Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Frisian Ethnicity

Ethnic and national identity among the inhabitants of the Netherlandic province of Friesland in the beginning of the 19-eighties.

Frisian language use and ethnic identity PIETER H. VAN DER PLANK Introduction In regard to sociolinguistics and language geography, the Frisian language area occupies a marked place in the Netherlands in a number of ways. Tra­ ditionally, the linguistic groups are sharply divided alongHnesofsodö/ctoss. In regard to linguistic geography, we also find a traditionally sharp division between city and countryside. Third, Frisian is the only regional language in the Netherlands that has developed a Standard variety which is generally accepted and which is used to a margüial but progressing level in education and public administration. We assume that it is precisely these contrasts that have been the deter­ minants upon which the survival and revival of Frisian in the past Century and a half have been based. In part, this explains the relative vitality of Frisian in comparison with the disappearance of regional languages. As a result, we feel that it is very important, when making prognoses about the future of Frisian, to study geolinguistic and sociolinguistic developments in the light of these contrasts. Untü 1950, Friesland exhibited a sociolinguistic Situation that had probably undergone little numerical change during a long period: that is, overwhelmingly Frisian­speaking rural areas versus towns with a predominantly Dutch­speaking population; a social upper class that spoke Dutch and viewed it äs a mark of their place in society (Van der Hank 1979). (The term 'Dutch' includes regional and local varieties which are still spoken, along with the — increasing — use of Standard Dutch.) Changes in geolinguistic conditions 1950-1980 Until the 1950s, Friesland was one of the Netherlands' least industrialized provinces, a fact that is partially due to the province's peripheral location. As a result of its agrarian character and limited employment opportunities, Friesland is estimated to have lost half of its natural population growth due 0165­2516/87/0064­0009 $2.00 © Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam Intl. J. Soc. Lang. 64 (1987), pp. 9-20 Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 10 P. H. v.d. Plank to emigration between 1880 and 1950. In 1950, approximately a third of those of Frisian ancestry were living outside the province (Bouma 1949: 4­5). The rural population in particular was affected by this process. The massive emigration was also a qualitative loss for the rural areas. In contrast, the towns experienced a slow growth during this period. In the 1950s, barely a fourth of the total population lived there. Since that time, the national government has taken Steps to increase employment opportunities by means of industrialization. This policy was successful, and its results became evident in a migra­ tion of rural inhabitants to the towns and especially to new urban centers. By about 1980 the percentage of urban population had doubled in the short späh of 30 years: by that time almost half of the population was living in towns (de Jager 1977). The increasing prosperity of the 1960s and 1970s had ramifications for the extent of the Services sector. Employment opportunities in public admin­ istration, educatiori, health care, and service­oriented professions increased greatly in that period: by one third individually, to more than a third of total employment. Since for maiiy of these functions too few qualiiied persons were available in Friesland, the Job market was opened to an inrush ofallochthons. Between 1967 and 1980, this group nearly doubled, from 12% to 23% of the total population. Friesland, traditionally the most autochthonous province in the Netherlands, currently has a population in which one out of four inhabitants was born outside of the province. Due to their numbers, and especially äs a result of their high social Status, members of this group have partly taken the place of the traditional elite. The process of dynamic change in Frisian society described above has had a major impact on linguistic relationships. A portion of the rural, Frisian­ speaking population has been moving to the towns since the 1950s. Since approximately 1965, the process of urbanization has also manifested itself in the form of newly created bedroom communities in the vicinity of the villages near the towns. The commuters form a group of urbanites and allochthons of higher social Status. In this way, the overwhelmingly Frisian­speakingcountry­ side has acquired a considerable non­Frisian­speaking minority. The influx of people from the countryside into the towns has not led to a 'Frisianization' of the colloquial language, äs some had hoped, and äs others had feared. The language of the towns has remained non­Frisian äs before, even though Frisian has