Language Attitudes of Adults Living in Friesland Towards the Frisian

Transcription

Language Attitudes of Adults Living in Friesland
Towards the Frisian Language
Femke Swarte
Research Master Linguistics
Faculty of Arts
University of Groningen
Supervisors:
Dr. N.H. Hilton (University of Groningen)
Dr. E. Klinkenberg (Fryske Akademy)
August 2011
SUMMARY
This study investigated the language attitudes of the inhabitants of Friesland towards Frisian
after a period in which the Province of Friesland was concerned with the encouragement of
using the Frisian language more frequently and in which the number of trilingual schools
(where Frisian plays an important role as a language of education) was expanding rapidly.
Among other instruments, the Matched Guise Technique was used to measure the attitudes of
adults living in Friesland towards Frisian. This has not been done before on such a large scale
as in the present study. The results show that the attitudes towards Frisian partially changed
over the years. Frisian has gained more status among the inhabitants of Friesland.
Nevertheless, the attitudes towards learning Frisian are very negative among people who do
not speak Frisian.
Secondly, this study investigated if the attitudes of parents of children attending trilingual
schools differ positively from those of parents of children that attend monolingual schools.
This was not the case.
Earlier investigations indicated that people consciously and subconsciously hold attitudes
towards languages. The final research question was, whether different methods can uncover
the differences between these two kinds of attitudes. The present study shows that different
measurements indeed lead to different results.
ii
GEARFETTING
Yn dit ûndersyk is ûndersocht hokker taalattitudes de ynwenners fan Fryslân tsjinoer it Frysk
ha, nei in perioade weryn de Provinsje Fryslân besocht hat it gebrûk van de Fryske taal oan te
moedigjen en it oantal trijetalige skoallen (werby it Frysk als instruksjetaal in grutte rol spilet)
hurdt groeid is. Njonken oare metoades is the Matched Guise Technique brûkt om de
taalattitudes fan folwoeksenen út Fryslân mjitte te kinnen. Dat is noch nea op sa’n grutte skaal
dien as yn dit ûndersyk. De resultaten litte sjen dat de attitudes tsjinoer it Frysk troch de
jierren hinne in lyts bytsje feroare binne. It Frysk hat mear status krigen ûnder de ynwenners
fan Fryslân. De attitudes fan mensken die gjin Frysk prate tsjinoer it learen fan de Fryske taal
binne lykwols noch tige negatyf.
As twadde hold dit ûndersyk him dwaande mei de fraach oft de attitudes fan âlders fan
learlingen fan trijetalige skoallen positiver binne dan dy fan âlders fan bern fan inkeltalige
skoallen. Dat wie net it gefal.
Earder ûndersyk hat útwiisd dat guon minsken harren fan inkelde attitudes bewust binne
en fan oaren net. De lêste ûndersyksfraach wie dêrom oft ferskate metoades dizze ferskillen
yn attitude oanwize kinne. It ûndersyk lit sjen dat ferskate metoades yndie ferskate resultaten
opleverje.
iii
SAMENVATTING
In dit onderzoek werd onderzocht welke taalattitudes tegenover het Fries de inwoners van
Friesland hebben, na een periode waarin de Provincie Friesland geprobeerd heeft het gebruik
van het Fries aan te sporen en waarin het aantal drietalige scholen (waarin het Fries een grote
rol speelt als instructietaal) snel gegroeid is. Naast andere methodes, is er gebruik gemaakt
van de Matched Guise Technique, om de taalattitudes van volwassenen uit Friesland te meten.
Voorheen is dit nog nooit op zo’n grote schaal gedaan als in dit onderzoek. De resultaten
tonen aan dat de attitudes tegenover het Fries door de jaren heen gedeeltelijk veranderd zijn.
Het Fries heeft onder de inwoners van Friesland meer status verworven. De attitudes van
mensen die geen Fries spreken tegenover het leren van Fries zijn echter zeer negatief.
Ten tweede hield dit onderzoek zich bezig met de vraag of de attitudes van ouders van
kinderen van drietalige basisscholen tegenover het Fries positiever zijn dan die van ouders
van kinderen van enkeltalige scholen. Dit was niet het geval.
