensitive” to any reminders of this “oppressive and humiliating” period (ibid.). A second major issue dividing the two communities in Belgium is the linguistic state of the municipalities surrounding Brussels-Capital, which are not part of the nineteen officially bilingual municipalities that make up the Brussels-Capital region. As all metropolitan cities, Brussels-Capital has been continuingly expanding its territory; and along with the territory, the French dominance also spreads throughout the surrounding (Flemish and therefore Dutch-speaking) municipalities (McRae 1986). The Flemish population experienced this Francophone expansion as a threat and symbolically referred to it as ‘the oil stain’ (‘olievlek’), meaning “a double form of pollution destroying the physical and human environment of the Flemish countryside” (McRae 1986: 307). When in 1963 the delimitations of Brussels-Capital were officially determined (which limited the region to its 19 municipalities); the Flemish population saw this as “a very important milestone”, while the French-speaking population experienced this boundary as a ‘collar’ (‘carcan’), limiting the capital’s natural expansion (Treffers-Daller 2002: 52). Over the past decades, the problems and hostilities between the two majority communities in Belgium have dominated Belgian politics and the press. The issues revolving around the linguistic conflict are extraordinarily complex, and a detailed description of them goes beyond the scope of this study. In this study I will interpret and observe the landscape with its linguistic problematics and dynamics from a distance, while comprising the complexities of the situation.

5. Choice of researched areas within Brussels-Capital

This study will examine the presence of multilingualism in Brussels-Capital by examining the linguistic landscapes of three different within the region. In each case I focus on one commercial centre. Each of these areas was chosen because of the ethnolinguistic diversity in the implied readership of their linguistic landscapes. The chosen areas were, thus, in line with Huebner’s (2006) study on Bangkok’s linguistic landscape, “expected to adequately reflect the city’s linguistic diversity” without implying representability for the entire region (Backhaus 2007: 45). These diverse implied readerships, or “the intended audience” of the landscape as Huebner (2009) alternatively calls it, are expected to influence “the forms that language takes in the LL” and the LL itself (74). The first area is the Dansaertwijk in the north western centre of Brussels. The linguistic landscape of this area’s heart and main commercial street, the Antoine Dansaertstraat, is examined in the analysis. The second area that I chose is the Grote Markt. This area is closely situated to the Dansaertwijk and is the city’s central market place and a prominent tourist attraction. The third area is the municipality of Elsene in southern Brussels- Capital and its main commercial street the Elsensesteenweg’s linguistic landscape is also part of the analysis.

5.1. Antoine Dansaertstraat 17

The choice of the Dansaert area and its main commercial street’s linguistic landscape is motivated by the significantly high number of Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the area. In the Belgian press and politics, these Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the Dansaertwijk are commonly referred to as “Dansaert-Vlamingen” (Dansaert-Flemings in English). It is nowadays used both as a pejorative and honorary name. The term was coined in 2006 by Louis Tobback, the mayor of the Flemish city of Leuven, when he complained about Flanders buying itself ‘a good Brussels’ conscience’ at the expense of his own city Leuven (Willems 2006). What he held against the Dutch-speaking Community was the substantial amount of subsidies it gave to this minority in order to establish a network of Flemish cultural facilities, mostly located in the vicinity of the Dansaertwijk, because this implied that less money was available for cultural projects and funds in Leuven.

17 Antoine Dansaert (1818-1890) was a Brussels politician and member of parlement in nineteenth century Belgium ( http://www.liberaalarchief.be/D.html )

The Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Brussels which Tobback referred to by using the term ‘Dansaert-Vlamingen’ are a group of young, wealthy and intellectual Flemings who are not interested in Belgian politics or language issues but rather in culture, art and the cosmopolitan way of life in Brussels. These people moved to the Dansaert area during the past years and frequent the trendy cafés 18 and cultural houses, such as the KVS, the Kaaitheater and L’Ancienne Belgique 19 , in the Dansaert area. As a result of this localized concentration of Dutch-speaking inhabitants, the Dansaert area is known as “the Flemish area” in Brussels (van der Kris 2007), or as “un des quartiers du centre de Bruxelles où la présence flamande se fait sentir réellement à la capitale” (De Troyer 2007). Adding to this Dansaert-Flemings presence, the Dansaertstraat also hosts the buildings of the Rits school’s café and of the Erasmus Hogeschool Brussel, which are both Dutch- speaking higher education facilities. As a result, these schools provide the Dansaert area with a significantly high number of Dutch-speaking students passing through the area on a daily basis. The significance of this Dutch-speaking (or Flemish) presence in the Dansaert area is also illustrated by a recent Dutch-speaking project, the photo-novel called “Dansaertstraat”, developed by the Kaaitheater with support from the Flemish Community Commission. This photo-novel recounts the lives of several inhabitants of Brussels in and around the Dansaert area. The inner dynamics of the area were eloquently phrased on the launch of the photo- novel by Josse De Pauw, who states that [de Dansaertwijk is] een Vlaams Dorp in Brussels dat mede door zijn specifieke ligging en zijn heterogene bevolking het enige Vlaams Dorp is dat zich min of meer verbonden voelt met én België én Europa én de Wereld. (Josse De Pauw in www.kaaitheater.be )

This heterogeneous nature of the Dansaert area, as described by De Pauw, is nurtured by the different immigrant ethnicities that also inhabit the area in addition to the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking populations. The analysis of the Dansaertstraat’s linguistic landscape will indicate to which linguistic audience, or “the implied reader” (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996: 120), the linguistic landscape of the Dansaertstraat is directed. The implied reader of a text (or in this case, of public signage) is “a model reader” selected by the text (or signage) “through its ‘choice of a specific linguistic code, a certain literary style’ and by presupposing ‘a specific encyclopedic

18 As examples of trendy cafés in the Dansaert area one might name “Monk”, “Daringman” (all in the vicinity of the Dansaertstraat), “L’Archiduc” and “De Walvis” (both actually located in the Dansaertstaat). 19 The Koninklijke Vlaamse Schouwburg (KVS) is the Royal Flemish Theatre in Brussels; the Kaaitheatre is a smaller theatre house, and L’Ancienne Belgique is a Flemish concerthall.

39 competence’ on the part of the reader” (ibid.). The implied reader of a linguistic landscape is, therefore, determined by the choice of language, code and cultural references in the signage. One might already presuppose that the landscape will be directed to the inhabitants of the area, to tourists visiting the region, to commuters both Flemish and Walloon, and to shopping visitors. These shopping visitors are the international clientele of the Dansaertwijk, attracted by the several international designer fashion shops, such as Annemie Verbeke, Natan, and the important fashion store Stijl 20 which the Dansaertstraat harbours. The international importance and attraction of the Dansaertwijk as a fashion district might influence the implied readership of the area and result in significant ethnolinguistic vitality scores of English. I thus expect the storefronts in the Dansaertstraat to address both a local audience, meaning the local Dutch-speaking and French-speaking inhabitants, and a broader, international audience, meaning the foreign clientele and tourists. This will presumably result in the landscape’s range being both ‘inward’, in that it displays the local languages French and Dutch, and ‘outgoing’, meaning that it displays more foreign languages. The comparative analysis in chapter two will provide more specific information about these implied readerships and the range of the Dansaertstraat’s landscape.

5.2. Grote Markt

The Grote Markt, as the capital’s historical centre and market place, is one of the main tourist attractions in the city. In this light, it is not surprising that most of the buildings on the Grote Markt are shops or restaurants. As Wijgaerts (1981) observes, the inner city of central Brussels is predominantly occupied by office and commercial space, whereas the periphery of Brussels is most likely made up out of residential areas (215). The Grote Markt area is, thus, more orientated towards the working class commuters and the substantial amount of foreign tourists and visitors passing through the area on a daily basis. The choice of this area is motivated by this flow of indigenous and foreign people and the (hypothetical) importance of English and foreign languages in the area. The implied readers of the Grote Markt’s linguistic landscape can therefore by hypothesized as comprising “a more heterogeneous readership, including tourist and foreign business people”, as well as commuters (Backhaus 2007:15). In this respect, Louckx (1987) points out the strong “ethnolinguistic influence” the commuters and foreigners have on “the everyday linguistic profile of metropolitan Brussels” (77). The

20 The store Stijl displays collections of Rick Owens, Ann Demeulemeester, Dries Van Noten, A.F. Vandervorst, Raf Simons, Adam Kimmel, Yohan Sefaty, Martin Margiela and others. These internationally renowned fashion collections contribute to the international fashion image of the area.

40 range of the Grote Markt landscape is thus expected to be similar to that of the Dansaertstraat (both ‘inward’ and ‘outgoing’). This tentative hypothesis about the role of foreigners and commuters in this area resulting in English and Dutch respectively (in addition to French) will be tested in the quantitative analysis chapter.

5.3. Elsensesteenweg

The municipality of Elsene (or Ixelles in French) and its main commercial street, the Elsensesteenweg was chosen in this study as a predominantly French-speaking environment within the region of Brussels-Capital 21 . Since the 1960s, this municipality has been considered to be “ l’oasis francophone in een verondersteld tweetalig Brussels” (Marc Platel in Hendryckx 2007), as it is one of the municipalities with the lowest percentages of Dutch- speaking inhabitants in both the last official linguistic census of 1947 and in a more recent survey by Janssens (2001b). The percentages of Dutch-speaking inhabitants and French- speaking inhabitants of Elsene in this language census of 1947 were 2,8% and 57,9%, respectively (Logie 1981: 91). This French-speaking predominance is also fuelled by the fact that “the municipalities with the highest percentages of French-speaking population [...] also attract most of the immigrants from Wallonia” (Treffers-Daller 1994: 20; Logie 1981). 22 All of this leads to the fact that Elsense is commonly accepted as one of “the least Flemish [municipalities]” (Louckx 1987: 76). As a hypothesis, one might state that the implied readership of this predominantly French-speaking environment would also be predominantly French-speaking. This hypothetical French-speaking audience would imply a predominantly French-speaking linguistic landscape in this area. The range of the Elsensesteenweg’s landscape is thus expected to be more ‘localized’ and ‘inward’ (cf. supra). The next chapter will deal with the quantitative analysis of the photos made in this area; and, as a consequence, will confirm or refute this hypothesis. To compare the findings in this area with the findings in the Dansaertstraat and the Grote Markt will be interesting in order to uncover tendencies for the different categories of language use reflected in the signage and the ethnolinguistic vitalities of the languages spoken by people inhabiting or frequenting the area. The comparative sections in the quantitative

21 Because of the fact that in reality the Elsensesteenweg is twice as long as the Dansaertstraat and, thus, contains twice as much units of analysis as the Dansaertstraat area, and ten times as much as the Grote Markt, I decided to only include the first half of the Elsensesteenweg in this study. Moreover, this first part also forms a separate and defined area as it is cut off from the second part by a large market place called ‘Place Fernand Cocq’. 22 Conversely, the municipalities with significant Dutch-speaking presence attract more Dutch-speaking immigrants from Flanders (Logie 1981).

41 analysis chapter will deal with the discussion of these tendencies and vitalities within the general linguistic landscape of Brussels-Capital.

Chapter 2: Quantitative analysis and discussion

As explained in the methodological introduction to this study in the previous chapter, the photographic material found in the areas of research was analysed in Excel by means of a score system that identifies the different languages’ ethnolinguistic vitalities in absolute and relative numbers. 23 The present chapter will describe and discuss the quantitative results of this Excel analysis of each area’s general landscape (the Grote Markt, the Dansaertstraat, and the Elsensesteenweg, respectively) and of the different categories and subcategories (code preference in multilingual signage, international chain, national chain, privately owned space, bookshops and immigrant commercial spaces, respectively) from a comparative perspective.

1. General landscape results

1.1. Grote Markt

The linguistic landscape encountered in the Grote Markt is smaller in size and number of instances than the Dansaertstraat and the Elsensesteenweg. However, as the analysis will show it does display interesting tendencies for a comparative perspective. The first figure, figure 8a 24 , describes the ethnolinguistic vitalities of the languages displayed in the Grote Markt landscape. These vitalities were calculated in Excel and are expressed here in an absolute number, a score. As already explained in the methodological section of this study, these absolute ethnolinguistic scores were obtained by equating the occurrence of a specific language in a specific subordinate, dominant or equivalent position within the unit of the façade with a certain value. The values were devised in a system that provides the language occurring in an exclusive position within the signage (i.e. a monolingual unit) with the highest value 4. Conversely, when multilingual or bilingual signage 25 is observed in the unit’s façade, then this can be equivalent or non-equivalent (or equal/unequal). Equivalent multilingualism will include a dominating language (value 3) and a dominated language which is added to the dominating language (value 1). When equivalent or equal multilingualism is encountered, both (or all) languages receive the value 2. By means of this system, the ethnolinguistic

23 The figures and analysis making up the absolute and relative EV scores can be found in the Excel documents accompanying this study (see appendix). 24 The figures in this quantitative chapter are labelled according to area and category (for example, the figures of the general landscape of the Grote Markt all have the number 8), while the specific kinds of figures are labelled by letters: the absolute EV score figure is labelled ‘a’ (e.g. figure 8a), the frequency table figures are labelled with letter ‘b’ (e.g. figure 8b) and the relative EV score figures are labelled with letter ‘c’ (e.g. figure 8c). 25 From this moment onwards in the quantitative analysis and discussion, the term equivalent/non-equivalent “multilingualism” or “multilingual signage” refers to both bilingual and multilingual signage.

43 vitalities of French, Dutch, English and ‘Other’ (another foreign language) were calculated. The results of this analysis of the general Grote Markt landscape are shown in figure 8a.

70 67

50 44 40 33 30

20 12 10

0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 8a: General landscape (GM) This figure shows that in the Grote Markt area, the EV score of French is highest (67), followed by Dutch (44), English (33) and ‘Other’ (Spanish, German, Japanese) (12). Figure 8b describes how frequently each language occurs in what dominating or subordinate position in this area.

18 16 16 15 14 12 11 10 4: exclusive 10 8 8 3: dominant 8 2: equal 6 4 1: additional 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 8b: General landscape (GM) This frequency table shows that equivalent multilingual signage occurs most frequently in French and Dutch, whereas English and ‘Other’ language are predominantly used as additional comments or partial translations. When comparing the ethnolinguistic vitality scores of each area of research with one another, the absolute scores would not be fit for such a comparison. Because of this, these

44 absolute scores were divided by the number of storefronts encountered in each area in order to obtain a more relative or mean vitality score. These mean scores of the Grote Markt’s general landscape are displayed for each language on the left side of figure 8c . On the right side of figure 8c, on the other hand, the relative proportions of each language to one another are represented in order to discuss and compare them in each area.

2,500 2,094 2,000 0,375 French 1,375 1,500 1,031 2,094 Dutch 1,031 English 1,000 1,375 Other 0,375 0,500

0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 8c: General landscape (GM)

1.2. Dansaertstraat

The results of the analysis of the languages occurring in the Dansaertstraat’s general landscape are displayed in figure 9a. This figure shows that the vitality score of French is the highest, and tha t the scores of Dutch and English are equally high (97). The score of ‘Other’ is, comparatively, rather low (11).

250 227

200

150

97 97 100

50 11 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 9a: General landscape (DS)

Figure 9b displays how often each language occurs in what position. This shows that French and Dutch are most frequently used in egalitarian or equivalent multilingual signage. French monolingualism, however, is also fairly frequently displayed (24 times). Concerning English and ‘Other’, the results show that these are most predominantly used as additional language.

35 30 30 30 27 24 25 21 20 4: exclusive 15 3: dominant 15 11 2: equal 10 8 8 8 1: additional 4 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 9b: General landscape (DS)

The last two figures represent the relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores of each language in the Dansaertstraat area.

2,500 2,225

2,000 0,108

1,500 0,951 French

0,961 0,951 2,225 Dutch 1,000 0,951 Englis 0,500 h 0,108 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 9c: General landscape (DS)

1.3. Elsensesteenweg

In general, the Elsensesteenweg’s linguistic landscape has clear linguistic preferences. As can be derived from figure 10a, the ethnolinguistic vitality score of French is by far the strongest (346) in comparison with Dutch (only 87) and English (merely 44). This comes as no surprise, since the Elsensesteenweg is located in a predominantly French-speaking environment. The vitality score of ‘Other’ foreign languages in this area is also significantly low (3).

400 346 350 300 250 200 150 87 100 44 50 3 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 10a: General landscape (EL) The frequency table in figure 10b shows how frequently each language category occurs in each position. This table shows that the French language is most frequently used in French monolingual signage (41 times) and in non-equivalent multilingualism as the dominating language (38) and in equivalent multilingualism (33). Dutch, on the other hand, is used most frequently in equal multilingual signs (31 times) and as an additional language in partial translations (25). Finally, English and ‘Other’ are commonly used as additional languages (23 and 3 times, respectively).

45 41 40 38 33 35 31 30 25 4: exclusive 25 23 3: dominant 20 15 2: equal 10 1: additional 2 2 3 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 10b: General landscape (EL)

The final figures display the four language categories’ relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores which will be used in the comparative section of this chapter.

