The Dutch-French Language Border in Belgium Roland Willemyns Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Germaanse Talen, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium Thisarticle is restricted to adescriptionof languageborder fluctuations in Belgium as faras itsDutch-French portion isconcerned.After a briefdescription of theso-called ‘languagequestion’ in Belgium thenotion of languageborder is discussedin general. Then comesan overviewof thestatus and function of thelanguage border in Belgium and of theactual language border fluctuations as they haveoccurred up to thepresent day. Two problem areas:the ‘ Voerstreek’and theBrussels suburban region are discussedin moredetail. Afterwards language shift and changethrough erosionin Brusselsare analysed as wellas thepart played in thatprocess by linguisticlegislation, languageplanning and sociolinguisticdevelopments. Finally a typology of language borderchange is drawn up and thepatterns of changeare identified in orderto explain and accountforthea lmostunique natureoftheBelgianportion of the Romance-Germanic language border. 1. Introduction Belgium (approximately10 million inhabitants) is a trilingualand federal country,consisting of four different entitiesconstituted on the basisof language: the Dutch-speaking community(called Flanders;58% of the population),the French speaking one (called Wallonia;32%), the smallGerman speaking commu- nity (0.6%)and the Dutch-French bilingual communityof Brussels(9.5%). Since regionalgovernments have legislative power, the frontiersof their jurisdiction, being language borders, are defined in the constitution (Willemyns, 1988). The Belgian portionof the Romance-Germaniclanguage borderis quite remarkablefor mainly two main reasons: (1) itsstatus and function have changed considerablysince the countrycame into existence; (2) itspresent status andfunction arealmost unique ascompared to all the otherportions under consideration.Because of thatit has frequently caughtthe attention(and imagi- nation)of scientistsof variousdisciplines (although,for a long time,mainly of historians;Lamarcq & Rogge,1996). It often servedas a parspro toto for the Romance-Germanicborder as a whole andmany researchers have tried to explain itsgenesis basedon itsBelgian portion(see Van Durme in thisspecial Downloaded by [University of Gothenburg] at 05:50 13 September 2012 issue). Arealbreakthrough hasonly been achieved fromthe momentlinguists have entered the debate.Maurits Gysseling in particularis to be mentioned in this respectbecause of hisidea to use the oldestlinguistic sourcesavailable (including toponyms)and for the skill displayed in doing so.His work is now being continued –withno less skill –by hisformer student Luc vanDurme (there are references on the work of both in Van Durme’s article in this issue). Thisarticle is restricted to a descriptionof language borderfluctuations in Belgium asfar as its Dutch-French portionis concerned. Language contactin Brusselsis treated in Treffers-Daller, andthe trilingualcontact between German, 0143-4632/02/01 0036-14 $20.00/0 © 2002 R. Willemyns JOURNAL OFMULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURALDEVELOPMENT Vol. 23, Nos. 1&2, 2002 36 Dutch-French Language Border in Belgium 37 French andDutch in Belgium’s easternpart in Nelde andDarquennes, bothin this issue. 2. The Language Border and the so-called ‘Language Question’ in Belgium The ‘language struggle’which wasgoing todominate Belgian politicallife startedshortly after 1830, the yearin which Belgium hadbecome anindependent constitutionalmonarchy with a parliamentarysystem dominated by the bour- geoiselite, andwhich secured itsposition by adoptinga poll-taxsystem (out of 3.5million people, only 46,000had the rightto vote; Witte & Van Velthoven, 1998).Although the new constitutionprovided for‘ linguisticfreedom’ , itwas obviousthat this ‘ freedom’was profitable only tothe richand the powerful, i.e. tothe bourgeoisie fromWallonia and Flanders, all of whomwere French speakers.For this bourgeoisie, French wasanaturalchoice as the language ofthe state.The governmentappointed only French-speaking civilservants and the discriminationof Dutch throughoutthe 19thcentury wasgeneral andvery delib- erate,despite the factthat Dutch speakersconstituted the majorityof the popula- tion.There isnoroom here toelaborate on the genesis of thissituation (for more information see Van de Craen & Willemyns, 1988). Aso-calledFlemish Movement startedup almostimmediately and fought a long-lastingbattle for cultural and linguistic rightsfor Dutch speakers.It took until 1889for the ‘gelijkheidswet ‘todeclare Dutch andFrench the twoofficial languagesof the country. Afterwardsthings developed faster:two sets of lawsin 1932and 1963 guaranteed what had been the ultimategoal of the Flemish Move- ment,i.e. the