Eerder onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat mensen zich van een aantal van hun attitudes
bewust zijn en van een aantal niet. De laatste onderzoeksvraag was daarom, of verschillende
methodes de verschillen tussen deze attitudes kunnen aanwijzen. Het onderzoek toont aan dat
verschillende methodes inderdaad verschillende resultaten opleveren.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to give special thanks to my supervisors, Nanna Haug Hilton and Edwin
Klinkenberg, for their help and supervision. I would also like to thank the Fryske Akademy for
giving me the opportunity to do the interesting internship that resulted in this thesis. I want to
thank my colleagues, especially Kobe, Adrie and Saskia, for making every working day at the
Fryske Akademy very enjoyable for me.
I thank all the people that participated in my project and the people that spread my survey
among their friends and family, especially Jelle Bangma (CEDIN), Idske and Tjallien. Special
thanks goes out to the three speakers that recorded the fragments for my Matched Guise
investigation.
Finally, I owe great thanks to Elisa, Hannah, Joseph, Dennis, Esmée, Mona and my family for
their support during the five years I studied at the University of Groningen.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
ii
GEARFETTING
iii
SAMENVATTING
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
ix
LIST OF TABLES
xi
1. Introduction
1
2. Literature Review
4
2.1 Theorising Language Attitudes
4
2.1.1
Towards a Definition of ‘Language Attitudes’
4
2.1.2
Main Approaches towards Studying Language Attitudes
7
2.1.2.1 Direct Approaches
7
2.1.2.2 Indirect Approaches
9
2.2 Previous Studies into Language Attitudes
2.2.1
Studies into Attitudes towards Frisian
13
13
2.2.1.1 Direct Methods
13
2.2.1.2 Indirect Methods
15
2.2.1.3 Language Surveys
19
2.2.2
Research into Attitudes towards Other Minority Languages
21
2.2.2.1 Welsh
22
2.2.2.2 Catalan
24
2.3 The Present Study
27
3. Methodology
3.1 Instruments
31
31
3.1.1
The Matched Guise Test
31
3.1.2
Direct Questionnaire
35
3.2 Background Variables
38
3.3 Setting
38
3.4 Pilot
39
vi
3.5 Sample
40
3.6 Processing the Data
41
4. Results
43
4.1 The Matched Guise Test
43
4.1.1
Overall Ratings
43
4.1.2
Dimensions
44
4.1.2.1 Attractiveness Ratings
44
4.1.2.2 Status Ratings
47
4.1.2.3 Integrity Ratings
48
4.1.3
Personality Traits
48
4.1.3.1 Overall Ratings
48
4.1.3.2 Friendliness Ratings
51
4.1.3.3 Perceived Wealth Ratings
51
4.1.3.4 Honesty Ratings
53
53
4.1.3.6 Intelligence Ratings
56
4.1.3.7 Helpfulness Ratings
57
4.1.3.8 Summary
57
4.2 Statements
58
4.2.1
Personality Traits
58
4.2.2
Learning Frisian
59
4.3 Job Positions
62
4.4 Situations of Conversation
64
4.4.1
Answering a Dutch Question in Frisian
64
4.4.2
Giving Someone a Ticket to a Football Game
67
4.4.3
A Teacher who speaks Frisian in a Dutch School
70
4.4.4
Going to the Hairdresser
72
4.4.5
Summary
75
5. Discussion
5.1 Language Attitudes in Friesland – Overall Results Discussed
77
77
5.2 The Difference Between Parents with Children Attending Trilingual Schools
and Parents Attending Monolingual Schools
78
5.3 Differences Between Overt and Covert Attitudes
80
5.4 Variation in Language Attitudes: Social Group Effects
82
vii
6. Conclusion
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
88
APPENDIX A
93
APPENDIX B
106
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1
The three components attitudes are based on according to the multiple
component definition
5
2
Semantic Differential scale, form I
10
3
Semantic Differential scale, form II
10
4
The home language of the participants in 1980 and 1987 (Woolard and Gahng) 25
5
The correlation between the level of Frisian and the scores of the Frisian
fragments
6
44
The correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian
fragments
7
45
The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of
the Frisian fragments
8
46
The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the
Dutch fragments
9
46
The correlation between level of Frisian and the status scores of the Frisian
fragments
48
10 The ratings of the Dutch fragments on the personality traits
49
11 The ratings of the Frisian fragments on the personality traits
50
12 The correlation between age and the friendliness scores of the Dutch fragments 51
13 The correlation between level of Frisian and the perceived wealth scores of the
Frisian fragments
52
14 The correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian
fragments
54
15 The correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Dutch
fragments
54
16 The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the
Frisian fragments
55
17 The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the
Dutch fragments
55
18 The correlation between level of Frisian and the intelligence scores of the
Frisian fragments
19 Direct and indirect ratings of Frisian