3,000 2,836

2,500 0,361 0,025 2,000 French 1,500 0,713 Dutch English 1,000 2,836 0,713 Other 0,361 0,500 0,025 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 10c: General landscape (EL)

1.4. Comparative discussion

This section will discuss and compare the main tendencies and observations in the results of the three areas’ general landscapes as described in the previous sections (1.1, 1.2, 1.3). First, the public ‘top-down’ signage in the three areas will be compared in terms of the languages displayed and, secondly, the general observations from the material will be discussed. The number of public signs encountered in the three areas was rather small. In the Dansaertstraat 9,80% of the landscape were official inscriptions and in the Elsensesteenweg only 5,74%. In the Grote Markt area more governmental ‘top -down’ signage was encountered (25,00%). 26 Most of these public signs corresponded to the official bilingual status of the region and were equally bilingual in French and Dutch. In the Grote Markt area these public bilingual signs were the street name sign, the official signage of the government, the museums, the memorial plaque for Victor Hugo and the signage on the façade of the city hall building. In the Dansaertstraat area these public signs included the street name sign, the official documents, the parking signs, the direction signs, bus stop signs, public underground parking signs and memorial signage (of F. Vanhumbeeck). The signage on the façade of the two public schools in the Dansaertstraat (the Ritz and the Erasmushogeschool, both higher education facilities) were also in line with the official legislation concerning public schools in Brussels-Capital that declares a school as either officially French- or Dutch -speaking. The

26 This 25,00% represents 8 units categorized as ‘top -down’ out of the total of 32 units found in the Grote Markt.

48 signage encountered on these Dutch -speaking schools’ façade in the Dansaertstraat was, as a result, all monolingual in Dutch. The memorial signage for Julius Hoste and Léon Lepage in the Dansaertstraat, however, were respectively monolingual in Dutch and in French. These surprising linguistic displays will be discussed further in the qualitative analysis chapter. Finall y, the public signage of the Elsensesteenweg area included the street name sign, the parking sign, the bus stop sign, the post office signage, the foreigner s office (Bureau d’Ixelles des É trangers) and the official documents displayed. The signage encounte red on the French- speaking public primary school’s façade in this area was entirely monolingual in French, which is also in accordance with the official Brussels -Capital school policy. These ‘top -down’ official inscriptions are expected to reflect the regi on’s official linguistic status and, as a result, show different tendencies when compared to the ‘bottom -up’ private signage that is expected to predominantly display the city’s lingua franca and to a lesser extent the city’s official bilingualism. This ‘bottom-up’ expectation is confirmed when looking at the ethnolinguistic vitality results for each area. The first observation I made, based on these scores is the French predominance. In each of the three areas, the French language has the highest vitalit y score.27 This, however, is not surprising and in line with my expectations, as French still remains the predominantly used lingua franca in the region of Brussels -Capital (cf. supra). Yet, the French hegemony is not equally divided in each area and relati ve to the proportions taken up by the other language categories. As can be observed from the relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores pie figures (figure 8c, 9c, 10c), French is proportionally most prevalent in the Elsensesteenweg area (figure 10c, here re peated as figure 11).

0,025 0,361

0,713 French

Dutch

2,836 English

Other

Figure 11: General landscape (EL) Relative EV scores

27 In the Grote Markt area this score was 67 which is equated with the relative score of 2,094; in the Elsensesteenweg this score was 346 (relative score of 2,836) and in the Dansaertstraat this score was 227 (relative score of 2,225) (cf. supra).

In the Elsensesteenweg area, as can be understood from figure 11, Dutch, English and ‘Other’ have the lowest ethnolinguistic vitality scores of all three areas in relation to French. This French prevalence is in accordance with the expectations of the influence of its implied readership on the LL. Conversely, the French language is proportionally least predominant in the Grote Markt area, where the ethnolinguistic vitality of Dutch, English and Other are relatively strong. These relatively strong ethnolinguistic vitality scores of English, Dutch and Other in the Grote Markt and Dansaertstraat area will be tentatively explained in the following sections. A second observation to be made is the role of English in the three areas. Although English is not an official language of the region, it does occupy significant parts of the linguistic landscapes in each of the three areas, as the ethnolinguistic vitality scores indicate. In the Dansaertstraat’s landscape, the vitality score of English (97) is just as strong as that of Dutch (97). This is also true in the Grote Markt area, where the EV scores of English (33) and Dutch (44) are relatively close to one another. These scores indicate that English is an important language in these two areas and on equal footing with Dutch. In the Elsensesteenweg area, however, the vitality score of English is not as high as Dutch. 28 This less prominent role of English in the Elsensesteenweg area might be explained by the fact that Elsene, unlike the Dansaertwijk and the Grote Markt, is a peripheral municipality of the Brussels-Capital region. As a consequence, Elsene has less foreign tourist and international passage, which translates itself into a lower ethnolinguistic vitality scores for English (in comparison to the Dansaertwijk and the Grote Markt) in the landscape of the Elsensesteenweg. This is not the case in the Dansaertwijk and the Grote Markt area, where the importance and conspicuity of English should be partly explained in consideration of the two areas’ international profile. As already stated, the Grote Markt is one of the city’s most prominent tourist attractions, as it is the city’s historical core market place. As a result, a significant number of international tourists visit the area on a daily basis. The Dansaertstraat, on the other hand, is not a historical tourist attraction; yet, does attract foreign tourists for a very different reason. As was also already stated in the previous chapter, the Dansaertwijk is an important and well-known fashion area with international clientele. The display of English in storefronts of commercial spaces in the Dansaertstraat should thus be considered in the

28 Yet, the proportions between Dutch and French in the Elsensesteenweg and the Grote Markt are the same. In the Grote Markt area, Dutch has a relative EV score of 1,375 while English was one of 1,031; making the difference between two languages’ scores 0,344. In the Elsensesteenweg area, on the other hand, the difference between the Dutch EV score (0,731) and the English EV score (0,361) is 0,352 and, therefore, very similar to the Dutch-English proportions in the Grote Markt area. This indicates that in these two areas the competition between Dutch and English is similar.

50 light of its international profile. 29 However, the display of English in the three areas should not only be seen as a consequence of commercial spaces’ international profile, but also as a consequence of the English language’s neutral character amidst French-Dutch competition and of the growing importance of English in the process of globalisation. The use of English in the three areas’ linguistic landscapes can thus be seen as a compromise or an avoidance of having to choose between Dutch or French in such a polemic linguistic situation (cf. the problematics section in the previous chapter). The property of English in such usage is, therefore, “entirely pragmatic” (Mackey 1981: 28). A similar use of English as “a neutral linguistic resource” was observed by Ben-Rafael et al (2006) in their LL study of Israel (25). They concluded that English was “neither a priori associated with Jews nor with Arabs”, and “allows maintaining communication over the head of manifestations of animosity, preventing thereby a total cut-off between populations” (ibid.). This display of English can also be interpreted by the increased and still increasing importance of the language during the second part of the twentieth century onwards. On a worldwide international scale, this increasing importance and spread of English must be seen in light of globalization, “a process usually defined in economic terms of markets, production and consumption” making English economically the most powerful language (Cenoz & Gorter 2009: 57). The presence of English in the landscapes of cities around the globe is thus “one of the most obvious markers of the process of globalization” (ibid.). Heller (2003) refers to this presence of English in LLs as “the McDonaldisation of the linguistic landscape” (in Gorter 2006: 4). Conversely, on a more local level in the region of Brussels-Capital, the increased importance of English can be connected to the European Union facilities which are located in this region. As Van Parijs (2007) argues, it is highly likely that in the not so distant future English will dominate Brussels-Capital, as a result of a language shift process very similar to the French language shift that occurred in the region during the previous centuries (Van Parijs in van der Kris 2007). Just like French gained importance within the ruling circles of Brussels from the nineteenth century onwards, English is now the most important language within the Brussels-based European Union institutions and will continue to come into use across the entire capital (ibid.).

29 Notable in this context is the fact that English in the Grote Markt and Elsensesteenweg landscape is predominantly used as an additional language, whereas in the Dansaertstraat the occurrence of English monolingualism is significantly frequent. This English monolingualism (in combination with the high ethnolinguistic vitality score) can be considered indicative of the Dansaertwijk’s international importance and profile.

The increasing importance and symbolic vitality of English can thus be deduced from its presence in the linguistic landscape (cf. supra). In line with the high vitality scores encountered in this study, various studies of other cities’ linguistic landscapes also mention the prominent role English plays in these landscapes. Maria Schlick’s research, as presented in her article “The English of shop signs in Europe” (2003), for example, focused on the commercial spaces’ façades of eight European town centres in Austria (Vienna and Leoben), Great Britain (London and Nuneaton), Italy (Trieste and Prodenone) and in Slovenia (Ljubljana and Kranj). She confirms the importance of the English language in the landscape of each of these cities and concludes that “[a]lthough store signs draw on a whole variety of languages, English plays by far the most important role” (Schlick 2003: 10). Other examples are the study by Ben-Rafael et al (2006) on the landscape of Israel that also includes significant numbers for English and the LL study of Friesland and Basque country by Cenoz & Gorter (2006) that mentions English as having both an informational and symbolic function within the LLs. Both the study on “The presence of written English on the streets of Rome” (2004) by Jeffrey L. Griffin and the study of shops signs in Milan by Nigel Ross (1997) also concluded that the part of the landscape occupied by English is astonishingly large and “eye- opening” (Griffin 2004: 7). The other studies of the linguistic landscape of Rome (as mentioned by Backhaus [2007]) also report “a growing prominence of English in non-English locations around the world” (Backhaus 2007: 39). Moreover, in his survey of linguistic landscape studies around the globe, Backhaus (2007) concludes with the observation that

[o]wing to both its wide communicative range and its high prestige value worldwide, English is the language omnipresent in virtually all of the linguistic landscapes, irrespective of whether or not it is actually spoken by any sizeable share of the population. English signs, with and without local impact, are as common in Beijing and Brussels as they are in Lira and Ljouwert. (Backhaus 2007: 56-7)

English is thus a prominent language in each linguistic landscape study mentioned by Backhaus (2007) as a result of its lingua franca status, its symbolic connotations and the process of globalization. Another explanation for the important role of English in commercial façades and advertising is not necessarily connected to its role as a global lingua franca. As Ross (1997) observes, English is used as a non-native language in shops signs for “the simple reason [...] that English is today seen as an attractive and fashionable language” (Ross 1997 in Griffin 2004: 4). In this context Helen Kelly-Holmes (2000) mentions the process of language “fetishization” in intercultural advertising (Kelly Holmes 2000: 71). This “language fetish” occurs when a specific language is primarily used “for its symbolic value” which renders its

52 communicative and utility properties “irrelevant” (ibid.). This symbolic value is an “ethno- cultural stereotype about the group most frequently associated with [a specific] language” (Piller 2003: 172), or its “connotational value” (Edelman 2009: 142). The use of French in intercultural advertising, for example, can be seen as a symbol for “high elegance, refined taste, attractiveness, sophisticated style, fascination and charm” 30 , while the use of English in advertisements for a specific product implies “international appreciation, reliability, high quality, confidence, practical use and practical life style” (ibid.). On an international level, English has thus become the “general symbol of modernity, progress, and globalization” (Piller 2003: 175). The important role of English in the three landscapes in this study can thus be considered a result of the area’s international profile, or a result of its neutral character within French- Dutch conflicts, or a result of the presence of European Union institutions in Brussels-Capital, or finally a result of its symbolic value in language fetishization. By means of conclusion I can say that English can occur as a ‘ lingua franca’, a ‘ lingua economica’ in “discourses of the world economy”, a ‘ lingua cultura’ in language fetish scenarios and as a ‘ lingua emotiva’ in “discourses of popular culture” (Phillipson in Hult 2009: 101). A third observation to be made revolves around the ethnolinguistic vitality score of Dutch in the Dansaertstraat area which harbours a significantly high amount of Dutch-speaking inhabitants. Hypothetically, one might assume that due to this relatively high number of Dutch-speaking inhabitants, the ethnolinguistic vitality score of Dutch and the presence of Dutch in the Dansaertstraat landscape would also be relatively high in comparison with the findings in the predominantly French-speaking area of the Elsensesteenweg. When looking at the relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores of the Dansaertstraat and the Elsensesteenweg, this hypothetical correlation between the area’s ethnolinguistic population and the languages in the landscape seems to be confirmed. Moreover, as can be derived from the frequency tables (figures 9b and 10b), in the Elsensesteenweg’s landscape Dutch is only displayed in equivalent multilingual signage and as an additional language (31 and 25 times respectively), whereas the usage of Dutch in the Dansaertstraat is more diversified: 4 times monolingualism in Dutch was encountered, twice Dutch was the dominating language in non-equivalent multilingual signage, 31 times Dutch was part of equivalent multilingualism and only 14 instances of Dutch as an additional inferior language were counted. These numbers suggest and confirm that due to the Dutch-speaking inhabitants in the Dansaertwijk the vitality score

30 The question is not addressed here and thus remains how this can be deduced from the usage of French in the three areas in a predominantly French-speaking Brussels-Capital.

53 of Dutch is strong enough to claim a more dominant position in the Dansaertstraat landscape. The highest relative ethnolinguistic vitality score for Dutch, however, is found in the Grote Markt area (1,375), which was somewhat unexpected. This is probably due to the LL-actors’ consideration of the Dutch-speaking tourists and commuters in the region and due to the official buildings that occupy 25,00% of the market place and display equivalent French- Dutch bilingualism, such as the City Hall and the City Museum. The fourth and final observation I made about the general landscapes of the three areas were the ethnolinguistic vitality scores of the ‘Other’ category. These relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores were 0,375 in the Grote Markt area, 0,025 in the Elsensesteenweg and 0,108 in the Dansaertstraat area. In each of these areas the foreign languages that fit this category are most frequently used as additional languages in the signage. They are never displayed as monolingual signage and always in combination with either French, Dutch or English or a combination of these three. This implies that the particular groups who speak these foreign languages in the area are not potent and large enough to claim a more dominating part of the landscape in Brussels-Capital. Most surprising and unexpected in this category was the fact that the highest score occurred in the landscape of the Grote Markt. This, however, can be explained when making the distinction between the migrant languages (such as Arabic, Tunisian, Indian etc) and the tourist languages (Spanish, German, Japanese etc). The migrant languages inscribed, thus, reflect the languages of the distinct ethnolinguistic group inhabiting the area, whereas the tourist languages are directed to the visiting tourist of the area. The same distinction was made in the study by Bagna & Barni (2006) which discussed the linguistic landscape or the panorama linguistico of Rome and talked about migrant languages and ‘others’ (in Backhaus 2007: 43). In this study the immigrant languages were Chinese, Bengali and Singhalese (amongst others), while the languages in the ‘others’ category were German and Japanese (ibid.). The ‘others’ category in the Bagna & Barni (2006) study clearly reflects the tourist languages category used in this study. The languages that are part of the ‘Other’ category displayed in the Grote Markt area are German, Spanish and Japanese and, therefore, belong to the tourist languages. The relatively high vitality score of the tourist languages in the Grote Markt’s landscape must thus be seen in light of its tourist implied readers. This implied reader group is significantly important and large due to the area’s international profile and, as a consequence, the ethnolinguistic vitality score of the ‘Other’ category is also significantly high. The ‘Other’ category in the Elsensesteenweg’s and the Dansaertstraat’s landscape, on the other hand,

54 contains migrant languages such as Indian, Thai and Arabic. However, in the Elsensesteenweg’s landscape Spanish and Japanese were also encountered, but were not used as tourist languages in the same way as they were in the Grote Markt landscape. The use of Spanish in the signage of a Spanish restaurant and Japanese on the signage of a Japanese restaurant in the Elsensesteenweg is not connected to the possible tourist visitors of the area and should, therefore, not be seen as a tourist language. Instead, the Spanish and Japanese restaurant display Spanish and Japanese as migrant languages for entirely different reasons. Displaying a certain foreign language, like Japanese on the façade of a Japanese restaurant, is used as a means of authentication and identification. By displaying this foreign language the authenticity or genuineness of the restaurant’s cultural background is established. This type of foreign language use is quite typical in the category of restaurants and other kinds of eating venues offering food. Names of such restaurants and names of dishes are quite frequently expressed in foreign languages when the restaurant claims a foreign identity. 31 This display can also imply that the displayed foreign language is used as a means of communication within the premises. This, however, does not always coincide and can in some cases be a deception. We can conclude that the occurrence of languages of the ‘Other’ category (both immigrant and tourists languages) in the three landscapes is an indication of the foreign tourist visitors of the areas, and of the increasing linguistic diversity of the region. The linguistic nature of immigrant-run commercial spaces in each of the three areas will be discussed further in section seven.

31 Examples of such display include the name “El Greco” of the Greek restaurant on the Grote Markt which refers to the famous Greek painter; the name “Da Piero” and the Italian description of dishes of the Italian restaurant in the Dansaertstraat; the name “Comocomo” and the Basque terms on the menu of the Basque restaurant in the Dansaertstraat; the Thai name and menu terms of the Thai restaurant in the Dansaertstraat and finally, the name “Yamaya Santatsu” and the Japanese terms on the menu of the Japanese restaurant in the Elsensesteenweg.

2. Code preference in multilingual signage

The multilingual signs 32 encountered in the linguistic landscapes of the three areas were analysed in terms of code preference. Each multilingual sign was scrutinized in order to determine which language was preferred or considered to be most salient according to the colours, size, fonts, material qualities or placement within the sign used for each specific language. The results of this analysis can be found in the Excel document accompanying this study (see appendix).

2.1. Results

The category of code preference in terms of material qualities did not show any variation at all. In all three areas, each of the multilingual signs encountered in the landscape displayed complete equivalence between the languages inscribed in terms of the materials used for the sign. This, however, is not surprising as the vast majority of the multilingual signage was manufactured in one piece and was not made out of more than one material. Little variation occurred in the category of code preference in terms of colour. Both the Grote Markt and Dansaertstraat’s multilingual signs displayed 100% equality in terms of colour between the different languages in the multilingual sign. The Elsensesteenweg, however, did show some variation. In this area, French was openly preferred in 3,45% of all multilingual signage, while the remaining 96,55% displayed equality. This preference for French, although minor, is in accordance with the general impression of the Elsensesteenweg area as predominantly French-speaking and thus comes as no surprise. In the categories of code preference in terms of size and font more variation occurred. In the Elsensesteenweg’s multilingual signage no language was preferred in terms of size. The multilingual signage in the Grote Markt landscape, on the other hand, displayed English as the most salient language in 9,09%, whereas the remaining 90,91% displayed equality. In the Dansaertstraat the only preferred language was French, displayed as most salient in 2,13% of the multilingual signage, while the remaining 97,87% showed equality for all languages. More variation did also occur in the category of font. The language most preferred in the Grote Markt was English (in 9,09%) with the remaining 90,91% displaying equality. The

32 The “multilingual signs” used in the analysis of code preference are signs in which the same informational content is displayed (and thus translated) in more than one language. Examples can be found in the previous chapter.