taken on a more important role in second place. On the other hand, Dutch has gained a far more extended function in the countryside, due to the presence of a consujerable number of Dutch uni­ linguals and the increasing impact of (Dutch) education and (Dutch) mass media. To conclude this section, we show the changed linguistic relationships in Friesland in Table l. In doing so we make use of a 1955 survey of the language Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 11 Language use and ethnic identity Table l. Frisian äs a hörne language in urban and rural areas (%) 1955 1967 1980 N Inhabitants of urban areas Inhabitants of Frisian­ speaking rural areas Inhabitants of non­Frisian­ speaking rural areas1 32 49 38 392 94 81 75 577 19 7 22 137 Total for Friesland 65 ±65 55 1106 of all elementary­school children (Boelens and Van der Veen 1956), of the first (1967) sociolinguistic study made in Friesland (Pietersen 1969), and of the 1980 study by Gorter et al. (1984). The percentages represent the number of inhabitants who use Frisian daily äs the language of the home. They hardly diverge from those indicating the number of inhabitants speaking Frisian äs their first language. In this article, we will use the description 'Frisian­speaking' only for those persons who learned Frisian äs their first language. Further on we will give Information concerning those who learned Frisian äs a second language. It is worthy of note that in the total figure for the province, a considerable decrease occurred between 1967 and 1980 for Frisian Speakers. This is not a matter of an absolute decrease, but rather the consequence of an increase in population that consisted largely of allochthons. In regard to the geolinguistic Situation, we find that a constant, slow de­Frisianization of the countryside is in progress, while the Frisian­speaking element in the towns has increased sharply. However, this latter element does not appear to have become deeply rooted. In all likelihood, the numbers of Frisian Speakers in the towns are being sustained by continuous migration from rural Friesland, while urban Frisian Speakers are gradually being Dutchified. Changing sociolinguistic conditions 1965-1980 No statistics are available to us in which the relationship between language background and social Status can be shown for the period prior to the 1960s. Retersen was the first to make numerical data available through his socio­ linguistic study (1969). That material relates to 1967 andperhaps wemay view it äs the final description of conditions äs they were before the expansion of the allochthonous group. It shows that among the social elite, of those Professionals in leadership positions, just under 30% used Frisian äs the daily colloquial language of the home. This percentage rose, however, to more than 75% for blue­collar workers, and to more than 95% for farmers. The highest Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 12 P. H. v.d. Plank income groups matched this distribution, with less than half being Frisian Speakers, äs did the lowest, with more than 80% being Frisian­speaking. Therefore, there has been no leveling of the traditional social differences between Frisian and non­Frisian in the period 1967­1980. Barely more than 20% of those in the highest occupational categories were Frisian speaking in 1980, while a large majority of those in the lowest occupational categories were Frisian Speakers. If we examine the relationship between autochthonous Frisian Speakers and non­Frisian Speakers, however, it appears that there have been changes. Namely, more than 60% of the autochthons who belong to the upper class are Frisian speaking. As a result, they are at only a slight disadvantage in com­ parison to their non­Frisian­speaking countrymen, because at 76% they still form a larger proportion of the lower class in autochthonous society. Ap­ parently, it is the influx of allochthons from higher social categories that is maintaining the traditional proportional relationship. These allochthons occupy more than 50% of the positions in the highest occupational categories, and almost half of those in the highest income categories. Their arrival on the scene has, äs a result, again statistically reinforced the traditional social inequality between Frisian and non­Frisian, or rather between the Frisian and Dutch languages. Figure l is a bar graph in which the numerical proportions between the Level of education: higher education upper secondary lower secondary primary xx\\xxxxx>> v///////^^ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 90 (n = 94) (n = 179) (n = 217) (n = 617) 100% 70 90 (n = 29) (n = 189) (n = 198) (n = 164) 100% 70 (n = 229) (n = 219) (n = 263) (n = 100) 90 100% 70 80 Occupational level: upper class upper­middle class lower­middle class lower class 0 10 20 30 40 50 Level of income (in 1980 guilders per month): >Hfl. 2.500 1.750­2.500 1.250­1.750 < 1.250 l l allochthonous