20 The correlation between age and the attitudes towards learning Frisian
57
59/81
60
21 The correlation between level of Frisian and the attitudes towards learning
Frisian
22 The significant background variables on several levels of language attitudes
61
84
x
LIST OF TABLES
1
Source information about responses (Ajzen 1988)
2
The speakers and the fragments they recorded (Jonkman 1982)
3
The outcomes of earlier research projects into language attitudes towards Frisian 27
4
The duration of the fragments in seconds
34
5
Background of the participants of the pilot study
40
6
Background of the participants
41
7
Labels of the background variables
42
8
The significant background variables for the overall scores, the dimensions and
9
6
16
the personality traits, ordered by language
58
Internal reliability coefficients of the statements about learning Frisian
59
10 The association between L1 and reactions to someone who answers a Dutch
question in Frisian
65
11 The association between home languages and reactions to someone who
answers a Dutch question in Frisian
66
12 The association between place of birth and reactions to someone who
66
13 The association between level of Frisian and reactions to someone who
67
14 The association between L1 and the choice to give a ticket to a football game
to a Frisian or Dutch person
68
15 The association between home languages and the choice to give a ticket to a
football game to a Frisian or Dutch person
69
16 The association between place of birth and the choice to give a ticket to a
69
17 The association between level of Frisian and the choice to give a ticket to a
70
18 The association between home languages and reactions to a Frisian speaking
teacher in a Dutch school
71
19 The association between level of Frisian and reactions to a Frisian speaking
teacher in a Dutch school
20 The association between L1 and going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser
71
72
21 The association between home languages and going to a Frisian or Dutch
hairdresser
73
22 The association between level of Frisian and going to a Frisian or Dutch
hairdresser
74
23 The association between place of birth and going to a Frisian or Dutch
hairdresser
74
24 The association between the place where the participants were raised and
going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser
75
25 Summary of the significant background variables of the situations of
conversation
76
xii
1. Introduction
Frisian is a minority language in the Netherlands, where mainly Dutch is spoken. Since 1985,
policy documents have been written in order to determine the position of the Frisian language
in Friesland and the Netherlands. At first, policy makers were mostly concerned with
achieving equal rights for Frisian and establishing the status of the Frisian language. In 1970,
Frisian gained the status of second official language of the Netherlands (cf. Van Ruijven and
Ytsma 2008: 11). Gaining equal rights for Frisian and establishing the status of Frisian is still
an important part of the Frisian language policy. For example, the Dutch government plans to
include a paragraph about the Frisian language in the Dutch constitution at the moment (cf.
Rijksoverheid 2011).
Besides focusing on the rights and status of Frisian, the past few years the focus has rather
been on promoting the Frisian language. The title of the most recent policy report Beleidsplan
Friese taal 2008-2010. Van recht naar praktijk. Fries in Fryslân: taal tussen mensen
(‘Language Policy 2008-2010. From Law to Practice. Frisian in Friesland: Language among
People’) illustrates this shift in policy making. Since using Frisian in several domains has
been legally permitted, the Province of Friesland is now concerned with getting the language
to actually be used more by its inhabitants. To achieve this, the Province formulated a number
of goals in 2008, which described how Frisian should be used in several domains of the
Frisian society. Education and parenting play the most important role in promoting the Frisian
language. For example, one of the goals was that in 2010, half of the bilingual couples living
in Friesland were informed about the advantages of bilingualism, so that they could make a
deliberate choice to raise their children mono- or bilingually. Secondly, Frisian should play a
bigger role in education (cf. Province of Friesland 2011a: 35ff). A prominent example of this
is the project of the Trijetalige Skoalle (‘Trilingual School’). This project already started in
1997 at a number of elementary schools in Friesland. The idea of the project was to teach
pupils systematically in Dutch, English and Frisian; 50% Dutch and 50% Frisian in grades 1
to 6 (4 to 10 year-olds), 40% Dutch, 40% Frisian and 20% English in grades 7 and 8 (10 to 12
year-olds), to improve the Frisian pupils’ capability of reaching the attainment goals for those
languages (cf. Van Ruijven and Ytsma 2008: 8).