Elsensesteenweg, on the other hand, preferred French in 1,72% and showed equality in 98,28%. Finally, the multilingual signs in the Dansaertstraat preferred French in 2,13%, English in 2,13% as well and the remaining part of the landscape (95,74%) did not specifically prefer any language. Most variation, finally, was found in the category of code preference in terms of placement. As was already described in the methodology chapter, this type of code preference involves the preferred code to be located at the top, on the left or in the centre of the sign (cf. Scollon & Scollon 2003, Kress & van Leeuwen 1996). In the Grote Markt area, French was preferred in 63,64%, Dutch in 27,27% and English in 4,55% of all multilingual signs. The remaining 4,55% displayed equality in terms of placement. Conversely, the Elsensesteenweg’s multilingual signage displayed French as the preferred code in 68,97% of all multilingual cases, Dutch in 24,14%, English in 1,72% and another foreign language (Japanese) in 1,72%. The remaining 3,45% displayed equality in terms of placement. Finally, the multilingual signage in the Dansaertstraat preferred French by means of placement in 59,57%, Dutch in 25,53%, English in 2,13% and another foreign language (Arabic) in 2,13%. The rest of the multilingual signage (10,64%) showed equality in terms of placement between the languages displayed.

2.2. Discussion

As these results show, the main tendencies of the three areas’ general linguistic landscape are reflected in the code preference tendencies (in terms of size, font and colour) in the multilingual signage. In the Grote Markt area the language preferred in terms of size and font was English which is in line with the relatively high ethnolinguistic vitality score of English in this area. In the Elsensesteenweg’s landscape the language preferred in terms of colour and font was French. This is also in accordance with the relatively strongest vitality score of French in this area. Finally, in the Dansaertstraat French was the only language preferred in terms of size, while both English and French were preferred in terms of font. This also confirms the observations made in the previous section about the French predominance and the relatively high ethnolinguistic vitality score of English in this region. This confirmation of the main observations and tendencies found in the general landscape results was also found in the category of code preference in terms of placement. The results of this analysis are represented in table one.

Language Grote Markt Dansaertstraat Elsensesteenweg French 63,64% 59,57% 68,97% Dutch 27,27% 25,53% 24,14% English 4,55% 2,13% 1,72% Other 0,00% 2,13% 1,72% Equality 4,55% 10,64% 3,45%

Table 1: Code preference in terms of placement

This table shows that French is the most preferred language in each of the three areas. The highest percentage for French is found in the Elsensesteenweg’s multilingual signage, which is also in accordance with my expectations and observations in its general landscape. Dutch is preferred in a relatively large number of the multilingual signage in the three areas as well, with the highest percentage being the Grote Markt. This is also in line with the high ethnolinguistic vitality score of Dutch in the general Grote Markt landscape. English, on the other hand, is not as frequently preferred in terms of placement as French and Dutch are and the highest percentage (4,55%) is found in the multilingual signage of the Grote Markt area. This is also a confirmation of the observation made in the general Grote Markt landscape. English, though important, is not considered to be most important and is frequently used as translations addressing foreigners or for language fetishization process or for cursory slogans and comments. The category of ‘Other’ language was least preferred throughout the three areas. Most preferred is ‘Other’ in the Dansaertstraat’s multilingual signage, which must again be seen in light of the tourist and migrant languages present. Finally, equality between the languages displayed within the multilingual sign in terms of placement was also observed in quite a number of multilingual signs in the three areas. 33 These equal displays can be interpreted as a compromise between linguistic competition and will be more thoroughly discussed in the qualitative discussion chapter.

33 Such display of equality in terms of placement is not logical, as Scollon & Scollon (2003) observed (cf. supra). However, it did occur when two separate signs (displaying the same information, but one in French and one in Dutch) were displayed next to each other (cf. “KBC”, “Fitness Passage”), in which the code preference would then rely in what direction the passerby is coming from. This way, both languages can be preferred depending on the passerby. Secondly, I considered a multilingual sign as equal in terms of code preference, if within one sign two informational contents were displayed in two languages (French and Dutch), but when for the first informational content French was preferred and for the second Dutch.

3. Category: international chain commercial spaces results

This chapter will discuss the different tendencies and trends observed in the landscapes of the international chain commercial spaces in the three different areas. One would expect these international chain shops to be consistent and display similarities in their linguistic preferences throughout the three areas’ landscapes without taking into account the local dynamics and ethnolinguistic make-ups of the areas. This implies that we would expect the international chain shops to reflect the official bilingual status of the region and, as a result, display equal bilingualism in French and Dutch. Moreover, a relatively important role for English in the landscapes of international chain shops would also be expected because of the international range of the advertisements and the brands. After a full presentation of the linguistic tendencies found in the three areas’ international chain shops’ landscapes we will discuss how and if these expectations are fulfilled and if there is consistency throughout the three areas in this category.

3.1. Grote Markt

The five international chain commercial spaces in the Grote Markt area are CBC, Gautam Diamonds, KBC, Godiva and Neuhaus. As the absolute EV scores indicate (see figure 12a), Dutch and French have equally strong EV scores (8), whereas the score of English is slightly lower (5). The category of ‘Other’ has the lowest EV score (1).

9 8 8 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 12a: International chain (GM) The following frequency table in figure 12b displays how often each language category occurs in different positions. This table shows that the international chain commercial spaces in the Grote Markt area display French twice as a dominating language

59 and once in equivalent multilingualism (in which the other language is Dutch). Dutch, on the other hand, is displayed once as exclusive in a monolingual sign, once in equal multilingualism (along with French) and twice as the additional language. English is enc ountered once as the dominating language and twice as the additional language. Another language (‘Other’), finally, is only found in the additional language position.

2,5 2 2 2 2

1,5 4:exclusive 1 1 1 1 1 3:dominant 1 2: equal 1: additional 0,5 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 12b: International chain (GM) The final figure 12c shows the relative EV score s for each language category in the landscape of the international chain shops in the Grote Markt area.

1,8 1,6 1,6 1,6

1,4 0,2 1,2 1 1 1,6 French 1 Dutch 0,8 English 0,6 1,6 0,4 Other 0,2 0,2 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 12c: International chain (GM)

3.2. Dansaertstraat

In the Dansaertstraat area 21 international chain commercial spaces were observed. Figure 13a represents the absolute EV scores of these spaces in this area for each language category.

40 36 36 35 30 25 20 16 15 10

5 1 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 13a: International chain (DS) As can be deduced from this figure, the highest EV scores (which were also equally high) are those of French (36) and English (36). Dutch is less powerful with only a score of 16, while the ‘Other’ category is least powerful with the EV score of 1. The next figure, figure 13b, shows the frequency table of the positions in which each language occurs in the Dansaertstraat area in this category. It shows that French is most frequently displayed in equivalent or equal multilingualism (seven times) – most likely in combination with Dutch (seven times) or with English (once). French as dominating language is also quite often displayed (four times). Dutch, on the other hand, is mostly displayed in equivalent multilingualism (with French and/or English) and only twice as additional language. The use of English shows more variation regarding the positions within the façade. Five times English was displayed as the only language resulting in English monolingualism and five times as the additional translation or commentary language. Three times English was the dominating language and only once was it displayed in equivalent multilingualism. The ‘Other’ language was only displayed (once) as the additional language within the façade.

8 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 4: exclusive 4 4 3 3: dominant 3 2 2 2 2: equal 2 1 1 1: additional 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 13b: International chain (DS)

Finally, figu re 13c represents the relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores for each language category.

2,000 1,800 1,714 1,714 1,600 0,048 1,400 French 1,200 1,714 1,714 1,000 0,762 Dutch 0,800 0,762 English 0,600 Other 0,400 0,200 0,048 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 13c: International chain (DS)

3.3. Elsensesteenweg

In the Elsensesteenweg area 42 international commercial spaces were encountered. The result of the linguistic analysis of these spaces in terms of ethnolinguistic vitality are shown in figure 14a.

120 111 100

60 38 40 22 20 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 14a: International chain (EL) This figure shows that Fre nch is most powerful in this category in the Elsensesteenweg’s landscape with an EV score of 111. Second highest is Dutch with an EV score of 38, and third is English with 22. The ‘Other’ language category has no occurrence and, thus, no score. Fi gure 14b shows the frequency table of the different occupied positions for each language category. As can be understood from this figure, French is the language most

62 variably displayed. Ten times French monolingualism was observed, while thirteen times Fre nch was the dominating language within a sign. Sixteen times French was part of equivalent multilingual signage (in combination with Dutch or English). Dutch, on the other hand, occurred most frequently as a language in equal multilingualism (fifteen times ) and also as additional language (eight times). English, finally, was observed most frequently as the additional language in partial translations or comments. Twice English monolingualism was encountered and once English occurred in equal multilingualism.

18 16 16 15 14 13 12 12 10 4: exclusive 10 8 3: dominant 8 2: equal 6 4 1: additional 2 2 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 14b: International chain (EL)

The final figure, figure twenty -one, shows the relative EV scores of each language category for the international chain commercial spaces in the Elsensesteenweg.

3,000 2,643 2,500 0,524 0,000 2,000 French 1,500 0,905 Dutch 2,643 0,905 English 1,000 0,524 Other 0,500 0,000 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 14c: International chain (EL)

3.4. Comparative discussion

My expectations and hypotheses in the category of international chain commercial spaces include an important role for English due to the chains’ international character and a consistency of the chains in their linguistic configurations throughout the three areas. This means that I expect the international chains to deliberately opt for the same general linguistic display for the entire region and not for each local area in which the specific international chain store is located. This choice would most logically be equivalent bilingualism in Dutch and French as this is the region’s official linguistic status. A reason for this bilingual hypothesis might be the international chain’s budgetary considerations. This implies that international chain companies design one advertisement campaign that serves all shops in Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital. I also expect the role of English to be more prominent in the international chain stores than in the national chain and private owners commercial spaces. Concerning the expected bilingual French and Dutch display of the international chain spaces in the three areas, my expectations are only partly confirmed. As the ethnolinguistic vitality scores indicate, French and Dutch are equally strong in the Grote Markt area which confirms my hypothesis. The Elsensesteenweg and Dansaertstraat area, on the other hand, are not in accordance with my expectations in this respect. In both areas French is substantially stronger in EV score than Dutch (see figures 13a and 14a). This is the result of international chain spaces in these two areas opting quite frequently for French monolingualism or French as the dominant language within the façade. However, when taking a closer look at the frequency tables of this international chain category in these two areas (figures 13b and 14b), a fairly large number of equivalent bilingualism in French and Dutch does occur. In the Elsensesteenweg, French and Dutch are combined 15 times in equivalent bilingualism which makes it the most frequently displayed combination in the category of that area. In the Dansaertstraat, French and Dutch are also most frequently displayed in equivalent multilingualism in combination with each other. I can thus conclude that despite the fact that the EV scores of French in the Elsensesteenweg and Dansaertstraat area are considerably higher than those of Dutch, the combination of Dutch and French in equivalent bilingualism is most frequently displayed in these two areas, which does partly confirm my expectation. A possible explanation for the unexpected importance of French in these two areas might be influences of the locally strong ethnolinguistic communities, such as the French- speaking predominance throughout the city. In this light, I can say that the tension between

64 the advertisement policies of the international chain and the local EV dynamics of the areas has mostly been resolved in favour of the local dynamics in the case of the international chains in the Dansaertstraat and the Elsensesteenweg. However, in the Dansaertstraat this is only true for the lingua franca French. The Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the Dansaertwijk were not able to claim a part of the international chain’s façades, in the same way as they did in the general landscape of the Dansaertwijk (cf. supra). Dutch in the Dansaertwijk in this category has the lowest relative EV score of all three areas. This suggests that the shop keeper of an international store in the Dansaertwijk only considered the local vitality and power of French and not of Dutch. In general I can conclude that my hypothesis about consistency in the linguistic make- ups of the façades of international chain shops in the three areas was not confirmed. I cannot consider this category as a whole on the scale of Brussels-Capital entirely, and must therefore also consider the local EV dynamics when examining the façades. My second expectation about the importance of English in this category was also not entirely confirmed in the results. In the Grote Markt and Elsensesteenweg areas English did not play a significant role when compared to French and Dutch. In the Dansaertstraat, however, English was equally powerful as French, as both had an EV score of 36, and English monolingualism occurred five times (while French monolingualism only twice). This must also be understood in consideration of the Dansaertwijk’s international profile and orientation.

4. Category: national chain commercial spaces results

In this fourth section of the quantitative analysis chapter the results of the national (and thus Belgian) chain commercial spaces in the three different areas within Brussels-Capital will be discussed. In the same way as the international chain commercial spaces, one might expect these national chains to be considerate of the official linguistic policies of the region and not of the local inner dynamics and ethnolinguistic communities of the different areas because branches of the chain are established throughout Belgium. In this light, I would expect bilingualism in French and Dutch in which both languages are displayed as equals. Another tendency one might expect is the consistency of national chain commercial spaces throughout the region and, thus, throughout the three areas of interest central to this study. After a presentation of the ethnolinguistic scores derived from the quantitative analysis, I will discuss how these expectations are confirmed or refuted in the comparative discussion section.

4.1. Grote Markt

In the Grote Markt area only one national chain shop was encountered, “Belgian Art Home”, a shop that has several branches across the region of Brussels-Capital 34 . The façade of this shop on the Grote Markt displayed English, Dutch, French and Spanish (‘Other’). Figure 15a shows the result of the ethnolinguistic vitality analysis for each of these language categories.

3,5 3 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 1 1 1 0,5 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 15a: National chain (GM)

34 However, this is rather ambiguous, because the “Belgian Art Home” shop is not really a chain across the nation, but only a local chain with branches in several areas within Brussels-Capital. Despite its restriction to the region of Brussels-Capital, it does occur in different ethnolinguistic areas, so I also considered it to be a national chain.

One can tell from this figure that the “Belgian Art Home” shop displayed non-equivalent multilingualism with English as the dominating language, resulting in an EV score of 3 for English, and with French, Dutch and Spanish as additional languages, resulting in the EV score of 1 for each of these linguistic categories.

4.2. Dansaertstraat

In the Dansaertstraat’s landscape 5 national chain commercial spaces were observed, making up 4,17% of the entire Dansaertstraat landscape. Figure 16a shows the absolute ethnolinguistic vitality scores for each language category.

8 7 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 16a: National chain (DS)

The highest EV score is for English (7), which makes it the most powerful language in the national chains’ landscapes in the Dansaertstraat area. Equally high as second most powerful are French and Dutch (both 5). Least powerful is ‘Other’ with a score of 1. Figure 16b contains the frequency table of the positions within the façades taken up by the different language categories. As can be deduced from this figure, French and Dutch were each displayed twice in equal multilingual façades and once as an additional language. English was the dominating language twice and the additional language once. ‘Other’, finally, was only used once as the additional language.

2,5

2 2 2 2

1,5 4: exclusive

1 1 1 1 3: dominant 1 2: equal 1: additional 0,5

00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 16b: National chain (DS) Figure 16c, finally, represents the relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores for each language category.

1,60 1,40 1,40 1,20 0,20 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 French 0,80 1,40 Dutch 0,60 1,00 English 0,40 Other 0,20 0,20 0,00 French Dutch English Other

Figure 16c: National chain (DS)

4.3. Elsensesteenweg

In the Elsensesteenweg area 21,31% of the total units were national chain commercial spaces (26 commercial spaces). Figure 17a represents the absolute EV scores of these national chain shops: French is undou btedly most powerful in this category in the Elsensesteenweg area with a score of 78. Comparatively much weaker was the score of Dutch (16), English (7) and ‘Other’ (1).

90 78 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 16 7 10 1 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 17a: National chain (EL) The EV score of French is, again, in line with the predominantly French-speaking implied readers of the Elsensesteenweg’s landscape. The next figure, figure 17b, shows how often each language category was encountered in what position within the façade. As can be derived from the figure, most variation regarding the positions is observed for French. Nine times French monolingualism was displayed within the national chain shops’ façade, 11 times French was the dominating language, 4 times French was used in equivalent multilingual display and only once French was used as an additional language. Dutch, on the other hand, was only displayed in equivalent multilingualism (four times along with French) and most frequently as the additional language used for remarks, slogans or partial translations. English was used once as the predominant language within the façade and four times as the additional language. ‘Other’ (Spanish) was only used once as additional language.

12 11 10 9 8 8 4: exclusive 6 3: dominant 4 4 4 4 2: equal 1: additional 2 1 1 1 00 00 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 17b: National chain (EL)

Finally, figure 17c represents the relative ethnolinguistic vitality scores for each language category as they can be used for the comparison across the three areas.

3,500 3,000 3,000 0,269 0,038 2,500 0,615 2,000 French Dutch 1,500 3,000 English 1,000 0,615 Other 0,500 0,269 0,038 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 17c: National chain (EL)

4.4. Comparative discussion

My expectations about the national chain commercial spaces in the three areas of interest are somewhat similar to those I propounded for the international chain stores’ linguistic configurations . I also expect the national chains to reflect the region’s of ficial bilingualism in French and Dutch and hypothesized a certain degree of consistency across the three region’s in this category. However, the significant importance of English I anticipated in the international chains’ façades is not something I expect to find in the national chain commercial spaces because they lack international relevance and width. In the Grote Markt area only one national chain shop occurred, which makes it hard to make generalisations and comparisons to the other areas. However, the linguistic analysis shows that the national chain shop in the Grote Markt displays the same tendencies as the national chain spaces in the Dansaertstraat. Both areas’ national chain shops have equally high scores for Dutch and French (and reflect equivalent bilingualism) and English as the most important and powerful language in EV score. This means that in this comparative discussion we can combine the national chain store of the Grote Markt area with the results of the category in the Dansaertstraat. These combined results only confirmed one part of my expectations, namely equivalent bilingualism in Dutch and French. What was surprising and unexpected in these two areas in this category, however, was the fact that English has the

70 highest EV scores. This suggests that the shop keeper considered the local EV dynamics of the implied readership when choosing what language to display in what way and not the official bilingual status of the region. The international passage of tourists and clientele was thus able to influence the façades of the national chain stores in the Dansaertstraat and Grote Markt area. Despite the fact that the Grote Markt and the Dansaertstraat areas showed similar tendencies in their linguistic display, the Elsensesteenweg area’s results were very different. In this area French is significantly more powerful in EV score than Dutch, English or ‘Other’. Again I can conclude that the local dynamics (i.e. the lingua franca French in Elsene) were able to contradict my expectations.