officialand complete ‘Dutchification’of Flanders.The Walloons havingbeen opposedto widespread bilingualism throughoutthe country, Belgium graduallyturned tothe territorialityprinciple modelto accommodate itsvarious linguistic groups.It officialised the language frontieras adomestic administrativeborder, made it virtually unchangeable andaccomplished the linguistic homogeneity of the language groups and regions. The Belgian language struggle hasnever been anexclusively linguistic problem but hasalways been intertwined withsocial and political issues as well. Yet,a considerablechange in natureis to be discerned fromthe early 1960s onwardwhen the language problems were replaced by so-called‘ community problems’and the borderbetween Walloniaand Flanders ceased to be amere Downloaded by [University of Gothenburg] at 05:50 13 September 2012 linguistic one in orderto become asocialone aswell. Thiscan be accountedfor by majordomestic economic changes. From the late1950s onwards a dramatic industrialdevelopment waswitnessed in Flanders,turning thisformally agri- culturalterritory into a highly industrialisedregion, largely dominatingthe domesticpolitical, social and economic scene. Atthe same,time the outdated industrialequipment ofWallonia was slowly breaking down,giving wayto a seriouseconomic recession from which ithas not yet recovered.In 199674.5% of the industrialgross added value wasgenerated inthe Flemish region (58%of Belgium’s population).Consequently, the culturaland linguistic balanceof power shifted towardsFlanders (Willemyns, 1992).The present-day socialand economicimbalance between Flanders,Brussels and Wallonia is to be consid- ered potentiallydisruptive forthe continuationof Belgium’s existence, since it 38 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development requires aconsiderableamount of so-called‘ solidaritytransfers’ from Flanders toWallonia (for 80%)and from Flanders to Brussels (for 20%).Most of these transfers occur in the field of social security financing (De Boeck, 1999). Revisionsof the constitutionin 1970and 1980 provided for cultural autonomy anda considerableamount of self-determinationfor the linguisticallydivided partsof the country.Subsequent constitutionalchanges in 1988and 1993 finally turned Belgium into the federal country it is now (Alen & Suetens, 1993). 3. Language Borders The notionof ‘language border’which isessential in thispaper andin this volume isnot easy to define. Asis often the casewith, for example, the related notionof ‘dialectborder’ , itmighteven beargued thatlanguage bordersdo not actuallyexist, since itis obvious that language areasare but seldomseparated by aclear-cutline. Usually,there issome kind oftransitionalzone between them, anda demarcationline, therefore, will alwayshave a somewhatarbitrary char- acter.Moreover, it is obviousthat in transitionzones a socialvariable, rather than ageographic one,may be decisive forlinguistic ‘ affiliation’. Dialect-geographers arevery familiarwith such problems andto cope withthem they tend tomake use notso much ofatheoreticalbut ofapracticalsolution, which may differ from one region toanother.In thispaper too,the variouskinds oflanguage contact under investigationwill be decisive forthe particularuse which ismade of the concept of ‘language border’. Yet,both in ahistoricaland a contemporarysense, it may be necessaryto refer towhatGoossens (1968) calls an ‘intuitive consensus’on language borders.In the caseof French-Flanders forexample, there isa general consensusamong scholars toconsiderthe isoglossused in dialect-geographicstudies as the language border between the Romanceand the Germanicdialects in the region (it isreproduced in,among others, Pé e, 1957).The sameapplied toBelgium up to1963, the yearin which the language borderwas laid down by law.From then onwardthe notion of‘language border’is used in asociolinguisticsense, meaning thatit separates tworegionsin which either Dutch orFrench isthe officiallanguage, disregarding anypossible bilingual communicationwhich mayactually occur in the transition zone:the language bordercoincides with the borderseparating two administra- tive entities. Asregards the changeswhich are discussed in thispaper, twoessentially Downloaded by [University of Gothenburg] at 05:50 13 September 2012 different types haveto be discerned (Willemyns, 1996):(1) language shift resulting in achange ofthe locationof the border,meaning thatplaces which used tobe partof the transitionzone have, in the courseof time,definitely moved intothe monolingualzone on either side of the border;(2) language shift resulting in ‘erosion’, meaning thatthe contactsituation has decisively been changed in the courseof historyalthough the ‘language border’(in the tradi- tionalsense) hasnot changed itscourse. Since in Belgium the constitutional