The evaluation of the project, carried out in 2008, showed that the Trijetalige Skoalle
indeed leads to pupils attaining better results in Frisian (cf. Van Ruijven and Ytsma 2008:
52f.). Pupils of trilingual schools achieve better results in Frisian than the pupils of the control
1
schools that participated in the project. An important conclusion is that focussing more on
Frisian does not lead to worse results in Dutch. Interestingly, the evaluation also showed that
the pupils who attend trilingual schools do not get better results in English, but are more
confident when speaking English than the pupils attending the control schools (cf. Van
Ruijven and Ytsma 2008: 52f.).
In the school year of 2005-2006 eight schools were certified as trilingual schools. Today,
41 schools participate in the network of trilingual schools (CEDIN 2011). Another 20% of the
primary schools in Friesland are bilingual and use Frisian next to Dutch as a medium of
instruction, however not as structurally as the trilingual schools. At the remaining schools,
Frisian is only taught as a subject. In most of these cases, 30-45 minutes per week are
reserved for Frisian lessons, which add up to 240 lessons in six years (cf. Gorter 2005: 62).
At this moment (2011) a new language policy is expected and most of the goals of the
policy 2008-2010 should be attained. The use of the Frisian language has been encouraged
and the number of trilingual schools is expanding. Has this paid off? The most recent quick
scan of the Frisian language (Province of Friesland 2011b) revealed that about 95% of the
people living in Friesland can speak Frisian, 74% are able to speak it, about 76% can read it
and only 30% can write Frisian. In comparison to the quick scan of the state of the Frisian
language in 2007, the year before the language policy 2008-2010 started, the situation of the
Frisian language is nearly stable. Only a small increase in people who can write Frisian can be
observed. In 2007, about 27% could write Frisian, in 2011, this is 30% (cf. Province of
Friesland 2011b: 7). Following from that, we can conclude that the use of Frisian has hardly
changed since 2007. Therefore, the main research question of the present study is what kinds
of attitudes the inhabitants of Friesland hold towards the Frisian language and what they think
about learning Frisian, in general and at school, after a period in which the use of Frisian was
strongly stimulated by the Province of Friesland. Since more and more schools are becoming
part of the project of the Trijetalige Skoalle, the second research question is whether the
attitudes of parents of children attending a trilingual school are more positive than the
attitudes of parents of children that attend monolingual schools. The final research question is
whether different measurements lead to different results. People might have certain prejudices
about a minority language such as Frisian which they probably do not like to show. It is
interesting to examine if indirect measurements can uncover these prejudices.
Section 2 provides a literature review with relevant background information on language
attitudes and previous studies into language attitudes towards Frisian and other minority
languages. Based on this information, the research questions and hypotheses of the present
2
study are presented at the end of this literature review. Section 3 covers the methodology of
the present study. Section 4 reports on the results, which are discussed in section 5. In section
6, the present study is summarized and a number of conclusions are made.
3
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theorising Language Attitudes
This section covers the theoretical background concerning language attitudes. In section 2.1.1
a definition as well as a few important features of language attitudes are discussed. Section
2.1.2 is concerned with a number of approaches towards the study of language attitudes.
2.1.1 Towards a Definition of ‘Language Attitudes’
The field of study on attitudes originally comes from the field of social psychology (cf.