5. Category: privately owned commercial spaces results

The third and final category is that of the privately owned commercial spaces in the three areas. One would expect this category of private and individual owners to reflect different tendencies in linguistic preferences when contrasted with the linguistic configurations of the corporate international and national chain commercial spaces’ landscapes. Where the international and national chain stores were thought to reflect the official linguistic status (i.e. bilingualism in French and Dutch which was only partly confirmed), privately owned stores’ façades will be the result of the individual LL-actor’s choices and preferences. My expectations for this category thus centre around an elevated sensitivity of the private owner for the local EV dynamics of the area. In practise, this means that I anticipate high scores for French, as this is the region’s lingua franca and is spoken by 95% of the region’s inhabitants regardless of their native languages (Janssens 2008), and high EV scores for ‘Other’, more specifically the ‘Other’ immigrant languages. I would also expect the EV scores of English to be higher than those of Dutch in the Grote Markt and Elsensesteenweg area, because English is more relevant than Dutch in those areas from the local individual’s perspective on his façade’s implied readership. In the Dansaertstraat, however, Dutch and English are both expected to have high EV scores because both languages are relevant parts of the implied readers’ competence. After a presentation of the results, I will discuss if my expectations are contested and, if so, how.

5.1. Grote Markt

In the Grote Markt area 17 privately owned commercial spaces were encountered, which made up 53,13% of the entire number of façades in the area. Figure 18a represents the results of the ethnolinguistic vitality score analysis for each language category encountered in these façades. The French EV score was the highest (40), followed by English (20) and Dutch (17). Least high and thus least powerful was ‘Other’ with an EV score of 6.

45 40 40 35 30 25 20 20 17 15 10 6 5 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 18a: Private owners (GM)

The next figure shows how often each language occurred in what position within the façade in a frequency table (figure 18b). French monolingualism occurred twice, while English monolingualism only once. French is most frequently displayed as the dominant language or in equivalent multilingualism. Dutch, on the other hand, was only used in equal multilingualism (five times) and as additional language (seven times). English as well as the ‘Other’ category were most often used as additional language in this category.

8 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 4:exclusive 5 4 3:dominant 4 2: equal 3 2 2 2 2 2 1: additional 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 18b: Private owners (GM)

Figure 18c represents the relative vitality scores of the four language options within this private owner category in the Grote Markt area.

2,500 2,353

2,000 0,353

1,500 French 1,176 1,176 2,353 1,000 Dutch 1,000 1,000 English Other 0,500 0,353

0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 18c: Private owners (GM)

5.2. Dansaertstraat

In the Dansaertstraat area 62 privately owned commercial spaces were observed. Figure 19a shows the absolute EV scores for the languages displayed in these spaces’ façades. As this figure shows, French is most powerful with a score of 160 . Second most powe rful is English with 51, closely followed by Dutch with 48 . The ‘Other’ category is comparatively weaker with an EV score of 9.

180 160 160 140 120 100 80 60 48 51 40 20 9 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 19a: Private owners (DS)

The frequency table of figure 19b shows how often each language occurs in the different positions within the façades. French is most frequently displayed as French monolingualism, while French as the dominant language and French in equivalent

74 multilinguali sm occurs also fairly frequently. Dutch, on the other hand occurs most frequently in equivalent multilingualism (in combination with French). English and ‘Other’ are most frequently used as an additional language. Note, however, the display of English monolingualism (6 times).

25 21 20 19 17 15 15 15 4: exclusive 11 3: dominant 10 2: equal 6 6 1: additional 5 3 2 1 1 1 00 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 19b: Private owners (DS)

The next figure, figure 19c, shows the relative EV scores for each language category of the privately owned commercial spaces in the Dansaertstraat area.

3,000 2,581 2,500 0,145 2,000 0,823 French 1,500 Dutch 0,774 2,581 1,000 0,774 0,823 English Other 0,500 0,145 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 19c: Private owners (DS)

5.3. Elsensesteenweg

Forty-five private owners’ commercial spaces were found in the Elsensesteenweg area. The results of the quantitative analysis of the ethnolinguistic vitality scores of the languages displayed in this category in this area are shown in fig ure 20a.

160 140 140 120 100 80 60 40 21 20 9 1 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 20a: Private owners (EL)

As this figure shows, French is significantly more powerful and ‘vital’ in this region in the category of private owners. Dutch is second most powerful, but with a prominently lower EV score, followed by English and ‘Other’. The frequency table in figure 20b shows in which positions each language was used in what frequency. It shows that French monolingualism occurred 21 times, while no other language was displayed in monolingual signage. French was also 14 times the dominating language. If equivalent multilingualism occurred, the combination French and Dutch was most frequently used. Dutch and English (and ‘Other’), finally, were mainly displayed as additional languages.

25 21 20

15 14 4: exclusive 3: dominant 9 10 2: equal 7 7 6 1: additional 5 1 1 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 20b: Private owners (EL)

The final figure, figure 20c, shows the relative EV scores for the languages used in the façades of the private owners shops in the Elsensesteenweg area.

3,500 3,111 3,000 0,200 0,022 2,500 0,467 2,000 French Dutch 1,500 3,111 English 1,000 Other 0,467 0,500 0,200 0,022 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 20c: Private owners (EL)

5.4. Comparative discussion

When looking at the quantitative EV analysis’ results, my expectations concerning the local influence on the EV scores of the privately owned commercial spaces seem to be confirmed. Of all categories discussed, the implied readerships of the different area s is most reflected in the category of private owners. First of all, the EV scores of French confirm that French is indeed the prevalent language in all three areas. As the pie figures of the relative EV scores in all three areas show, the largest part o f each pie is taken up by French: from nearly half of the pie in the Grote Markt area, over more than half the pie in the Dansaertstraat, to three -quarters of the pie in the Elsensesteenweg area. This EV predominance clearly reflects the lingua franca sta tus of French in the region. Secondly, the EV scores of the ‘Other’ category were relatively higher in the Grote Markt and Dansaertstraat area than the ‘Other’ EV scores of the international chain and national chain categories in these two areas. This co nfirms my expectations for the ‘Other’ languages in this category . The use of foreign languages in the Grote Markt (Spanish, German and Japanese) were mostly displayed in the menu s of restaurants and thus directed towards the tourist implied readers and customers of the private owned shops and restaurant.

Conversely, the Dansaertstraat’s ‘Other’ languages in this category were migrant languages, such as Thai and Arabic, which were not directed to tourists, but used for authentication (Thai in a Thai restaurant) and for the local Arabic ethnolinguistic community (a “Librairie”, “Compagnie de navigation” and local shop called “Alimentation”). The influence of the local EVs in the private owners’ shops is thus unmistakeably reflected in their façades. The EV score of this ‘Other’ category in the Elsensesteenweg landscape, on the other hand, was not higher than the EV score for ‘Other’ of the national chains in this area (0,022 versus 0,038). However, in each category only one display of ‘Other’ was encountered: Spanish was displayed in the national chain store “Guapa” and Japanese was displayed in the privately owned restaurant “Yamayu Santatsu”. Because of this, the 0,038 score of the Elsensesteenweg’s national chains does not necessarily contradict my hypothesis that ‘Other’ languages are most strongly displayed in the privately owned category. Thirdly, the EV scores of Dutch and English in the Grote Markt areas do confirm my expectation that English would be stronger than Dutch because of its local relevance in this tourist area. The Elsensesteenweg’s EV scores of Dutch and English in this category, on the other hand, did not coincide with my expectations. Instead, Dutch had a higher score than English, which implies that English has even less relevance in the predominantly French- speaking environment of Elsene than Dutch. The relation between Dutch and English in the Dansaertstraat area, finally, was as expected: they were nearly equally high (0,774 and 0,823 respectively), which does point out the importance of English and Dutch in this area as experienced by the private owners of commercial spaces. This importance is also reflected in the frequency tables: in the Dansaertstraat English and Dutch were more frequently displayed in monolingualism and as the dominant language than in the other 2 areas. A possible explanation for the occurrence of Dutch monolingualism in the Dansaertstraat’s private owner shops is what Backhaus (2007) calls “the symbolic value”: ‘the symbolic value’ condition has a political or socio-psychological background. The underlying aim is a desire to assert power (‘By controlling the languages of the sign, I declare power over the space designated’) or to claim solidarity or identity (‘My statement of sociocultural membership is in the language I have chosen’). The ‘symbolic value’ conditions says: ‘Prefer to write signs in your own language or in a language with which you wish to be identified’. Rather than a content to be transferred by means of a sign, it is a choice of the language itself that becomes the message. (Backhaus 2007: 25)

Deliberately choosing to display Dutch monolingualism in the Dansaertstraat may thus be seen as a way “to claim solidarity or identity” (ibid.). A private shop owner in this area can choose to characterise himself as ‘consciously Flemish or Dutch-speaking’ within the

78 linguistic polemic situation of Brussels-Capital. This is highly possible, as the Dansaert- Fleming inhabiting the Dansaertwijk is known for its Dutch-speaking pride (cf. supra). A specific kind of commercial space that occurs in two of the areas, the Dansaertstraat and the Elsensesteenweg, is that of the hairdresser. In the Dansaertstraat landscape four privately owned hairdressers were observed, while in the Elsensesteenweg only one privately owned and two national chain hairdressers were encountered. Concerning the linguistic make- up of all these hairdressers’ (mostly privately owned) façades, the comment made by Backhaus (2007) about similar linguistic landscape studies of Brussels-Capital conducted by Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998) appears to be still relevant for the results of this current study. Backhaus (2007) mentions that in these studies “French signs announcing an ‘institut de beauté’ or a ‘coiffeur’ are a usual sight”, while “not a single ‘kapper’” (the Dutch term for hairdresser) was encountered (Backhaus 2007: 16). This is also the case in the results of the hairdressers in the Dansaertstraat and Elsensesteenweg. Virtually each of the hairdressers 35 encountered displayed French monolingualism. Hairdressers in 1978, 1998 and still today are thus an important “example of the inequality between French and Dutch” (ibid.).

35 The one exception that did not display French monolingualism and instead chose to display French as the dominant language with Dutch and English as additional languages (F(D/E)) was “Monsieur K” in the Dansaertstraat.

6. Subcategory: bookshops results

The first subcategory of this study is that of the book shops in the three areas. The relevance of this subcategory must be considered in relation to the expectations of a certain book shop’s implied readers and clientele. As Janssens (2001b) points out, the shelves of newspaper kiosks and window displays of bookstores illustrate and reflect the expectations of the book shop’s potential clientele (13). If such expectations are French magazines or novels, these will be found in the shelves and window displays. Conversely, one might assume that if a large Dutch ethnolinguistic community resides in a certain area, for example the Dansaert-Flemings in the Dansaertwijk, the book shops located in this area will also address this potential Dutch- speaking clientele by means of their shelves and window displays. Not only the signs and inscriptions of a book store’s façade reflect the EV scores of the area, but also the books and magazines displayed in a book shop’s window are probably indicative of the ethnolinguistic vitality of the ethnolinguistic communities frequenting the book shop’s area. The following analysis of the results will thus either confirm or contradict this expectation.

6.1. Grote Markt

There was no book shop encountered in the Grote Markt area, so this area will not be part of the comparative discussion of this subcategory.

6.2. Dansaertstraat

In the Dansaertstraat area only one book shop was located, the international house of literature called “Passa Porta”. Figure 21a shows the absolute vitality scores for each language.

2,5 2 2 2

1,5 1 1

0,5 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 21a: Book shops (DS)

As this figure shows, Passa Porta displayed equivalent multilingualism in French and Dutch with partial translations and minor comments in English.

6.3. Elsensesteenweg

In the Elsensesteenweg area more book shops (both newspaper kiosks and book shops) were encountered, six in total. Figure 22a represents the EV scores. It shows that French is the language with the highest EV score. Comparatively, Dutch and English are of minor importance.

25 22

5 1 1 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 22a: Book shops (EL)

The next figure shows the positions in which the languages occurred within the book shop’s façades and window displays. From this figure I can deduce that French is either used exclusively in monolingual French book shops or as the dominant language when little Dutch or English is displayed. Dutch was only used in the description of the opening hours of the book shop “Papeterie d’Ixelles”, while in the predominantly French-speaking novel and magazine display of “Librairie Press 2000” only two English-speaking magazines occurred, the British Vogue and the American Vanity Fair magazines.

4,5 4 4 3,5 3 4: exclusive 2,5 2 3: dominant 2 2: equal 1,5 1 1 1: additional 1 0,5 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 22b: Book shops (EL)

6.4. Comparative discussion

The linguistic make-up of the book shop “Passa Porta” located in the Dansaertstraat must be treated cautiously and without making generalisations because of its singularity in the area, especially in comparison to the results of the six book shops in the Elsensesteenweg. However, when looking at the languages displayed (French, Dutch and English) Passa Porta’s linguistic make-up does seem to be in agreement with the international orientation of the Dansaertstraat area and with the increased ethnolinguistic vitality score of Dutch in the general landscape of this area due to the presence of the Dansaert-Flemings (cf. supra). The international aspect of the shop can be found in the fact that it offers literature not only in French, but also in English, Dutch and German and in its subtitle which is “international house of literature”. The importance of Dutch, on the other hand, can be illustrated by looking at the code preference in the multilingual sign displayed on the façade of Passa Porta in which Dutch is obviously preferred in terms of placement over French and English. Because of this, I can indeed confirm that the local presence of a Dutch-speaking community and an international implied readership is reflected in the façades and literature offered by the book shop Passa Porta in the Dansaertstraat. Comparatively, when looking at the results of the book shops in the Elsensesteenweg, I can also confirm Janssens’ (2001b) observation that there is a correlation between the local ethnolinguistic communities and the literature and magazines offered by the local book stores. In these book shops, the lingua franca French is obviously the most predominantly displayed language both in the shop’s informational aspects (such as the name, opening hours, etc) and

82 in the magazines and literature made available for potential clientele. Where Dutch and English did occur in the book shop’s façade, it was only as a partial translations of the opening hours and in the relatively minor form of two English-speaking magazines, respectively.

7. Subcategory: immigrant-run commercial spaces results

The second subcategory that will be discussed in this study is that of the immigrant (non- native) commercial spaces. In this subcategory I expect a correlation between the immigrant nature of the shop and the language(s) it displays, more specifically the local prevalent lingua franca French and foreign migrant languages. We will see how the results respond to these expectations.

7.1. Grote Markt

The only immigrant-run commercial space in the Grote Markt area is the Greek restaurant called “El Greco”. The sole language displayed in this restaurant’s façade is French, which makes the French EV score of 4, while other categories have none (see figure 23a).

4,5 4 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 23a: Immigrant shops (GM)

7.2. Dansaertstraat

In the Dansaertstraat’s landscape 15 immigrant shops were observed. Figure 24a shows the results of the EV analysis of their storefronts’ linguistic configuration. It shows that French has the highest EV score, followed by Dutch (with 10) and ‘Other’ (with 9). English has the lowest score.

45 42 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 9 10 7 5 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 24a: Immigrant shops (DS)

When looking at how often the different languages were used in different ways within the façades, as is shown in the frequency table in figure 24b, we see the strong EV score of French reflected in the frequent display of French monolingualism and French as the dominating language, while Dutch, English and ‘Other’ are most frequently used as the additional language. Dutch however, is used three times in equivalent multilingual façades next to French.

7 6 6 6

5 4 4 4 4 4: exclusive 3 3 3: dominant 3 2 2: equal 2 1: additional 1 1 1 00 00 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 24b: Immigrant shops (DS)

Finally, figure 24c represents the relative EV scores for a comparison between the areas.

3,000 2,800

2,500 0,600 2,000 0,400 French 1,500 Dutch 2,800 English 1,000 0,667 0,600 Other 0,400 0,500 0,667

0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 24c: Immigrant shops (DS)

7.3. Elsensesteenweg

There were only 4 immigrant shops observed in the Elsensesteenweg. As figure 25a suggest, each of these showed a clear preference for French, as it has the strongest EV score of all language categories. The scores of the other languages are in comparison irrelevant – Dutch and ‘Other’ have only 1 as score and English 2. This is also reflected in the frequency table shown i n figure 25b in which the most powerful positions (monolingualism and dominating language) are given to French, while the other language categories are only used as additional languages within the façades.

14 13

4 2 2 1 1

0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 25a: Immigrant shops (EL)

3,5 3 3

2,5 2 2 4: exclusive 3: dominant 1,5 1 1 1 2: equal 1 1: additional

0,5 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 French Dutch English Other

Figure 25b: Immigrant shops (EL)

The final figure 25c shows the relative EV scores in both a graph and pie figure.

3,500 3,250 3,000 0,250 2,500 0,500 French 2,000 0,250 Dutch 1,500 3,250 English 1,000 0,500 Other 0,500 0,250 0,250 0,000 French Dutch English Other

Figure 25c: Immigrant shops (EL)

7.4. Comparative discussion

The results of the quantitative analysis in this subcategory do confirm my expectations of French predominance as can be deduced from the highest EV scores for French in comparison to the other language categories in each of the areas. Moreover, the scores for French in this immigrant-run subcategory are higher than the scores fo r French in the privately owned category as can be shown by a comparison of the relative EV scores of these two categories. 36

36 In the Dansaertstraat, the privately owned category’s relative EV score for French is 2,581, while the relative EV score for French in the Dansaertstraat’s immigrant -run subcategory is 2,800. In the Elsens esteenweg, these proportions are the same: 3,111 is the relative score for French in the privately owned category, while French has 3,250 in the immigrant shop subcategory . In the Grote Markt the privately owned ‘Other’ score is 2,353 while the immigrant-run ‘Other’ score is 4. (cf. r esults above).

