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