Ebertowski 1978: 38). According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), attitudes consist of three
‘basic features: the notion that attitude is learned, that it predisposes action, and that such
actions are consistently favourable or unfavourable toward the object’ (cf. Fishbein and Ajzen
1975: 6). Ebertowski (1978) concludes from this definition, that a ‘language attitude’ can be
defined as a ‘learned predisposition from the language user to react consistently positively or
negatively to a language (-variety, -form)’ (Author’s translation from Ebertwoski 1978: 39).1
Attitudes are learned in a way that they are based on a person’s personal experiences and
social environment. Because of the fact that attitudes are based on past experiences they are
‘not momentary but relatively ‘enduring’’ (Agheyisi and Fishman 1970: 139) and relatively
hard to change. Two processes play an important role in learning attitudes. The first one is
‘observational learning, which involves noticing the behaviour of other people and the
consequences of that behaviour’ (Garrett 2010: 22). The second one is the process of
‘instrumental learning’ (Garrett 2010: 22), in which an individual gets familiar with the
consequences that come with certain attitudes.
Attitudes can have two different functions. On the one hand, a favourable attitude towards
a certain language can be input (in the form of motivation) to learn a specific language. One
could for example think that a language sounds very beautiful and start learning the language
for this reason. ‘In this sense, attitude is a predisposing factor, affecting the outcomes of
education’ (Baker 1992: 12). On the other hand, bad education can negatively affect one’s
attitude about a language. For example, one could have a horrible French teacher and hate
French because of that. In that way, the attitude is the output (Baker 1992: 12f.).
1
This quotation is translated into English by the author of this thesis. The original Dutch quotation is:
‘aangeleerde predispositie van de taalgebruiker om consistent positief of negatief te reageren m.b.t. een taal
(-variëteit, -vorm)’.
4
Attitude
Conative
aspect
Cognition
Affect
Fig. 1: The three components attitudes are based on according to the multiple component definition. Source:
Baker (1992): 13.
According to the ‘multiple component definition’, attitudes are not 'directly observable or
measurable. Instead they are inferred from the way we react to particular stimuli’ (Rosenberg
and Hovland 1960: 1). These reactions can be divided into three components: A cognitive, an
affective and a conative one (cf. figure 1). The cognitive component concerns the beliefs an
individual has about a particular group. These beliefs are based on the knowledge that one has
about the object of the attitude. The affective side of language attitudes involves emotions that
an individual has about people who speak a certain language. The conative aspect encloses the
behavioural intentions of an individual towards the object of the attitude (cf. Agheyisi and
Fishman 1970: 139; Ajzen 1988: 5ff.; Baker 1992: 12f.; Garrett 2010; Rosenberg and
Hovland 1960: 1f.).
It seems logical to think that when one changes a person’s attitude, that person’s
behaviour against the object of the attitude changes automatically and vice versa. However,
this is not always the case. A prominent example of this is the study of LaPiere (2010)2
carried out in 1934. This study showed a discrepancy between peoples’ behavioural intentions
and their actual behaviour. LaPiere visited 66 hotels and 184 restaurants together with
Chinese people. In almost all establishments they were served without problems (except from
one). Half a year later, LaPiere let representatives of the places they visited fill out a
questionnaire, in which he asked if Chinese people were welcome in their restaurant or hotel.
91% of the hotels and 92% of the dining places gave a negative answer. (cf. Garrett 2010:
25f.; LaPiere 2010: 8 ff.). Consequently, the conative side of a attitude does not say anything
about the actual behaviour, but only about how one wishes or thinks to behave (cf. Jonkman
2
The article “Attitudes vs. Actions” of LaPiere was reprinted in the International Journal of Epidemiology in
2010. This reprint has been used for the present thesis. The article was originally published in Social forces 4
in 1934.
5
1982: 12). Studies such as these indicate that people are not always aware of their attitudes.
Some attitudes are held consciously (overt attitudes) and some are held subconsciously
(covert attitudes). The difference between the reported behaviour and the actual behaviour in
LaPiere’s study is a clear example of this. People can be heavily influenced by their
environment and therefore act differently in certain situations from what they think they
would do. Following from that, someone’s consciously held attitudes can differ from his
subconsciously held attitudes. A solution to this problem could be to let someone else report
on a person’s behavioural attitude. Attitudes can be inferred from three authorities. Firstly, the
observer can investigate the reactions from the judging subject. Secondly, the subject can
uncover his or her own judgements. Finally, information about the reactions can be obtained
through reports made by friends and family of the subject (cf. table 1). Another solution could
be to use different measurements to uncover overt (conscious) and covert (subconscious)
attitudes. This will be further discussed in the next section.