Dutch­speaking VZ\ autochthonous Dutch­speaking 60 80 Frisian­speaking Figure 1. Frisian and non-Frisian Speakers, autochthons and allochthons, grouped according to education, occupational level, and income level Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM Language use and ethnic identity 13 different groups are given on the basis of the variables education, occupation, and income (the latter two variables are of course only applied to bread­ winners and the gainfully employed). In Figure l, 'higher education' includes College, university, and higher Professional education; 'upper secondary' includes senior high school and Professional training institutions; 'lower secondary' includes junior high school and trade schools; 'primary' includes primary school and extended primary education. 'Upper class' includes upper management positions in industry and public administration, service­sector occupations, and self­employment at a com­ parable level; 'upper­middle class' includes middle management and positions requiring a secondary­level Professional education (farmers are also included in this category); 'lower­middle' class includes remaining white­collar em­ ployees; 'lower class' includes blue­collar workers, both trained and untrained. When a distinction is made in the rest of this article between only two levels — high and low — we have combined upper and upper middle on the one hand, and lower and lower middle on the other (Jelsma et al. 1983).2 The differences between the allochthonous and autochthonous groups are so great that we can speak of a geographically split labor market. At higher levels, it is primarily those from outside of Friesland who apply for Jobs and who compete successfully with Frisians. Jobs at lower levels are left to the autochthons. This is a result of the fact that high­level positions are offered on the Dutch national labor market, while lower­level positions are only offered on the Frisian regional labor market. The employment policy has highlighted the creation of an ethnic division of labor in Friesland. In region­ alist circles in Friesland, protests against the appointment policies of the national government can be heard, when it appears that preference has 'again' been given to a non­Frisian. This preference can indeed be assumed to exist for managerial personnel in civil service agencies controlled by the national government äs well äs in other institutions controlled by allochthons. In general, opportunities for allochthons are greatest in the third and fourth sectors: higher education, civil service, social Services, and healthcare. These are providing a rapidly growing segment of the labor market. In regard to level of education, the population of Friesland is below the average level in the Netherlands, so the allochthonous element has been able to manifest itself äs a new eilte. In that regard, the position of the autoch­ thons is much stronger in the more traditional sectors: agriculture, trades, and industry. It can be assumed on the basis of these differences that the third and fourth sectors will serve an important function in the Integration of Friesland into the Dutch national framework. On the other hand, they may also be a source of tension in the relationship between Frisians and non­ Frisians, particularly in language contrasts. These manifest themselves not so Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 14 P. H. v.d. Plank much in contrasts between groups, but rather in the differences in frame of reference and cultural and political orientation. Even though an important pari of the allochthonous population has adjusted more or lesstothebilingual circumstances in Friesland (one­third of them have aquired an active com­ mand of the Frisian language), the group is still per se an element of the population that distinguishes itself, wants to be distinguished, and probably, in part due to its secure social Status, can continue to distinguish itself. The frequency of listening to regional rädio programing and of reading regional newspapers is much lower among allochthons than autochthons, and among the autochthonous population it is highest among Frisian Speakers. The allochthons are more strongly oriented toward the Dutch national media. Politically, they have a proportionally strong preference for liberal parties, even more so than for Christian Democratic or Social Democratic parties, which in Friesland are traditionally first and second in size on the political scene. As a rule, the liberal representatives reflect their voters in being least in favor of the pro­Frisian language policy of the provincial and municipal governments. It is also striking that the degree of agreement with the treat­ ment of Friesland in national government policies is high for allochthons. The rather negative opinions about the national government among the autoch­ thons strongly contrast with this allochthon