The reason for this predominance of French in commercial spaces run by immigrant people is most likely the fact that newly arrived immigrants acquire the region’s lingua franca, French, instead of Dutch, in their integration process and thus, indirectly, contribute and increase its prevalence (Janssens 2001b, Louckx 1982, 1987). 37 The same tendency of French preference in foreign immigrant-run shops and restaurants was also observed in the LL studies on Brussels-Capital by Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998), who both observed that if a second language was displayed in such immigrant commercial spaces in addition to the foreign, immigrant language, then this “choice was always made in favour of French” (Backhaus 2007: 16). According to Backhaus this suggests that “Brussels’ foreign residents follow the same general patterns of language choice as the city as a whole” (ibid.). In their choice of French over Dutch or English, immigrant-run businesses thus contribute to “the un-Dutch street image in the centre of the city” (Wenzel in Backhaus 2007: 16). The same observation was made by Louckx (1982, 1987) who observed that the immigrant population of the capital city only increased and magnified the French prevalence. In reference to this clear French preference of immigrant shopkeepers, Backhaus (2007) also mentions a similar tendency in the study of Monnier (1989) that discusses the paysage linguistique of Montréal (Backhaus 2007: 18). Monnier (1989) states that the immigrant shop owners’ “proclivity for English” instead of French was surprising and “even higher than that of Anglophone shop owners” (ibid.). These immigrant shop owners thus also adopt the lingua franca of the region (here English) voluntarily. My expectations for the scores of the ‘Other’ languages in this subcategory were also confirmed. In both the Dansaertstraat and the Elsensesteenweg 38 , the relative EV scores of ‘Other’ were higher in the immigrant-run subcategory than in the privately owned category. In the Dansaertstraat, the privately owned category’s relative EV score for ‘Other’ was 0,145, while the relative score for the immigrant-run subcategory in this area was 0,600. Similar proportions were found in the Elsensesteenweg, where the relative EV score for ‘Other’ in the privately owned category was 0,022, while this score for ‘Other’ in the immigrant-run subcategory was 0,250. The ‘Other’ languages are thus most powerful and vital in the immigrant shops’ façades, as I expected. Nevertheless, the ‘Other’ foreign languages are most frequently displayed as additional language and only once as the dominant language.

37 Moreover, immigrants coming from the Maghreb countries in Northern Africa often have already French competence in their pre-immigration context and will thus accept French as the lingua franca in Brussels-Capital, without considering Dutch. (cf. supra) 38 The Grote Markt landscape is not considered in this tendency, because it only harbours one immigrant shop, which displayed French monolingualism.

A specific kind of immigrant-run shop is the call centre or call shop, which was encountered in the Dansaertstraat landscape (“Ali Baba” and “El Maarif”). This type of shop was discussed by Collins & Slembrouck (2007) in their discussion of shop windows in an immigrant neighbourhood of the city Ghent in Belgium. In such shops, “telephone calls can be placed to various foreign countries with assistance from staff”, and “[i]n Belgium, such shops are common in immigrant neighborhoods and cater especially people who do not have fixed phones” (Collins & Slembrouck 2007: 346-7). Such call centres’ implied readers and clientele include immigrants wanting to call to their native country and, because of this, foreign languages can be encountered in their shop windows. This was also the case in the Dansaertstraat, where one call centre “El Maarif” displayed Arabic.

8. Conclusion

In this chapter I have quantitatively analysed the linguistic configurations of the façades encountered in the three different areas in the different categories and subcategories by means of specific EV score system. Based on the results of this EV score analysis I have described different tendencies and trends that were expected or surprising in relation to my expectations and hypotheses of the linguistic configurations of these façades. In the general landscape of the three areas I have discussed the four main observations I made in the results of the EV score analysis. These included the French predominance in each of the three areas (which was as I expected), the conspicuity of the role played by English in the Dansaertstraat and the Grote Markt, the increased importance of Dutch in the Dansaertstraat area (as was expected) and in the Grote Markt area (which was unexpected), and the EV scores of the ‘Other’ category which were unexpectedly high in the Grote Markt area. For each of these trends and tendencies I have attempted to provide information and possible reasons that might explain their occurrences both expected and unexpected, while also making references to findings in other LL studies that were similar to my results. The expectations about the distribution of the three areas, as formulated in section 5 of the previous chapter, were also confirmed: the Dansaertstraat’s LL does address both its local inhabitants and its foreign visitors and is thus both ‘inward’ and ‘outgoing’; the Grote Markt’s LL does also address both the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking inhabitants, visitors and commuters and the foreign tourists and visitors, which makes it also both ‘inward’ and ‘outgoing’ in terms of distribution; the Elsensesteenweg, finally, only addresses its French- speaking inhabitants and clientele in the most apparent way, which makes its range ‘inward’ and more localized, as was also expected. The discussion of code preference in multilingual signs in terms of font, colour, size, placement and material qualities encountered in the three areas’ landscapes were mostly in line with the findings and observations made in the general landscapes’ façades and with my expectations based on the implied readerships of each area. The results in the category of the international chain commercial spaces confirmed my expectations only partly: not every area displayed French and Dutch equivalent bilingualism in the way I had expected and, instead, French was much more powerful in terms of EV score than Dutch. Moreover, the expected importance of English in this category was also not encountered in each of the three areas. This implies that the hypothetical occurrence of a consistent linguistic configuration for the international chain’s façade across the three areas

(and thus across the region of Brussels-Capital) was not confirmed in the material. International chains across the three areas did not opt for equivalent bilingualism nor did they display English as an important language. Because of this lack of consistency, I cannot address this category from a Brussels-Capital scale perspective, and must consider the local EV influences. My expectations for the category of national chain commercial spaces centred around a high degree of equivalent bilingualism in French and Dutch in each of the areas’ national chain branches. I thus also expected to find a certain degree of consistency in the national chain commercial spaces’ display of the official languages of the region. Because of their national relevance, I did not expect to find an important role for English. The results, however, indicated that the national chain shop owner valued the local EV dynamics over the normative bilingual state of the region: in the Dansaertstraat and Grote Markt area English was most powerful according to EV scores while Dutch and French were equally high though considerably less powerful; and, in the Elsensesteenweg French was significantly more powerful than both Dutch and English. Again the hypothesis of consistency on the Brussels- Capital scale was not confirmed. The results of the analysis in the category of privately owned shops confirmed my expectations of an elevated sensibility of the shop owner for the local power dynamics of the different ethnolinguistic communities inhabiting the area. French, the lingua franca in each of the areas, was prevalent in the three LLs, while the ‘Other’ EV scores were also higher in this category than in the international/national chain category. Moreover, English was more powerful than Dutch in the Grote Markt and Elsensesteenweg area, while in the Dansaertstraat area Dutch was equally powerful as English. Each of these findings were in accordance with the expectations I formulated in advance. The privately owned shops category is thus indeed the category in which the local EV dynamics are most reflected. I chose the subcategory of book shops because I anticipated a reflection of the local EV power dynamics not only in the signage displayed on the façade of such book stores, but also in the literature and books offered by the book store to its clientele. The results proved this expectation right: while the Elsensesteenweg’s book shops displayed predominantly French literature, the book store in the Dansaertstraat offered a multilingual array of literature (both Dutch and French, as well as English and German), which is in accordance with the EV score results found in the general landscapes of these two areas. In the subcategory of the immigrant-run commercial spaces in the three areas, I expected the façades to conform to the general lingua franca in the region, French. This

91 expectation was confirmed in the results, as French was significantly more powerful than the other languages in the façades. The reflection of the French language’s lingua franca status in the landscape of the region was more visible in the immigrant-run subcategory than in the private owners category. All immigrant-run shops adopted the most dominant language in Brussels-Capital, French, in addition to their in-group immigrant languages. The range and distribution of this type of commercial spaces is thus also very ‘inward’ and localized. The quantitative analysis of the ethnolinguistic vitality scores of French, Dutch, English and ‘Other’ provided evidence for the power relations amongst these four language categories within the three areas of research in Brussels-Capital. The most powerful language is French which continues to be displayed as the most important and prevalent language in all three areas. The importance of English, however, as reflected in the LLs is also increasing and might, at a certain time in the future, take over the predominance of French in certain aspects and places of the city. The vitality of Dutch in the region is still not strong enough to claim an equal position next to French in the ‘bottom-up’ part of the LL, which would be in line with official status of the region. However, as the EV scores of the LL of the Dansaertstraat indicate, if the amount of Dutch-speaking inhabitants increases, this has certain undeniable effects in favour of Dutch on the linguistic configurations of the LL. Such increase apparently has already occurred over time, as Tulp’s (1978) and Wenzel’s (1998) conclusions indicate a remarkably low percentage in Dutch-French bilingual signs, while such bilingual display in this study is encountered much more frequently. The category of ‘Other’ languages, both immigrant and tourist languages, occupies a rather marginal position in the LLs of the three areas, but their importance can only increase in the future as Brussels-Capital becomes an increasingly multilingual space (cf. supra).

Chapter 3: Qualitative discussion of the material

In addition to the quantitative analysis of the material found in the three areas, this chapter will approach the material from a more qualitative perspective. First of all, this chapter will explain why the quantitative approach on its own is not sufficient to discuss the material thoroughly and why a qualitative perspective in this respect is necessary and insightful. Secondly, this chapter will discuss several observations I made in the photographic material that were not addressed in the quantitative analysis and are in fact interesting from a qualitative point of view, while also including references to other studies that observed similar tendencies in their material.

1. Combining quantitative and qualitative

From a critical point of view, the quantitative analysis of the photographic material of the three areas consisted of a mere surface reading (i.e. counting and quantifying) of linguistic configurations according to a specifically designed EV score system. Despite the fact that such quantitative analysis has its merits by pointing out quantitative tendencies and trends in linguistic display which did confirm or contradict our expectations for various reasons, the linguistic landscapes’ reality in each of the areas has shown itself at certain points and in certain signs far too complex for such a surface vitality analysis. In this light, a supplementary qualitative analysis of the photographic material might come in useful, as this kind of analysis is more textual and micro analytic and focuses on pragmatic and empirical aspects of the material. Because of this, I have chosen to combine the quantitative with the qualitative analysis in this study in order to obtain a wholesome in-depth discussion of the material. This qualitative chapter will thus deal with the illustration and problematization of the quantitative results. An example to illustrate the complexity of the landscape’s reality that the quantitative analysis was not able to capture entirely centres around the methodological decision I made in this study about the unit of analysis. As already fully discussed in the methodological introduction, this unit of analysis is the commercial space’s façade and not the individual sign within the façade. 39 I determined the unit of analysis by means of its LL-actor: an

39 This methodological decision was inspired by Cenoz and Gorter’s (2006) methodology in their study of the LL of Basque country and Friesland (cf. supra).

93 international corporate chain, a national corporate chain, or a private individual who owns a shop, etc. However, this determination did not apply to certain façades in which more than one LL-actor was responsible for different signs (and thus linguistic make-up and display) within one façade. This particularly occurred in the Grote Markt area, where the façade of the restaurant “La Rose Blanche”, for example, consisted of the restaurant’s signage (the menu, name, opening hours, etc) and an official memorial plaque of the Strijdersbond 40 issued by the authorities. In this façade the signage was thus a result of two different LL-actors: the government (which makes the memorial plaque public) and the private owner of “La Rose Blanche” (which made its signage private). Hence my decision in the quantitative analysis to split such complex façade into two units of analysis, according to the different LL-actors. However, from a qualitative point of view these two LL-actors are not the only source of complexity in such façades, as these different LL-actors’ signs are also differently constructed and positioned on a time scale. In the case of “La Rose Blanche” the memorial plaque is much older, of more durable quality and less subjected to change, whereas the restaurant’s signage is modern and more inclined to change and renewal. This rather complex issue of time scales will be taken up further in the qualitative observation section. A second issue that serves as an illustration of the complexity of landscapes and the necessity of a qualitative approach to the material is the inherently problematic classification of certain signs. Certain storefronts display different informational content in different linguistic configurations which makes an EV score analysis according to my classification system somewhat troublesome. The opening hours of the Dansaertstraat restaurant “Pataya”, for example, as reproduced in figure 26, include a sign that says ‘open’ (which can be understood by Dutch-speaking and English-speaking clientele) and the days on which the restaurant is open in French (‘lundi ~ vendredi’). Determining what EV code this façade has is rather complicated in this respect. I chose the code F/D (O) for this restaurant, because the other signs on the façade were in French/Dutch equal bilingualism with small translations of the dishes in Thai on the menu card. Another example of such difficult classification due to linguistic obscurity is the prices display of the shop “Marianne Timperman” (see figure 27). In the window display a necklace, bracelet, earrings and a ring were shown to which the prices display sign refers. However, instead of referring to the jewellery in one and the same language, or in both French and Dutch, “Marianne Timperman” chose to refer to the necklace

40 The official plaque reads “En février 1919 en cet immeuble fut fondée la fédération nationale des combattants de la guerre 1914-1918 / In februari 1919 werd in dit huis gesticht de nationale strijdersbond van de oorlog 1914- 1919”.

94 in French (‘collier’), to the bracelet in Dutch (‘armband’), to the earrings in French (‘boucles’) and to the ring in Dutch (‘ring’). This linguistic display is very peculiar and could maybe be seen as an odd way of compromise by displaying disparate information in different languages. Moreover, in order to fully comprehend the sign, proficiency in both Dutch and French is required, which indicates that the “Marianne Timperman” shop owner considers Dutch to be equally important as French and expects its audience to be bilingual in both languages. Because of this I chose to label the jewellery store with the code F/D.

Figure 26: Pataya (DS)

Figure 27: Marianne Timperman (DS) A final example to illustrate this issue is the sign of the restaurant “Le Cerf” in the Grote Markt area (see figure 28). The name of the restaurant is French, whereas the languages in which the sign on the door is constructed are French and English. In this sign, the

95 informational content of the opening hours is presented in French and English: ‘OUVERT à 11h’ and ‘OPEN at 11am’. The opening days information, however, is only expressed in English: ‘Open every day at 11 AM. Saturday – Sunday closed’. This inconsistency thus poses the problem of how to quantitatively classify this façade: is it equally bilingual in French and English, or is French the dominant language (over English) or is English the dominant language (over French)? I chose English dominance over French because more informational content is expressed in English. A qualitative approach to this sign, however, will address the French name of the restaurant as a possible means of language fetishization or the result of the region’s lingua franca and will possibly focus on the fact that the opening days part of the sign is actually a secondary sign added to the primary sign.

Figure 28: Le Cerf (GM) These issues and problems regarding the quantitative analysis that might be addressed by a more qualitative approach illustrate how a qualitative analysis of the material is very much needed. The following section will deal with some of the qualitative observations I made of the photographic material present.

2. Qualitative observations

2.1. Official notices

The first qualitative observation I am going to discuss that was not touched upon by the quantitative analysis, were idiosyncratic and peculiar aspects and manifestations of certain public signs and official inscriptions. As already said and as is required by official linguistic legislation in Brussels-Capital, all official documents and signage must be equally bilingual in French and Dutch. In practice this is sometimes achieved quite ingeniously. The street name signs of the Dansaertstraat and the Elsensesteenweg, for example, are designed in such a way that French and Dutch are represented as total equals (see figure 29) 41 . This way, they represent the ideal configuration of Dutch and French, in line with the official policy of Brussels-Capital.

Figure 29: Street name signs (DS & EL)

However, sometimes a certain degree of inequality was observed in such officially bilingual documentation and signage. In the Dansaertstraat, for example, official documentation issued by the government concerning an ‘allotment licence’ was displayed in the façade of the old hotel “La Bourse” that was going to be renovated. This official document is shown in figure 30. This sign consists of two separate frames: the first is that of the official pre-printed text while the second is the handwritten text that is later filled in by the government official permitting the license. While the former is official and therefore in French and Dutch, the latter is in French and is filled in on the left French-speaking side of the public notice. This suggests that while the official legislation demands the notice to be in French and Dutch, in

41 However, in these street name signs, French is preferred in terms of placement as it is located at the top and at the left side of the sign (cf. supra). Yet, the display of languages as equals in terms of placement is very difficult to achieve when it concerns a single sign which contains all the information in both languages (cf. supra).

97 practice only the French side is of importance in the everyday usage of the notice in the Dansaertstraat. This might also be seen as a reflection of the local strength and ethnolinguistic vitality of French in the area. Another explanation might be that the government official simply did not speak Dutch and, therefore, neglected to fill in the Dutch-speaking side of the notice.

Figure 30: Allotment License hotel (DS)

However, not all official documentation and notices carry this ‘doubleness’. The official notice sign observed in the Elsensesteenweg landscape, for example, is printed in both Dutch (‘BERICHT’) and French (‘AVIS’) and both the French and the Dutch side of the notice are filled in by the civil servant (see figure 31).

Figure 31: Official Notice (EL)

2.2. Creativity as compromise

As already touched upon in the previous chapters, shop owners in the three areas are often consciously choosing which languages they display while considering the polemic situation and competition between French and Dutch in the capital city. In this respect, some shop owners apply great creativity in coming up with a compromise in order to display equality and avoid the choice between French and Dutch in their storefronts. The following figures (32-33) show some examples of this creative force in the opening hours signage of shops. The first

99 figure shows the opening hours sign of the national chain shop “Di” in the Elsensesteenweg area. Without making any reference to linguistic preferences for Dutch, French or English (or any other language), it merely displays two clocks indicating the opening and closing time of the shop. This way the sign is readable and understandable for virtually any ethnolinguistic group member that passes by.

Figure 32: Di (EL)

Figure 33: Théo Hoet (DS)

A second example is the opening hours sign of the optician shop “Théo Hoet” in the Dansaertstraat landscape (see figure 33). In this sign both Dutch and French are displayed in

100 such a creative and inventive way that they appear as each other’s complete equivalents. This is a perfect example of how a compromise can be achieved in the linguistic issues between French and Dutch by using one’s creativity in order to display them on equal footing. Although the apparent design of the sign radiates equality, a closer look at the exact opening hours inscription suggest a minor preference for French, as it says ‘10h30’, in which the ‘h’ can refer to the French ‘heure’. However, this ‘h’ can also refer to the English ‘hours’, which would again suggest compromise between French and Dutch. Another creative solution of the Dutch-French problem is the usage of English for its neutral character. In this light, English is both a means of communication with foreign visitors and a neutral non-nationalist language within French-Dutch linguistic trouble. As already discussed in the quantitative analysis chapter, this neutrality of English can be responsible for the elevated EV scores of English in the Dansaertstraat’s general landscape (cf. supra). Examples of this use of English can be found in the opening hours displays of “Filippa K”, “Annemie Verbeke”, “Hatschoe” and “Natan” in the Dansaertstraat area, not surprisingly internationally renowned brands and stores that attract an international clientele. Illustrations of this display are shown in figures 34 until 36. Note that Ben-Rafael et al (2006) observed the same neutral usage of English amidst Jewish and Arabic animosity in the landscape of Israel (cf. supra).