Table 1: Source information about responses. Source: Ajzen 1988: 3.
Based on the theoretical background presented in this section, in this thesis language attitudes
are understood as learned ways to react to certain languages that function as stimuli. These
reactions can be brought down to three components: cognitive, affective and behavioural
intentions, and can be inferred from three sources: the observer, the subject and friends or
family of the subjects. Besides, attitudes can be held overtly (consciously) and covertly
(subconsciously). Because of the fact that attitudes are based on previous experiences, they
are not likely to change in a short period of time. Finally, attitudes can serve as input to as
well as output from a certain situation.
6
2.1.2 Main Approaches towards Studying Language Attitudes
Language attitude research is important for a number of reasons. First of all, attitudes towards
a certain language give an indication of ‘the status, value and importance’ (Baker 1992: 10) of
that language. It can be said that they ‘provide a measure of the health of the language’ (Baker
1992: 9). This is especially the case for minority languages like Frisian, which are always
under threat from a more dominant or larger language. In that sense, attitude measurements
can function as ‘social indicators of changing beliefs and the chances of success in policy
implementation’ (Baker 1992: 9). As we have seen in the previous chapter, it is important to
make a distinction between overtly and covertly held attitudes. People do not always behave
in the way they say or think they do. They can subconsciously hold different attitudes and
therefore act in another way in real situations as what they say they do when they are
reporting on their behaviour. We should keep this in mind, if we understand language
attitudes as predictors of the success of implementing policies. Secondly, ‘attitude studies can
also tell us about within-community and cross-community variation and cultural differences’
(Garrett, Coupland and Williams 2003: 14). Attitudes are after all learned behaviour and as a
consequence they are partially ‘related to social-group membership’ (Garrett, Coupland and
Williams 2003: 14).
The study of language attitudes is usually divided into two main approaches; direct and
indirect methods. Direct approaches are meant to measure the overtly held attitudes, the ones
that people are conscious about. The indirect methods work slightly more undisclosed and are
supposed to measure the covertly held attitudes. People are not directly conscious of having
these attitudes (cf. Garrett 2003: 24ff.; Agheyisi and Fishman 1970: 145).
In the present study, the division of the main approaches towards the study of language
attitudes in direct and indirect measurements is followed. In section 2.1.2.1 a few direct
measurements are discussed. Section 2.1.2.2 covers some indirect methods.
2.1.2.1 Direct Approaches
Direct approaches are measurements in which participants are directly asked about their
attitudes towards certain languages or varieties. In line with this, direct measurements uncover
the overtly held attitudes of the informants (cf. Garrett 2010: 39). There are two main
techniques to directly investigate language attitudes.
7
First of all, in questionnaires overtly held attitudes can be measured through open and
closed questions. The advantage of open questions is that the participants are able to give their
own opinions and do not have to choose an answer out of multiple given answers. However,
one of the disadvantages can be that people do not make the effort to write the answer down.
Open questioning can form a problem for the researcher as well, because the answers are hard
to score (cf. Agheyisi and Fishman 1970: 147).
Consequently, the big advantage of closed questions for the researcher is that the answers
are usually a lot easier to score compared to the answers of open questions. The informants
can also benefit from closed questioning, since these questions are easier to fill out. A
disadvantage of closed questions however is that if they are too easily built up, the
participants can answer the questions automatically, without considering if the answer they
choose really is the correct answer for them (cf. Agheyisi and Fishman 1970: 148).
Likert-type scaling is a frequently used scaling technique in closed questioning.3 With this
method, informants have to express to which extent they agree or disagree with a number of
statements through a scale. Ideally, the number of negative statements is the same as the
number of positive statements (cf. Garrett, Coupland and Williams 2003: 40). Mostly, a
Likert-scale includes five points: strongly agree, slightly agree, undecided, slightly disagree,
strongly disagree (Sommer 2001: 155). The midpoint of this scale is often seen as
problematic. Usually, the Likert-scale is seen as reliable to measure the ‘intensity of attitudes’
(Garrett, Coupland and Williams 2003: 41). The problem with the midpoint of the scale is that
the option ‘undecided’ does not really express an intense commitment (cf. Garrett, Coupland
and Williams 2003: 41 and Oppenheim 1992: 200). Other problems of the Likert-scale
concern the scoring of the items. Although the Likert-scale is an ordinal scale, it is often
falsely treated as an interval scale (cf. Edmondson 2005: 127).