satisfaction. Competence and use of Frisian So far, we have counted subjects äs Frisian­speaking only in those cases where Frisian was the first language they learned. However, Frisian has be­ come a secondary language for one­tenth in that category. In their daily communication they are primarily Dutch­speaking. On the other hand, half of those who learned Dutch first have acquired an active command of Frisian. In their daily communication, more than one­fifth among them have taken to using Frisian äs their primary means of communication. In Table 2, this shift among the original language groups is made clear. A summary of language competence for the population of Friesland is äs follows: 60% speak Frisian äs easily äs or more easily than Dutch (mono­ lingual Frisian Speakers are a rare exception); 13% can speak Frisian, too, but Dutch is easier for them; 27% speak only Dutch. More than three quarters of the latter are able to understand Frisian. On the whole, 73% have to be considered äs active bilinguals, 21% are pas­ sive bilinguals, and finally, 6% are unable to understand Frisian. A majority of those who do not speak Frisian are of the opinion that it is 'not necessary' for them to learn this language. If we limit ourselves to the autochthonous population, 86% are active Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM Language use and ethnic identity Table 2. 15 Competence in and use ofFrisian according to linguistic background (%) According to first language Able to speak Frisian Frisian äs language of the home N Frisian­speaking Dutch­speaking autochthons Dutch­speaking allochthons Dutch­speaking 98 90 618 43 13 494 Inhabitants of Friesland 73% 55% 1112 (52) (17) (256) (33) ( 9) (238) bilinguals and 12% are passive bilinguals (ooly active in Dutch), while 2% of them are unable to widerstand Frisian. Among the allochthons 43% are active bilinguals, 44% are passive, and 13% are unable to widerstand Frisian. In terms of language use, we see that the informal domains are a solid basis for Frisian. A very large majority of Frisian Speakers still speak the language at home (90%), use the language with friends and acquaintances (91%), with neighbors (87%), and at work (87%), and participate in Frisian­language club and association life (77%). The heaviest concentration of use of Frisian for those who learned Frisian äs a second language is also found in these informal domains. Of them, 23% speak Frisian at home, 42% with friends and acquaint­ ances, and 46% with their neighbors. In order to measure language use in public life, in 1980 we asked which language was used in a number of commonly occurring contacts with public servants, Service agencies, and authorities. We asked which language had been selected for use during the previous year in such contacts. On the average, the reports of language use in incidental situations give a picture of the position of Frisian in the domains of public life. In Figure 2, these contact situations are numbered vertically äs follows: language use (1) with a bank employee; (2) with a shopkeeper; (3) with Sports fans; (4) with a bus driver; (5) at the post office counter; (6) with a civil servant; (7) with a policeman; (8) with a salesperson; (9) with a librarian; (10) with a salesman at the open­air market; (l 1) with a teacher; (12) with a nurse; (13) with a waiter; (14) with the mayor; (15) answering the door to a stranger; (16) with a doctor; (17) with a stranger (when asking the way); (18) with the minister; (19) with a judge; (20) at the local Chinese restaurant; (21)withatourist. In Figure 2, the percentages of those actually using the Frisian language in the situations named are given for Frisian Speakers (that is, those who learned Frisian äs their first language) and for those who have learned Frisian äs a Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 16 c; P. H. v.d. Plank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 — 20 21 (3 1 i 1 r™* • | 1.i 10 20 1 r—1 second­language Frisian Speakers _| first­languace Frisian Speakers ­1 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% Figure 2. The use of Frisian in 21 public-life contact situations by first- and second· language /7risian Speakers second language separately. The percentages relate only to those who have had contact in the aforementioned contact situations. They rate a contact äs Frisian if Frisian was chosen at least once, so these statistics give a maxi­ mum of the use of that language in public life. It is clear from our data that a considerable minority of Frisian Speakers never, or only rarely, make use of their language in public life. They switch to Dutch especially when speaking to officials who are in a position of authority in relation to them. On the average, the percentage of Frisian Speakers who no longer use their language in public life runs from 20% in contacts with public servants to 40% in comparable contacts with those in authority. Strangers in Friesland will hardly hear any Frisian addressed to them. Frisian is made use of by a minority of those who learned Frisian äs a second language. For this group, 60% do not speak it to public servants, and this number increases to 70% when speaking to those in authority. On the basis of these results, Frisian seems to be a language that is used primarily in relationships that are intimate or familiär. It fulfills a secondary role in anonymous public communication. Frisian Speakers appear to antici­ pate by opting for Dutch 'to be ready in advance' and on the basis of the rules of etiquette that specify that it is not pqlite to use Frisian to those who cannot speak or will not use the language themselves. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM Language use and ethnic identity 17 We find great disparities between Frisian Speakers who live in the country­ side and those in the towns. It is apparent in the urban mixed multilingual Situation that äs 'the risk' of coming into contact with non­Frisian Speakers increases, only half of the Frisian Speakers use their language (50% of the urban Frisian­speakers speak it in contacts with public servants and one­third when speaking to those in authority). Ethnicity: identification äs a Frisian Although the Frisian Movement is actively supported only by a minority, its influence is certainly much greater, and its goals are accepted by broad seg­ ments of the population. A considerable portion of Frisian Speakers Support the claim that Frisian is a Standard language that ought to have equal rights with Dutch and, in addition, that it ought to play an appropriate role in edu­ cation and in public administration. In contrast, the support for these Claims among Dutch Speakers is low, allochthons äs well äs autochthons. It is against this background that we formulate the question: to what degree can one speak of ethnic identification and how is such identification related to the Frisian language? In this section we shall attempt to determine the ethnic identity of the population according to the definitions applied by the dif­ ferent groups themselves: Frisian and Dutch Speakers, autochthons and allochthons. In the Netherlands, Frisian 'identity' is generally considered to be non­ ethnic, a solely geographic category. According to this view, each inhabitant of the province of Friesland is considered to be 'Frisian'. In contrast, in Friesland we can distinguish a genealogical and an ethnolinguistic definition; a solely geographic definition does not play any role (Van der Hank 1985). Among Frisian Speakers we find a definition of identity in which the language is. at least an important codeterminant. The importance of the lan­ guage criterion indeed increases proportionally äs the Frisian Speakers place more importance on the goals of the Frisian Movement. Although that of course could not be established in the 1980 study, we may assume that this ethnolinguistic criterion first gained such a large, and for many a primary, importance in recent times. As such, this criterion is a distinguishing feature whose choice can freely be made by each individual. One may disavow or claim it, in contrast to the genealogical definition that reflects assigned quality. Most likely what is being expressed here is the tendency that typifies modern regionalism, and in that regard, regional languages also: the accep­ tance of an ethnic identity äs a conscious choice and no longer solely äs a hereditary determination, a choice expressed in the use of the regional language. The Dutch­speaking autochthons in particular define someone Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 18 P. H. v.d. Plank (and themselves) äs being Frisian on the basis of family background. A com­ mand and use of the Frisian language is not a determinant of Frisian identity for them. It is noteworthy that the allochthons in Friesland concur with the ethno­ linguistic definition of the Frisian Speakers. Perhaps this is a sign that it is (becoming) a dominant feature of Frisian identity. The consequences of applying these definitions are expressed in the way the inhabitants of Friesland identify themselves. Do they consider themselves 'Frisian', and if they do, do they feel that this Frisian identity is more im­ portant than their formal Dutch identity (citizenship)? Or, do they think that they are flrst and foremost Dutch and only Frisian within that frame­ work (for example, äs a regional variant)? We asked the 1980 sample to define themselves äs primarily Frisian, or äs Dutch flrst and only second äs Frisian, or äs not Frisian at all. The answers are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Self-iden tity of Frisian Speakers and Du tch-speaking au loch thons and allochthons (%) Non­ Frisian Primarily Frisian First Dutch, second Frisian Frisian­speakers Dutch­speaking autochthons Dutch­speaking allochthons 57 40 3 539 30 45 25 235 7 18 