Figure 34: Filippa K (DS)

101

Figure 35: Annemie Verbeke (DS)

Figure 36: Hatshoe (DS)

2.3. Time scales

When investigating all kinds of signage in linguistic landscapes, differences, trends and similarities between types of signs are easily made. A possible distinction between signs one can make is the difference in the projection of signs onto a time scale. Certain signs must be considered in relation to the present time, while other older signs are more orientated toward the past. A poster communicating the performance of a play in a theatre at specific dates in the nearby future, for example, is only of temporary relevance and is very much connected to the present time, while a memorial statue or a plaque commemorating the fact that 200 years ago a famous author resided in the house the plaque is attached to, is much more immune to

102 change and time passing by. Its orientation is towards the past, but its relevance will last far into the future. Examples encountered in this study’s landscapes include the memorial signage in the Dansaertstraat and Grote Markt area, which all commemorated events or people from the past and were all fabricated in a past time frame. A discussion of peculiarities in the linguistic configuration in these memorial signs will be taken up later in this qualitative chapter (see section 2.8.). An example of signs with present-day orientation is the ‘for rent’ sign displayed in the Dansaertstraat landscape and presented here in figure 37. This type of sign is only displayed under a certain period of time, i.e. the time it takes for the apartment to sell, which makes it only temporarily relevant and present-time orientated.

Figure 37: For rent sign (DS)

Sometimes old and new signage occurs alongside one another within the boundaries of one single storefront. This does not necessarily imply that these two kinds of signage are the result of different LL-actors. The façade of the hotel “Pacific” in the Dansaertstraat, for example, partly represented here in figure 38, contains a much older sign in addition to the modern present-day signs of the name and the menu, namely a stained-glass window, which reads

103

“ENTRÉE DE L’HÔTEL”. When asked about it, the hotel owner explained that the older stained-glass sign was originally part of a hotel that was there before the “Pacific” hotel. When renovating, the owners decided to use the older hotel’s sign as an entrance sign in their new hotel. While the glass sign is thus part of the past, belonging to the previous hotel, it was given a new meaning in the present-day hotel, as a sort of souvenir or aesthetic treasure. Both signs are thus the result of the decisions made by one LL-actor, the “Pacific” hotel owner.

Figure 38: Pacific (DS)

Different orientations of signs onto a time scale often go hand in hand with differences in material qualities. The material quality of a sign thus provides information about the sign’s intended temporal relevance, durability or importance and which position it takes on a time scale. As Backhaus (2007) explains while referring to the place semiotics theory developed by Scollon & Scollon (2003), “[m]aterial conveys meaning with regard to properties such as

104 permanence or durability, temporality or newness, and the quality of a sign” (38). The material quality of a paper or plastic sign thus suggests that this sign is less durable and permanent than a sign constructed in bronze, marble or in any other durable material. Scollon & Scollon (2003) explain that such “[a] high quality manufactured sign made of durable materials and permanently fixed to a building is taken to indicate that the texts thus produced are to last the length of the building itself” (135). The memorial signage encountered in this study is thus implied to last as far into the future as the building it is attached to does. Moreover, Scollon & Scollon (2003) argue, “[t]exts which are inscribed in [such] fixed and invariable ways signal greater authority than the highly original graffiti spray-painted on city walls” (ibid.). In this light, the memorial signs encountered in the areas’ landscapes dispose of more authoritative power than graffiti, handwritten signs, or signage made of less durable quality such as plastic and paper. From a financial perspective, it is also true that the higher the authority and prominence of a sign, the more likely it is that this sign will be constructed in a durable material. An example of such handwritten signage is shown in figure 39. This sign only has a temporary value and relevance, as it will only be displayed until a person is hired for the position.

Figure 39: Ken (EL)

Apart from there being a connection between a sign’s orientation on a time scale and the material this sign is made from, there also appears to be a correlation between the age of a sign and the linguistic configurations it displays. In the example of the hotel “Pacific” in the Dansaertstraat, for example, the old hôtel sign is written in French monolingualism, while the rest of the façade is more diversified – French as dominant language with partial Dutch and

105

English translations. This suggests that the older sign belongs to a period in the capital city when the display of Dutch (or English) alongside French was less commonplace. The absence of Dutch (and English) in this older sign (contrasted with the rest of the façade) can thus be seen as an indication that it is a remnant from a previous period in the city’s recent past. The same applies to the much-documented rise of English in LLs around the globe (cf. supra) which is, in fact, a phenomenon of the past decade. Signage dating from before the recent past will not display English in such a prominent position alongside national or local languages. This can be illustrated by a diachronic approach of the role of English in the LL of Brussels- Capital by looking at the studies by Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998) who both studied billboards in the LL of the region in 1976 and 1992, respectively. Wenzel’s (1998) study observes rather high percentages of English (7,1%) and textless advertisements (9,7%), whereas Tulp’s (1978) study mentioned a rather low percentage of advertisements without text and no presence of English billboards at all. According to Wenzel (1998), this increase over time suggests a new approach to deal with the language issues in the region (Wenzel 1998: 48). By using English advertisements and billboards without text, the advertising agencies avoided the politically explosive choice between Dutch and French and reached a more compromising solution to the issue. However, as Backhaus (2007) rightly observes, because Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998) have methodological differences concerning the geographic area of research, “a direct comparison of the two surveys is problematic” (Backhaus 2007:15). In this light, all observations about “the diachronic development of Brussels’ linguistic landscape” have to “remain of a tentative nature” (ibid.). Despite this problematic nature of a comparison, it is striking that Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998) did not document any significant role for English, while this is very much so in the present outlook of LLs around the world. Similar time scale observations have been made by Spolsky & Cooper (1991), Collins & Slembrouck (2009) and Wielfaert (2009), amongst others. Spolsky & Cooper (1991) discuss three different types of signage they encountered in East Jerusalem that each form “an index of a different stage in Jerusalem’s recent past”, i.e. the period of British Mandate, the period of Jordanian rule and the period afterward (in Backhaus 2005: 106). Each of these types of signage displayed different linguistic configurations of English, Arabic and Hebrew. By means of the signs’ coexistence they were able to address the landscape from a more diachronic point of view. In their fieldwork in the Brugmann hospital in Brussels, Collins & Slembrouck (2009) observed both permanent official signage, which displayed equivalent bilingualism in

106

French and Dutch, and temporary signage “which originates from within the wards and is often printed from a PC [...]”, and in which “French is asserted more explicitly and visibly as the actual working language of the institution” (30). While the more permanent signs displayed the normative bilingualism of the region, the signage of less permanent value displayed French monolingualism. Wielfaert (2009) discusses the signage encountered on the campus of the University of the Western Cape and connects the different configurations of Afrikaans, English and isiXhosa to post- or pre-Apartheid time frames. These three studies observed similar cases in accordance with the correlation I discussed between temporal orientation and linguistic configurations. A final connection to be made in this section is the one between the time scale of signage, as already discussed, and the spatial orientation of the signage (and thus the commercial space). The advertisement signage of an international chain branch, for example, is much more variable and subjected to change and has, as a consequence, much higher temporality and newness than the storefront of the local bakery or butcher whose window displays will probably only be renewed and changed every so many years. In this light, the contrast between the time scale of international or national chain stores and the time scale of more localized privately owned shops also implies a difference in spatial and distributional terms. In the terms used by Scollon & Scollon (2003), the local nature of privately owned commercial spaces conveys durability and permanence , while the international and national level of chain shops conveys temporality and newness .

2.4. Axis centre – periphery

As can be concluded from the map in figure 40, the Antoine Dansaertstraat is in fact an axis that runs from the centre of the inner city (the Stock Exchange building, called ‘La Bourse’ in French and ‘De Beurs’ in Dutch) to the periphery of this city where it stops at the R20, or the Kleine Ring van Brussel 42 . At the other side of the R20 traffic road and the Canal Brussels- Charleroi the municipality of Sint-Jan-Molenbeek is located.

42 The Kleine Ring van Brussel , or in French the Petite Ceinture is a ring road that encompasses the central pentagon municipality of Brussels-Capital which forms its historical centre.

107

Figure 40: Antoine Dansaertstraat (from Google maps)

When moving further along the axis of the Dansaertstraat from the centre towards the periphery I observed a change in both the nature of the commercial spaces and the linguistic configurations of the landscape. The more one moves away from the Stock Market building, the less high quality and elegant shops 43 are observed and the more immigrant, foreign and downmarket commercial spaces 44 occur. Moreover, this change in quality does also appear to imply a change in linguistic displays, so that I can conclude that there is, in fact, a correlation between the location within the Dansaertstraat area and the nature and linguistic display of a store. This social stratification of a city’s centre and peripheral outskirts is one that occurs in most metropolitan cities. Evidence supporting this conclusion is taken up in the Excel document accompanying this study (see appendix) that contains an EV score analysis of the first part of the Dansaertstraat (running from the Stock Market building to the Nieuwe Graanmarkt) and the second part of the Dansaertstraat (running from the Nieuwe Graanmarkt to the R20). The distinction between the first and second part of the Dansaertstraat was based on the fact that the Nieuwe Graanmarkt (a market place) physically divides the street in two parts and that a clear difference between the part before and after the market place can be

43 Such as the fashionable international chain shops “Kartell”, “Princess Tamtam”, “Comptoir des Cotonniers”, “Marithé + François Rimbaud”, “Sarah Paccini”, “Sandro”, “Ikks”, “Replay”, “Cotélac”, “Rue Blanche”, “Diesel”, “Filippa K”, “Olivier Strelli”, “Annemie Verbeke” and “Natan”. 44 Such as the Arabic travel agency “Compagnie de navigation”, the traditional clothing shop “Aishine”, two call centres (“Librairie El Maarif” and “Ali Baba”), snack restaurants, a drycleaners “Lavonet”, a downmarket shop “Alimentation” etc.

108 distinguished 45 . The linguistic analysis of the first and second part of the Dansaertstraat included all stores and shops in both parts, but excluded all official and non -commercial signage (such as the street name sign, the official notices, the Erasmushogeschool’s signage, memorial signs etc) because these are not subjected to local area’s centre -periphery dynamics. The first figure 41 shows the relative EV scores for each language category in the first part of the Dansaertstraat, while the second figure 42 shows the relative EV scores for the second part.

0,10

1,40 1,98 French Dutch English 0,92 Other'

Figure 41: Relative EV score 1st part DS

0,18

0,71 French 0,53 Dutch 2,68 English Other'

Figure 42: Relative EV score 2nd part DS

Not taking into account the predominance of French in both parts of the Dansaertstraat which is logical due to its lingua franca status throughout the entire region, the linguistic proportions in these two figures show that English and Dutch are more power ful in the first part of the street, while in the second part most of their proportions are absorbed by French. The usage of

45 It was also inspired by the comments made by the interviewee D.S. , a local Dansaert -Fleming who claimed that the Dansaertstraat in reality seemed to consist of two streets d ivided by the Nieuwe Graanmarkt.

109

‘Other’ languages is also slightly higher in the second part of the street. These numbers and scores confirm my claim that the Dansaertstraat is socially stratified: the first part of the street is more internationally orientated and more fashionable, which results in high scores for English and Dutch; while the second part is more downmarket and orientated towards a more normal, everyday and foreign clientele, which is reflected in the slightly increased display of ‘Other’ and the larger proportion of the pie taken up by French, the language predominantly displayed by privately owned and immigrant-run commercial spaces (cf. supra). The call centres or call shops in the second peripheral part of the street, for example, are typically immigrant-run establishments and display a various range of languages (cf. supra). They are typically also orientated towards a less fortunate clientele that does not own a phone and makes use of the call centre for its cheap connection lines (cf. supra). The fact that the immigrant municipality of Sint-Jan-Molenbeek is located across the R20 and the Canal is probably also of influence to the immigrant and downmarket outlook of the second part of the Dansaertstraat. Another interesting aspect is the fact that there does appear to be a gradual shift or revaluating force working from the centre of the city onto the peripheral zones. Despite its apparent less fashionable outlook, the second part of the Dansaertstraat does host certain ‘upmarket’ establishments, such as the Mac store (“Macline”), several art galleries (“Alice Gallery” displaying English monolingualism, “Jan Mot” and “We’re of Artbox”) and the upscale jewellery store “Christa Reniers”, which moved in 2010 from the first part of the Dansaertstraat (house number 29-31) to the second part (house number 196). As was expressed by the interviewee D.S. the fashionable upmarket nature of the first part of the Dansaertstraat appears to be spreading to the second part of the street. He predicted that in five to ten years the second part will also be filled with fashionable boutiques, galleries, restaurants and bars, replacing the mix of its present make-up. Such expansion of the inner city is not a strange phenomenon in the developments of urban centres and will most certainly also occur in the Dansaertstraat. Upon seeing these current differences between the two parts of the Dansaertstraat, the question can be raised whether a similar stratification is present in the Elsensesteenweg. In answering that question, one must address the fact that the Elsensesteenweg is already a peripheral municipality within the region. It starts at the Naamsepoort, which is located in the R20 ring road around Brussels and runs to an end in the centre of Elsene. This implies that the landscape of the Elsensesteenweg is already inherently peripheral. Moreover, no correlation

110 between the location of a commercial space and the linguistic display of this space has been found in the landscape of the Elsensesteenweg.

2.5. Non-equivalent multilingualism

Non-equivalent multilingualism refers to multilingual signage in which information is not equally displayed in each of the languages the sign contains. In my quantitative EV score system, storefronts displaying non-equivalent multilingualism included a dominant language, in which most informational content was written and which received the value 3, and dominated language(s) which only provided partial translations and, therefore, received a value of 1. My system, however, did not include the range of possible variations of non- equivalent multilingualism. This was addressed by Cenoz & Gorter (2006) when they talked about the issue of “translation of texts in bi/multilingual signs” (77). They quantified their findings according to four categories, ‘word to word’, ‘no translation’, ‘partial translation’, ‘ambiguous’ 46 (ibid.). Another approach to this issue was offered by Collins & Slembrouck (2009). They talk about “a continuum that could be observed in the distribution of publicly displayed signage”, in which [a]t one end, there is signage with ‘fully-fixed equivalents’ in both languages (characterized by identity of message and layout, with signage professionally produced in solid materials). Situated in the middle of the continuum are partial Dutch translations of French antecedent messages (sometimes not identical in layout, material, etc.). At the other end of the cline, there is the signage which is monolingually French. (Collins & Slembrouck 2009: 30).

Their distinction thus implies a lot of variation and options in between the three defined positions on the continuum. Another approach to this issue was made by Reh (2004), who offers “a taxonomy of types of multilingual information arrangements” (Huebner 2009: 78). This taxonomy includes four alternative displays: (i) “duplicating” which implies fully equivalent translations, (ii) “fragmentary” in which the information is fully displayed in one language and parts of it are translated in other language(s), (iii) “overlapping”, in which the same informational content is presented by all the languages of the sign, but also includes additional information that is only presented in one of the languages, and (iv) “complementary” multilingual arrangement in which different languages present different (but complementary) informational content, so that proficiency in more than one language is

46 A text being classified as ‘ambiguous’ implies that “the text is in one language but it is not clear which language it is because of the similarities between Dutch, Frisian and English” (Cenoz & Gorter 2006: 77).

111 required to fully understand the sign 47 (Reh (2004), Backhaus (2007), Huebner (2009)). Huebner (2009) mentions that both Backhaus (2006) and Lock (2003) make use of this classification system devised by Reh (2004). In determining if a certain multilingual storefront displays duplicating, fragmentary, overlapping or complementary multilingualism, one must look at if and how one specific language is used for the larger part of the sign’s informational content. Most signage I encountered in the three areas’ landscape were examples of duplicating and fragmentary multilingualism. For example, the opening hours sign of “Pearle” displays fragmentary multilingualism (figure 43).

Figure 43: Pearle (EL) Another distinction made by Reh (2004) concerning the occurrence of multilingual signage, is that of visible multilingualism and covert multilingualism . Visible multilingualism implies that the information or message presented in more than one language is placed on one and the same “carrier”, while covert multilingualism implies that each translation of the message in a specific language is placed on a separate carrier, so that “its multilingual nature is not visible to the reader” (in Backhaus 2007: 34). The vast majority of the signage encountered in this study was constructed as visible multilingualism and only a small number of covert multilingualism instances were observed, one of which the ‘sandwich board’ type pavement sign of the “Fitness Passage” gym in the Dansaertstraat (both sides are shown in figure 44).

47 An example of such complementary signage is the prices display sign of the shop “Marianne Timperman”, which is discussed in the sections above and represented in figure 27 (cf. supra).

112

Figure 44: Fitness Passage (DS)

Apart from translations in multilingual signage being equivalent (duplicating) or non-equivalent (fragmentary, overlapping and complimentary), translation errors can also occur. What makes translation errors interesting from an analytic point of view, is the fact that they reveal information about the proficiency of the shop owner and about the original language of the sign which was then translated to make the sign multilingual. An example of such translation error was encountered in the Elsensesteenweg landscape in the opening hours sign of the shop “Mango”. Figure 45 details this sign.

Figure 45: Mango (EL)

113

The error is located in the lower Dutch part of the sign, in both the word “opening” and the spelling of the word “mandag” (‘Monday’ in English). While the latter error can be attributed to a spelling mistake and not really to a lack of proficiency in Dutch, as the correct spelling would be “maandag”; the former error is, in fact, a real error which is indeed a consequence of the lack of proficiency in Dutch by the shop owner or the maker of the sign. Instead of “opening”, the correct term in Dutch is “openingsuren” (which basically translates as ‘opening hours’) or maybe just “open” (‘open’ in English). The fact that this error occurred implies that the original language in which the sign was written and then translated is French. “Opening” is, indeed, a quite literal translation of the French “ouverture”. This observation is entirely in line with the results I found in Elsensesteenweg, where the EV scores for Dutch were the lowest and those of French the highest.

2.6. Large and smaller signs within the same façade

While storefronts displaying French as the dominant language covering most informational content and providing Dutch translations for only parts of this information are commonplace in each of the areas (cf. supra), a peculiar configuration of such non-equivalent bilingualism was observed that deserves closer and more detailed attention, namely the frontal façade of the store “Cash Converters” in the Elsensesteenweg landscape. Figure 46 details the outlook of this façade.

Figure 46: Cash converters (EL)

114

This storefront’s linguistic configuration seems to be in accordance with the observations made by Lock (2003) in his study about the signage in Hong Kong’s Municipal Railway system. In this study, Lock (2003) talks about two kinds of advertisements he encountered: those located on the railway platform and those located inside the railway cars, and argues that because they each have different orientations towards their implied readers, they take different forms (in Huebner 2009: 73). The platform advertisement signs address an audience that moves past them at high speed and from a distance, and because of this they are “large, standard-size light boxes on the walls of the [subway] tunnel opposite the platforms”, designed “for maximum immediate impact” (Lock in Huebner 2009: 73). The advertisements in the railway cars, on the other hand, are “in standard size panels with thin black borders on the inside walls of the carriage above the seats or the doors” and have often “much more linguistic text than the platform ads” (ibid.). In multilingual settings, one could expect these differences in orientation to go hand in hand with differences in linguistic configurations. The storefront of “Cash Converters” displays a similar dichotomy in signage: the large banner at the top of the façade is intended to capture the attention of an audience passing by at relatively high speed and at some distance, while the other signage on the façade, such as the opening hours, window displays and entrance signs are directed towards clientele that moves much closer to the storefront. Not surprisingly, these different orientations towards different kinds of passersby are linked to specific kinds of linguistic display. While the large eye-catching banner is expressed in French monolingualism, the smaller signage on the façade is written in equivalent French – Dutch bilingualism. Because of this the EV code of this store was “F (D)”. One might assume that the top banner addresses a much larger readership including all people passing by, whereas the smaller signs only address people who pass by at a close distance, which would imply that the French monolingualism of the banner expresses the relative power and lingua franca of French in this area. Again, this is in line with my expectations about the implied readership and local EV of French in the Elsensesteenweg area. A similar difference in linguistic configurations between large top banners and smaller signage on the windows of a commercial space was found in the Dansaertstraat in the travel agency “Alliance”. Figure 47 details this frontal façade. In this case, the upper banner is written in Arabic, while the window display contains different signage (the name of the agency, Thomas Cook advertisements and two French-Arabic notices) which displays French, Dutch and Arabic. Again, the banner directed to a larger and wider audience expresses

115 monolingualism, in this case in Arabic. This might be interpreted as a means to express the travel agency’s immigrant nature and affiliation with Arabic countries as travel destinations (cf. the notices that say “Compagnie Tunisienne de navigation” and “Compagnie Marocaine de navigation”). In both cases the shop displayed monolingualism (in either French or Arabic) on the banner sign while also choosing to include other languages (either Dutch or French and Dutch) in the smaller façade signage. Despite this consideration for other implied readerships, the upper banner still testifies how much more important French is compared to Dutch, on the one hand, and how relatively powerful Arabic is according to the immigrant agency’s owner in the vicinity of his shop.

Figure 47: Alliance (DS)

116

2.7. Job vacancy signage

Another aspect of the linguistic landscape that is overlooked in a quantitative approach to the material is the ‘job vacancy sign’, a specific type of signage that is displayed in certain stores’ fronts and communicates job opportunities and vacancies. Where the quantitative analysis merely looked at this type of sign as part of the façade and quantified the languages in which it was written, the qualitative approach focuses on the fact that this type of sign can inherently not only provide information about the languages that can be used as a means of communication within the store or about the store’s employees’ proficiency in certain languages, but also indicate how important and relevant the store owner considers certain languages within his area. Most of the job vacancy signage in the windows of shops in the Elsensesteenweg area, for example, are written in French and have no clearly defined desires regarding the future employee’s language skills. Figures 48 to 50 provide some examples of such signs in the Elsensesteenweg.

Figure 48: Venizi (EL)

117

Figure 49: Vero Moda/Jack & Jones (EL)

Figure 50: Ken (EL)

118

However, not all of the job vacancy signs that were displayed in the Elsensesteenweg were monolingual in French. Two shops chose to present the information and job description in both French and Dutch. Figure 60 shows the first shop “O!Dace”, while figure 61 shows the second shop “Texto”.

Figure 51: O!Dace (EL)

Figure 52: Texto (EL)

119

Despite the fact that these signs were in French and in Dutch, they did not explicitly demand specific language proficiency qualifications from the future employee. Moreover, the “Texto” shop’s sign said that they wanted to engage an employee for one of their shops in the Brussels-Capital region, and not specifically for the Elsensesteenweg branch. Any implications of the Dutch-French make-up of this sign must thus be considered in relation to the region and not to Elsene in particular. In the Dansaertstraat, only one job vacancy sign was observed: the one of the shop “La belle et la bête” (see figure 62). Despite the fact that the shop’s linguistic composition of their façade and signage was entirely French, this shop explicitly mentions that the future employee is expected to be bilingual in French and Dutch. This is significantly different from the signs in the Elsensesteenweg and leads thus to the conclusion that hiring signs demanding specific proficiency in a language can provide information about the ethnolinguistic vitality of this language in the area.

Figure 53: La belle et le bête (DS)

120

2.8. Memorial signage

Memorial plaques and signage commemorating certain important events or people were encountered in the landscapes of the Grote Markt and the Dansaertstraat. While the quantitative analysis merely incorporated the languages these plaques displayed, it did not address the main tendency in these signs and its exceptions. It is quite common that most memorial plaques’ dedicational content is translated in more than one language so as to address a variety of people. The memorial plaque on the front side of the restaurant “L’Ommegang”, for example, communicates the presence of Karl Marx in this house from 1845 until 1848 and is written in French, Dutch, German and English (see figure 63). The fact that this sign is written in those four languages is probably connected to the international relevance and renown of Marx. If the text would have been in French and Dutch only, then Russian or other foreign tourist would not have been able to understand the sign.

Figure 54: Memorial Plaque Marx (GM)

Another memorial sign on the Grote Markt commemorating events of more local relevance to Brussels is shown in figure 64. This plaque was presumably established by the local authorities, who are thus also responsible for the French and Dutch translations of the sign.

121

Other examples of these French-Dutch bilingual plaques include the Victor Hugo sign and the Nationale Strijdersbond plaque on the Grote Markt 48 , and the Pierre van Humbeeck 49 monumental sculpture in the Dansaertstraat (see figure 65).

Figure 55: Memorial Plaque City Museum (GM)

Figure 56: Memorial Plaque Vanhumbeeck (DS)

48 These two plaques are not represented here, but can be found on the CD-Rom disk accompanying this study (see appendix). 49 Pierre Vanhumbeeck was an important Brussels politician and Minister of Public Education. The memorial sculpture was inaugurated in 1902 (Stad Brussel, “Drie Wandelingen langs monumenten in de stad Brussel”).

122

Other memorial signage in the Dansaertstraat are the medallion plaque for Julius Hoste and the memorial sculpture in honour of Léon Lepage (see figures 66 and 67). The former plaque was inaugurated in 1948 in honour of Hoste’s 100 th birthday and was placed on the façade of number 48 in the Dansaertstraat, where Julius Hoste used to live (Braeken 1977). What is so peculiar about this plaque is the fact that the dedication ‘Hij verdedigde de rechten van zijn volk’ is written in Dutch only, whereas all other memorial signs I encountered were bilingual in French and Dutch. A possible explanation for this Dutch monolingualism can be found in the person to whom it is dedicated, Julius Hoste. Hoste was the founder of the Dutch-speaking magazine ‘De Zweep’ and the one who turned the Flemish newspaper ‘Het Laatste Nieuws’ into a success. 50 This outspoken Dutch-speaking background can be connected to the dedication message which reads ‘he defended the rights of his people’, in which ‘his people’ refers to the Dutch-speaking Flemings. The people responsible for this sign have thus established it in Hoste’s honour because of his Flemish strivings. Against this background, it is understandable why the people responsible for this sign, possible not even an official state authority, chose to manufacture it in Dutch.

Figure 57: Memorial sign Julius Hoste (DS)

50 Cf. http://www.uitinbrussel.be/files/Christina/XL_Literairewandeling1.pdf

123

The second atypical memorial sign in the Dansaertstraat is the memorial monument for Léon Lepage which was inaugurated in 1932 and commemorates the life of Lepage, who was the alderman of Public Education in Brussels 51 . Surprisingly, it contains a text 52 which is written exclusively in French. While this French monolingual display is atypical, as was the Dutch monolingualism in the Julius Hoste plaque, again this can be explained when looking at the people who were responsible for the sign. The final line of the text reads “ses concitoyens reconaissants”, which implies that the monument was erected by his grateful fellow citizens of Brussels. The fact that these fellow citizens chose to express their gratitude in French only means that they were French-speaking, which is no surprise at that time in Brussels-Capital.

Figure 58: Memorial sign Leon Lepage (DS)

51 This information comes from the magazine “Drie wandelingen langs monumenten in de stad Brussel”, distributed by Stad Brussel (Cel Historisch Erfgoed) ( www.brussel.be/artdet.cfm/docF_2EHjfuizg =) 52 The text reads: “A LEON LEPAGE (1956-1909), ECHEVIN DE L’INSTRUCTON PUBLIQUE ET DES BEAUX-ARTS (1895-1909), SES CONCITOYENS RECONAISSANTS”.

124

Sometimes the people or institutions responsible for the establishment of such memorial plaques or monuments, whether private individuals or public authorities, symbolically chose to write the sign in a specific language, as was the case in the Leon Lepage and Julius Hoste signs. However, the majority of the memorial signage I encountered in the landscapes was equivalent bilingualism in French and Dutch, and if international relevance was attached to the sign, then equivalent multilingualism in French, Dutch, German and English was displayed.

125

Chapter 4: Conclusion

This study has attempted to address the linguistic landscapes of three distinct areas within the region of Brussels-Capital from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective. The quantitative analysis of the linguistic configurations of the façades of each area was made by means of a specifically devised EV score calculating dominance system. In the quantitative discussion chapter, I have both described my expectations and hypotheses about the results of this analysis in each category and subcategory and tested if these results either confirmed or conflicted with my expectations. When these expectations and hypotheses were contested, I have tried to formulate a possible explanation or reason for this unexpected linguistic display. In addition to this quantitative surface analysis of the linguistic make-up of the landscapes encountered in the three areas of research, I have approached the material from a qualitative point of view in the belief that combining quantitative analytic methods with qualitative analyses would present a more wholesome and complete study of the material. In the qualitative analysis chapter, I have touched upon several tendencies and idiosyncrasies in the material which I then qualitatively and thoroughly discussed. Some of which are the inherent time scales of signage, the spatial and linguistic implications of the centre - periphery axis and the complexities of non-equivalent multilingualism. Most of these qualitative observations confirmed the quantitative results about the EV dynamics and implied readerships of the three areas. I am certain that I have not discussed all possible qualitative observations that can be made about the LL material, and such possible expansions can be taken up in further research. In both the quantitative and qualitative chapters I have attempted to include and refer to several other LL studies by other scholars who observed similar trends and configurations in their researched landscapes. An issue that was not addressed in much detail in this study was the diachronic comparison of the present study with the studies by Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998). Despite the inherently tentative nature of such a comparison, it might be interesting to look at how the landscape has evolved and changed throughout the past decades. In this study, this comparison was only made superficially in reference to the occurrence of English and French- Dutch bilingualism in the LLs of Brussels-Capital in the past decades, as described in the studies by Tulp (1978) and Wenzel (1998), and was not further discussed because there just was no place within the boundaries of this dissertation. Again, this kind of research can be addressed in other studies focussing on the diachronic developments of LLs.

126

While the three most powerful languages in Brussels-Capital are French, English and Dutch, the less dominant category of ‘Other’ languages in this study contained a rich collection of foreign languages that also claimed a place, though minor, in the landscape of the city. Over the past years the capital city of Belgium has seen “an increasing number of (more or less settling) migrants” that fuel the outlook and character of the city as “a multilingual space” and “a new Babylon” in which foreign languages (in addition to French, English and Dutch) are both spoken in everyday life and displayed in the LL (Verlot & Delrue 2004: 237). The languages of this ‘Other’ category form another interesting field of possible research that was not fully addressed in this study. All in all, I hope that my modest study has contributed to the ever growing collection of research and studies of urban and multilingual environments’ linguistic landscapes.

127

References

Backhaus, P. (2005). ‘Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo – a diachronic look at the linguistic landscape’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175/176, 103-121.

Backhaus, P. (2006). ‘Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape’ International Journal of Multilingualism, 3:1, 52-66.

Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bagna,C. & Barni, M. (2006). ‘Per una mappatura dei repertori linguistici urbani: nuovi strumenti e metodologie’ (In preparation).

Barni, M. & Bagna, C. (2009). ‘A Mapping Technique and the Linguistic Landscape’ in Shoshamy, S. & D. Gorter (eds.) (2009). Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

Ben-Rafael, E., E. Shohamy, M.H. Amara & N. Trumper-Hecht. (2006). ‘Linguistic Landscape as Symbolic Construction of the Public Space: The Case of Israel’ International Journal of Multilingualism, 3:1, 7-30.

Bourhis, R.Y., H. Giles, J.P. Leyens & H. Tajfel (1979). ‘Psycholinguistic Distinctiveness: Language Divergence in Belgium’ in Giles, H. & R. St. Clair (eds.) Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bourhis,R.Y. (2001). ‘Reversing Language Shift in Quebec’ in Fishman, J.A. (ed.). Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Braeken, J. (1977). Bouwen door de eeuwen heen : inventaris van het cultuurbezit in België: architectuur . Deel 1: Brussel binnenstad. Liège: Editions Mardaga.

Cenoz, J. & D. Gorter (2006). ‘Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages’ International Journal of Multilingualism, 3:1, 67-80.

Cenoz, J. & D. Gorter (2009). ‘Language Economy and Linguistic Landscape’ in Shohamy, E. & D. Gorter (eds.) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

Clijsters,L. (2005). Meertaligheid in een Brussels ziekenhuis. Een linguïstisch etnografisch onderzoek. Unpublished MA dissertation. Ghent: Ghent University.

128

Collins, J. & S. Slembrouck (2007). ‘Reading Shop Windows in Globalized Neighborhoods: Multilingual Literacy Practices and Indexicality’ Journal of Literacy Research , 39:3, 335-356.

Collins, J. & S. Slembrouck (2009). ‘Goffman and globalization: frame, footing and scale in migration- connected multilingualism’ in Collins, J., S. Slembrouck & M. Baynham (eds.) Globalization and Language in Contact. London: Continuum.

De Troyer, J. ‘Les Flamands de la rue Dansaert’ La Libre 14/03/2007. (accessed July 2010) http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/article/337256/les-flamands-de-la-rue-dansaert.html

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (2009). ‘Linguistic Anthropology: History, Ideas, and Issues’ in Linguistic Anthropology: a Reader. Second Edition. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Edelman, L. (2009). ‘What’s in a Name? Classification of Proper Names by Language” in Shohamy, S. & D. Gorter (eds.) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Oxon & NY: Routledge.

Giles, H., R. Y. Bourhis & D. Taylor (1977). ‘Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations’ in H. Giles (ed.) Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

Gorter, D. (2006). ‘Introduction: The Study of the Linguistic Landscape as a New Approach to Multilingualism’, International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 1-6.

Green, J. & D. Bloom (1997). ‘Ethnography and Ethnographers of and in Education: A situated Perspective’ in J. Flood, S.B. Heath & D. Lapp (eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy through the Communicative and Visual Arts. New York: Macmillan.

Griffin, J.L. (2004). ‘The presence of written English on the streets of Rome’ English Today , 20:2, 3- 8.

Gueldre, A. de (ed.). (1991). Kroniek van België. Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij.

Gumperz, J.J. & D. Hymes (eds.) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hendryckx, M.(2007). ‘Vechten tegen Franstalige onwil en Vlaamse lamledigheid’. De Standaard 29/09/2007. (accessed July 2009) http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=NV1HUV24&word=marc+platel

Huebner, T. (2006). ‘Bangkok’ss linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing and language change’ International Journal of Multilingualism, 3 (1), 31-51.

129

Huebner, T. (2009). ‘A Framework for the Linguistic Analysis of Linguistic Landscapes’ in Shohamy, S. & D. Gorter (eds.) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Oxon & NY: Routledge.

Hult, F.M. (2009). ‘Language Ecology and Linguistic Landscape Analysis’ in Shohamy, S. & D. Gorter (eds.) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Oxon & NY: Routledge.

Janssens, R. (2001b). Brusselse Thema’s 8: Taalgebruik in Brussel: Taalverhoudingen, taalverschuivingen en taalidentiteit in een meertalige stad. Brussel: VUBPRESS.

Janssens, R. (2008). ‘Taalgebruik in Brussel en de plaats van het Nederlands: Enkele recente bevindingen’ Brussels studies, 13, 1-15.

Kelly-Holmes, H. (2000). ‘Bier, parfum, kaas: language fetish in European advertising’ European Journal of Cultural studies , 3:1, 67-82.

Kress, G. & T. van Leeuwen (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. & T. van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodality. London: Edward Arnold.

Landry, R. & R.Y. Bourhis (1997). ‘Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study’ Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 16, 23-49.

Liebkind, K., I. Jasinskaja Lahti & M. Teräsaho (2007). ‘Ingroup vitality and intergroup attitudes in a linguistic minority’ Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 48, 409-418.

Lock, G. (2003). ‘Being international, local and Chinese: Advertisements on the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway’, Visual Communication , 2(2): 195-214.

Logie, F. (1981). ‘Ruimtelijke spreiding van de Nederlandstalige bevolking in Brussel-Hoofdstad’ Taal en Sociale Integratie, 3, 87-109.

Louckx, F. (1982). ‘Brussel als taaletnische confrontatiezone’ Taal en Sociale Integratie, 5, 167-177.

Louckx, F. (1987). ‘Ethnolinguistic enclosure patterns in post-war Brussels: A sociological analysis’ in Witte, E. & H. Baetens Beardsmore (eds.). The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingualism in Brussels. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mackey, W.F. (1981). ‘Urban Language Contact: Common issues in Brussels and abroad’ Taal & Sociale Integratie, 3: 19-37.

McNamara, T. (1997). ‘Theorizing social identity: what do we mean by social identity? Competing frameworks, competing discourses’ TESOL Quarterly, 31:3, 561-567.