75 230 Total population 39 36 25 1004 N A detailed comparison of these self­definitions with those of the Frisian identity äs such makes it apparent that the 'primarily' Frisians base their identity on an ethnolinguistic definition, and that the 'secondarily' Frisians use a definition in genealogical terms. The consequences of the expression of identity in different ways also become visible in the differences between the social classes in the population. Yet, the number of allochthons is increasing rapidly, and with it the number of 'non­Frisians'. Additionally, we also found a weaker ethnolinguistic con­ sciousness among the upper class, and even among the Frisian upper class, äs can be seen in Table 4. Identification äs being Frisian also has to do with the position one occupies on the social ladder. We may assume, on the basis of the results of our 1980 study, that both the ethnolinguistic definitions of identity and support for the emancipation of Frisian are based in the social lower class. The Frisian­ Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM Language use and ethnic identity Table 4. 19 Self-identity ofFrisian and Dutch Speakers according to social class (%) Frisian­speaking upper class lower class Dutch­speaking upper class lower class Total upper class lower class Primarily Frisian First Dutch, second Frisian 41 56 54 41 5 3 97 183 5 26 29 36 66 38 103 152 21 42 42 27 37 21 200 335 Non­ Frisian N speaking upper class is less 'Frisian­minded' in respect to Identification and toward the language movement, probably because it is more heavily oriented toward Dutch culture and more integrated into the allochthonous group. Some concluding remarks In Friesland one may speak of social contrasts that find their expression in language. These contrasts are confirmed explicitly by the manner in which identity is experienced. In this Situation, one would expect conflicts to occur between language groups. This is not the case in Friesland. Language conflicts do take place on a regulär basis but not, however, äs group conflicts. They are interpreted äs incidental and of a personal nature. Therefore, we may assume that the informal domains of social life offer enough room for a satisfying use of Frisian and for experiencing the Frisian identity. In the countryside, public life is Frisian. There, one cannot speak of a linguistic border between the in­ formal and the more formal domains of social life, äs is the case in the towns. Yet, in public life, Frisian Speakers are generally inclined to accommodate their use of language in accordance with their Dutch­speaking coinhabitants and even anticipate their presence by choosing for Dutch in anonymous situations. Whether or not this basis of the use of the Frisian language can be main­ tained, and whether or not it can continue äs a sufficient basis for Frisian to function in the future, are questions that the results of our study are unable to answer. The conscious attempts to foster the position of Frisian in formal domains like public administration and education, however, will be a new challenge to the Frisian Speakers, to widen their linguistic domains, and to the Dutch Speakers, to try their tolerance. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM 20 P. H. v.d. Plank Notes 1. 2. The linguistic borders of Frisian are not entirely identical to the provincial borders of Friesland. A small pari of the Frisian­speaking region is in the province of Groningen. Particulaily along the southern border of Friesland, one finds a non­ Frisian­speaking strip in which approximately one­tenth of the inhabitants of the province live. Jelsma et al. (1983) gives a tentative picture of the relationship between social stratification and language group. In doing so a different definition of stratification categories was used, with the result that the figures in that article differ from the definitive figures given here. The tendencies themselves, however, are the same that we proposed here. References Boelens, K., and Van der Veen, J. (1956). De taal van het schoolkind in Friesland. Leeuwarden­Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Bouma, L. H. (1949). De Fries om utens. It Beaken 11 (1/2). De Jager, J. (1977). It Fryske län en de Fryske stedden. De Stiennen Man 33 (6). Gorter, D., Jelsma, G. H., Van der Plank, P. H., and De Vos, H. (1984). Taal yn Fryslän. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Jelsma, G. H., Van der Plank, P. H., and Gorter, D. (1983). A social map of bilingual Friesland (2). In P. Neide (ed.), Vergleichbarkeit von Sprachkontakten, 181­192. Bonn: Dümmler. Pietersen, L. (1969). De Friezen en hun taal. Drachten: Laverman. Van der Plank, P. H. (1979). Frisian bilingualism in the Netherlands and Germany. Plural Societies 10, 71­95. ­ (1985). Ethnicite'dans une province peripherique: la Frise, Recherches Sociologiques 15. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/13/15 1:50 PM