130

McRae, K.D. (1986). Conflict and Compromise in multilingual societies: Belgium. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Mettewie, L. & R. Janssens. (2007). ‘Language Use and Language Attitudes in Brussels’ in Lasagabaster, D. & A. Huguet (eds.). Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Monnier, D. (1989). Langue d’accueil et langue de service dans les commerces à Montréal. Québec: Conseil de la langue française.

Piller, I. (2003). ‘Advertising as a site of language contact’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 23, 170-183.

Piller, I. (2001). ‘Identity constructions in multilingual advertising’ Language in society , 30:2, 153- 186.

Reh, M. (2004). ‘Multilingual writing: A reader-oriented typology – with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda)’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170: 1-41.

Rosenbaum, Y., E. Nadel, R.L. Cooper & J.A. Fishman (1977). ‘English on Keren Kayemet Street’ in Fishman, J.A., R.L. Cooper & A.W. Conrad (eds.) The Spread of English. Rowley: Newbury House.

Ross, N. (1997). ‘Signs of International English’ English Today , 13(2), 29-33.

Schlick, M. (2003). ‘The English in shop signs in Europe’ English Today , 19:1, 3-17.

Scollon, R. & S.W. Scollon (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the material world. London & New York: Routledge.

Shoshamy, S. & D. Gorter (eds.) (2009). Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

Smart, G. (2008). ‘Ethnographic-based discourse analysis’ in Bhatia, V., J. Flowerdew & R.H. Jones (eds.) Advances in Discourse Studies. London & NY: Routledge.

Spolsky, B. & R.L. Cooper (1991). The Languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (2010). ‘Adopting an ethnographic perspective in research and pedagogy’ in Coffin, C., T. Lillis & K. O’Halloran (eds.) Applied Linguistics Methods: A Reader. London & NY: Routledge.

131

Tulp, S. (1978). ‘Reklame en tweetaligheid. Een onderzoek naar de geografische verspreiding van Franstalige en Nederlandstalige affiches in Brussel’ Taal en Integratie , 1, 261-289.

Treffers-Daller (1994). Mixing Two Languages: French-Dutch Contact in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin & NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Treffers-Daller (2002). ‘Language Use and Language Contact in Brussels’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23:1, 50-64. van der Kris, J. (2007). ‘Bruxelles, Brussel, Brussels’. NRC Handelsblad 27/10/2007. (accessed July 2010) http://www.nrc.nl/nieuwsthema/belgie/article1851746.ece/Bruxelles,_Brussel,_Brussels

Van der Plank, P.H. (1978). ‘The Assimilation and Non-Assimilation of European Linguistic Minorities: A Sociological Retrospection’ in Fishman, J.A. (ed.) Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism. The Hague: Mouton.

Van Parijs, P. (2007). ‘Brussels Capital of Europe: the new linguistic challenges’ Brussels studies, 6, 1-10.

Van Velthoven, H. (1987). ‘Historical Aspects: The process of language shift in Brussels: Historical background and mechanisms’ in Witte, E. & H. Baetens Beardsmore (eds.). The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingualism in Brussels. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Verlot, M. & K. Delrue (2004). ‘Multilingualism in Brussels’ in Extra, G. & K. Ya ğmur (eds.) Urban Multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant Minority Languages at Home and School. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Wenzel, V. (1998). ‘Reclame en tweetaligheid in Brussel. Een empirisch onderzoek naar de spreiding van Nederlandstalige en Franstalige affiches’ Brusselse Thema’s 3. Brussels:VUBPRESS.

Wielfaert, T. (2009). A linguistic ethnographic study of written multilingual signage on a South African university campus . Unpublished MA dissertation. Ghent: Ghent University.

Wijgaerts, D. (1981). ‘De sociale demografie van Brussel-Hoofdstad 1960-1977’ Taal en Sociale Integratie, 3, 183-218.

Willems, B. (2006). ‘Op zoek naar de “Dansaert-Vlaming”’. Knack , 04/10/2006.

Williams, C.H. & I. Van der Merwe (1996). ‘Mapping the Multilingual City: A Research Agenda for Urban Geolinguistics’ Journal for multilingual and multicultural development , 17:1, 49-66.

Witte, E. & H. Baetens Beardsmore (eds.) (1987). The interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingualism in Brussels. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

132 www.brussel.be www.kaaitheater.be www.uitinbrussel.be www.liberaalarchief.be

133

Appendices

1. Disk (DVD) photographs Grote Markt, Antoine Dansaertstraat and Elsensesteenweg

134

2. Disk (CD-Rom) quantitative analysis Grote Markt, Antoine Dansaertstraat and Elsensesteenweg

135

3. Text interview with D.S.

Question : Kan u even zeggen wie u bent? Answer: Ik ben Dominique Smits. Q: En u woont hier in de Dansaertwijk? A: Nee, ik woon.. Ja, het hangt er een beetje vanaf wat je als de Dansaertwijk beschouwt. Q: U woont hier in de buurt dan? A: Ja. Ik denk dat de Dansaertwijk misschien heel ruim genomen Lakenstraat, Dansaertstraat, naar het kanaal toe is. Q: Ja, maar het is hier in de buurt? A: Ja Q: En weet u eigenlijk wie Antoine Dansaert is? A: Wie was Antoine Dansaert? De burgemeester dacht ik. Zou het de burgemeester zijn? In ieder geval moet het een negentiende eeuwse Brusselse politieker zijn geweest omdat de Dansaertstraat ook in de negentiende was als verkeersas aangelegd. De hoofdstraat was vroeger de Vlaamse steenweg, dat klein straatje dat hiernaast ligt. Q: Kan u een beetje meer vertellen over het fenomeen van de Dansaert-Vlaming? A: Ik denk dat het er een beetje op neer komt dat de Vlamingen die nog in Brussel overblijven, dat een groot gedeelte daarvan zich in het centrum heeft gevestigd en dat die allemaal een beetje in de benedenstad wonen in tegenstelling met veel Franstalige Brusselaars die meer in de buurt van Sint Gillis wonen. [to friends] Ja, zo iets het toch een beetje? Gevoelsmatig heb ik zo’n beetje het gevoel dat de benedenstad Vlaamser is dan Sint Gillis. Maar hoe dat dat nu net gekomen is… heeft dat te maken met dat veel culturele Vlaamse cultuurhuizen hier beneden liggen zoals de KVS, Ancien Belgique, Beursschouwburg, Kaaitheater… misschien dat het daar wel iets mee te maken heeft. Q: Maar hier wonen dan eigenlijk wel vrij veel Nederlandstaligen? Meer dan ergens anders in Brussel? A: Ja, daar zal je de echte getallen op moeten naslaan, want er zijn natuurlijk ook veel Vlamingen die wonen in de buurt van de VUB, daar ben ik van overtuigd en er zijn ook veel Vlamingen die in Schaarbeek wonen. Maar er is een soort van concentratie van Nederlandstaligen in de benedenstad. Q: Maar als je door de Dansaertstraat heen loopt zie je in het straatbeeld toch wel overal Frans. A: Ja ja, Brussels is sowieso, wat zal ik zeggen, 97% Frans in de omgangstaal. Dat wilt niet zeggen dat die mensen thuis ook Frans spreken. Maar de overeengekomen taal in de dagdagelijkse handelingen is het Frans. Q: Van de winkels, de openingsuren en de menu’s, zijn eigenlijk ook bijna allemaal in het Frans, er is eigenlijk nooit echt Nederlands dat daar uitgesproken in naar voren komt. A: Zijn er geen tweetalige? Q: Heel weinig. Want daar gaat eigenlijk mijn onderzoek over, over hoe dat Nederlands in het straatbeeld naar voor komt in deze wijk. Het valt echt op dat het niet zo uitgesproken is. A: Ja, dat zou goed kunnen. Q: En het publiek dat hier in de Walvis eigenlijk komt… A: Heel breed, Marokkaans, Franstalig, Nederlandstalig, Italiaans, en ga maar door. Q: Ja, heel breed dus. Want in de pers spreken ze van de Walvis als het Vlaamse café. A: Ah nee, absoluut niet. Nee, dan zou ik zelf zeggen dat die niet op de Dansaertstraat liggen, maar op de Vlaamse Steenweg heb je nog “de Roskam” en “de Monk” en “De markten” als cultureel centrum en cafés bij “De markten”. Die zijn veel uitgesprokener Nederlandstalig. Zeker de cafébaas hier is een Limburger, een Nederlandstalige maar het café van origine was

136 het sowieso een Franstalig café en hij heeft een beetje publiek meegenomen vanuit de markten maar het is eigenlijk een echte mix Q: En “De Monk” ligt dan ook in de Dansaertwijk A: Ja absoluut Q: En dan de keuze van de naam “de Walvis”, is dat dan een nieuwe naam met de nieuwe nederlandstalige eigenaar? A: Ja, nee, die naam is gekozen door de Franstaligen. Q: Dat is dan wel vreemd eigenlijk A: Het kanaal, vis, wal, walvis, de wal van het kanaal. Zoiets denk ik. Q: Is deze wijk dan veel meer Nederlandstalig in vergelijking met de rest van Brussel? A: Veel ja, in heel het Brussel hoofdstedelijk gewest denk ik niet dat we met nog meer zijn dan met 10.000 kiesgerechtigden in ieder geval. Ja, acht percent ofzo is niet echt veel. Heel heel heel weinig Q: En van andere ethniciteiten dan? Zijn er veel allochtonen? A: Ja, alles echt werkelijk alles. Ik hoor in het straatbeeld Roemeens, Italiaans, Deens, heel veel Engels, door de Europese gemeenschap hoor je meer en meer Engels, Spaans, Portugees, Grieks, en ga maar door. Het is zo dat sommige, dat wordt wel gedacht dat er veel Marokkanen en Turken zijn in Brussels, maar die vallen nu net omwille van hun klederdracht iets meer op dan… Ja hoe kunt ge het verschil zien tussen een Spanjaard en een Griek en een Italiaan? Snap je, die hebben Westerse kleding aan. Ik heb zo het gevoel dat Brussel een stad is die van niemand is, niemand kan die claimen. Niet de Waal, niet de Franstaligen, niet de Turk, niet de Marokkaan, niet de Italiaan, niet de Vlaming Q: Het is zeer multicultureel, uiteindelijk. A: Honderd procent zeker. Q: Nu, iets volledig anders. De Dansaertstraat is dat een plek waar mensen eigenlijk komen wonen, of is het eerder een plek waar mensen komen om op café te zitten of uit te gaan of te shoppen? A: Nee, alles is bewoond boven de winkels Q: Dus, eigenlijk is het zowel een wijk waar mensen komen om te wonen en om te werken? A: Alles. Ik denk dat je kan zeggen dat er twee verschillende straten zijn. Je hebt het chiquere gedeelte in het begin van aan Beurs tot aan de Nieuwe Graanmarkt is het eigenlijk allemaal zeer duur om te wonen en is alles ook zeer goed gerenoveerd. En dan het tweede gedeelte is een soort mix. Dat is langzaam maar zeker aan het opschuiven. Tegen dat we vijf jaar verder zijn, neen tien jaar, zijn hier allemaal boetieks, galerijen, restaurants, cafés. Nu heb je nog een mixfunctie met voedingszaken, Marrokaanse vishandel, Marrokaanse en Turkse slager, telefoonwinkels. Q: Dat is wel een duidelijk verschil. A: Een heel groot verschil. Q: En is er dan ook een verschil met de mensen die boven de winkels wonen tussen Nederlandstalige en anderen A: Ja absoluut. In het eerste stuk boven “Stijl” de modezaak, of in het allereerste stuk van de Dansaertstraat. Daar wonen er BV’s. Ja, je hebt die grote blok die voorbij de Oude Graanmarkt waar zo wat de KBC is, ja wie woont daar allemaal, Arno Hintjes, Dominique Deruddere heeft daar gewoond die woont daar nu niet meer. Maar, wie vergeet ik nog, Linda Van Waeyenberghe. Maar die hebben die appartementen wel kunnen kopen nog in de jaren ’80 toen die nog niet zo duur waren. Gino, hele bekende vlaming, dat is iemand die wij kennen. Q: En weet u iets over de historische evolutie van die wijk? A: Ja, vanaf de middeleeuwen al was de Vlaamsesteenweg de belangrijkste straat die het centrum van Brussel doorkruiste. En bij de grote stadveranderingen in de negentiende eeuw,

137 toen de Beurs gebouwd is en het kanaal is aangelegd in 1853, toen hebben ze een grotere verbindingsstraat gemaakt om van het westen tot in het centrum te geraken omdat die kleine Vlaamsesteenweg verzadigd was hebben ze die dwars door het park van het klooster doormijnen. En het klooster lag waar dat “De markten” nu ligt. Maar heel die buurt daarachter, met die nieuwe graanmarkt inbegrepen dat waren allemaal kloosterdomeinen. Daar hebben ze dan die straat doorgetrokken. Dus de straat is nog geen honderd jaar oud. Het is dus eigenlijk gelijk met de Boulevard aangelegd. Ja, met alle grote stadsvernieuwingswerken van mid tot eind negentiende eeuw. De Léon Lepagestraat, en dit is ook een typisch voorbeeld van de negentiende eeuwse heraanleg. Ook al de huizen die hier langs zitten. Q: En dat was dan dus allemaal 100% Franstalig? A: Dat kan je in Brussel nooit zeggen. Brussel is nooit honderd procent Franstalig geweest en ook nooit, wat dat ook veel flaminganten zeggen, ook nooit honderd procent Nederlandstalig geweest. Q: Dat is dan die verfransing. A: Ja, je mag ook niet teveel mensen ongelijk aandoen, die echte dingen hebben meegemaakt in de jaren ’50 in de winkels die als Nederlandstalige niet bediend werden. Zelf als waren mensen in de winkel zelf Nederlandstalig. Maar dat heeft allemaal te maken met de vroegere… dat is iets dat heel lang tijdens de Oostenrijkers al is ingezet, en dan tijdens de Fransen. Alle scholen waren toen nu eenmaal in het Frans. Universiteit, hogeschool, colleges, alles, alles was in het Frans. En dat dan de geschoolde mensen neerkeken op de lagere sociale klasse. Ik vrees dat dit ook iets is van alle tijden. Die sfeer zal er ooit wel geweest zijn in Brussel, maar zolang als wij in Brussel wonen, die twintig, vijfentwintig jaar, heb ik daar toch weinig last van gehad. Ik ben nooit uitgemaakt voor “sale flamand”. [to his friends] Nee toch eh. Ja, er zijn mensen die daar wel een punt van maken. Er zijn mensen die altijd consequent in de winkels Nederlandstalig spreken naar de winkelbediende toe en dat opeisen maar ik vind dat zo onnozel want voor hetzelfde geld is dat iemand die uit Frankrijk komt of iemand die van origine Italiaan of Marokkaan is en die al Italiaans spreekt of Marokkaans spreekt en Frans en een mondje Engels en die zou dan nog eens verplicht zijn om ook nog eens Nederlands te spreken. Maar er zijn wel, gelijk “Stijl” is van origine een Nederlandstalige winkel, de belangrijkste modezaak die eigenlijk de kickstart is geweest van de modewijk dat de Dansaertstraat is, een beetje bekend als een designer, fashion wijk waar dan ook de zes van Antwerpen vertegenwoordigd waren in Brussel en dan was “Stijl” eigenlijk de eerste zaak die dat in gang gezet heeft. Dus dat is heel belangrijk geweest voor de Dansaertstraat. Misschien dat daardoor ook, doordat dat zo Vlaams was. Het hoofdkantoor van de VLD ligt ook in de Dansaertwijk. Q: En dan al die culturele huizen dan ook. A: Ja dat heeft er zeker iets mee te maken Q: En is er een bepaald moment of decennia, wanneer dan vooral die Nederlandstalige in deze wijk zijn getrokken? A: Ik ben hier komen wonen eind jaren ‘90. Toen woonden hier al heel wat Nederlandstaligen. Ik denk dat dat pas vanaf de jaren ’80 was. In de jaren ’80 ja. Ik ben hier komen wonen eind jaren ’90, ik heb nog een overheidsfunctie gehad en ben veel aan de buurt van de VUB blijven hangen alvorens ik echt hier ben komen wonen. Nee, ik denk dat dat van in de jaren ’80 was. Toen is er toch veel in Brussel gebeurd, de AB, de schouwburg, de theater revolutie van Jan De Corte in de jaren ’80, dat modeverschijnsel dat hier is gekomen dat ik net vertelde. Misschien, ik heb de indruk vanaf de jaren ’80… Ja dat is ook interessant, in de Vlaamsesteenweg ligt er een café en dat noemt “Dharingman”, heel Nederlandstalig, bijna alleen maar Nederlandstaligen. Jan De Corte zit daar en de uitbaadster van dat cafeetje had vroeger een heel bekend café aan het Vossenplein waar toen heel veel Vlamingen

138 kwamen en die heeft dan haar cafeetje hier in het centrum begonnen. Daar zitten mensen die al wat ouder zijn dan ons en die ook al langer hier in het centrum wonen en die kunnen misschien ook een beetje voorgeschiedenis van de jaren ’70 en ’80 geven. En “De Markten”, daar moet je zeker ook eens gaan want dat is het culturele centrum. Het centrum van Brussel heeft sowieso een ongelofelijke heropleving gekend sinds de jaren ’80. Toen je van hier naar de AB ging in de jaren ’80 durfde niemand dat, dat was een super onveilige buurt waar geen enkel café was en sinds de jaren ’90 is daar het ene café na het andere geopend en nu is dat één van de hipste buurten van Brussel. Dat vind je eigenlijk in heel het centrum. Vroeger was de Dansaertstraat helemaal een ruige buurt. Het is dus eigenlijk pas vanaf de jaren ’90 dat het stadscentrum echt opgefrist is en dat er een aantrekkingskracht was voor veel mensen om dan naar het centrum te komen en vooral vanuit het idee ‘de AB is vlakbij, er zijn filmzalen vlakbij, het theaterzalen zijn vlakbij, de cafés waar alles wat meer Nederlandstalig was’. Q: En dus zelf vind u het dus niet erg als u ergens een winkel binnengaat dat alles in het Frans is? A: Nee, absoluut niet, geen probleem mee. Q: Ok, dan zou ik u graag bedanken voor uw tijd. A: Graag gedaan.

139