Interviews are another way of asking people direct questions about their attitudes. They
have a great advantage, which is the immediate contact with the interviewer. Because of that,
participants usually take the questions more seriously. Interviews enable the researcher to
prevent boredom and irritation of the participant. However, this can form a problem as well, if
the researcher sends out the wrong signals. For example, the risk of biasing exists, i.e. the
informants can give socially desired answers (‘social desirability bias’) or answer every
question positively to favour the researcher (‘acquiescence bias’) (cf. Agheyisi and Fisman
1970: 149; Garrett, Coupland and Williams 2003: 28). The presence of the researcher is a
3
For other scaling techniques see also Stouffer and Thurstone 1950.
8
general problem of direct measurements, also for questionnaires. Certain characteristics of the
researcher can provoke reactions of the participants. Labov (2006) refers to this as the
‘Observer’s Paradox’. The ‘Observer’s Paradox’ represents a situation in which participants
can be influenced by the presence of a researcher (the observer) and answer in a different way
as compared to when the researcher is not in the same room observing them (cf. Garrett,
Coupland and Williams 2003: 29f.; Labov 2006: 86)
Finally, it is important to point out that most of the mentioned problems are common
difficulties of carrying out research. Nevertheless, the influence of some of these problems
can be decreased by using indirect methods to measure language attitudes. The next section
focuses on (a selection of) these methods.
2.1.2.2 Indirect Approaches
The indirect method to measure language attitudes that is most often used is the Matched
Guise Technique (MGT). It was developed by Lambert et al. (1972). He investigated the
language attitudes towards French and English held by French- and English-speaking people
living in Montreal. Lambert et al. developed the technique because he was ‘interested in
reactions that are attributable primarily to the language itself’ (Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner
and Fillenbaum 1972: 81). Therefore, Lambert et al. let their participants hear the same text
twice, once recorded in French and once recorded in English. Both fragments were recorded
by the same bilingual speaker. The subjects were asked to evaluate the speakers with regard to
several personality traits. They did not know that they were hearing some of the voices twice.
That way, the covertly held attitudes towards both languages could be measured (cf. Lambert,
Hodgson, Gardner and Fillenbaum 1972: 80f.).
In total Lambert used ten fragments. Eight of those were recorded by four bilingual
speakers. The two remaining voices were recorded by one English and one French speaking
person. These fragments did not form a MGT-pair, but were used as ‘filler voices’ at the
beginning of the test, to let the participants get used to the form of questioning (cf. Lambert
and Taylor 1972: 80). Lambert’s study led to interesting results. Both English- and Frenchspeaking participants evaluated the English guises higher. It is striking that the FrenchCanadian subjects rated the French guises even lower than the English-speaking subjects did
(cf. Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner and Fillenbaum 1972: 86ff.).
In combination with an MGT, the semantic differential scale is most often used (Zahn en
Hopper 1985: 113). This scale was developed by Karwoski and Odbert (1938) for their study
9
on synaesthesia (perception through a mixture of senses). Osgood (1957) adapted the scale to
measure meaning. The idea of the semantic differential is to let subjects judge something on a
scale. This scale consists of a bipolar pair, for example ugly – pretty. The scale contains a
number of points, which enable the informants to point out the intensity of their judgement
(cf. Garrett 2010: 55).
Basically, three things are needed for a semantic differential scale: stimuli in the form of a
concept (the thing that is judged), responses (the subject’s judgements) and scales (the bipolar
pairs). It is important to take relevant scales that are semantically stable. Semantically stable
means that the used bipolar pair should call forth as few connotations (emotional associations)
as possible. The concept small – large can for example be used for concepts like ELEPHANT
and INSECT without any problems, but if MY AUNT is large or small can be problematic,
because that is sometimes more a question of personal associations (cf. Osgood 1957: 77ff.).
There are two forms to present a semantic differential scale. Both times, the participants
mark the point which suits their judgements best with a cross. The outer points represent the
most extreme judgements, the points between the middle and the extremes, represent the less
extreme judgements. If a participant does not have an opinion, he or she can mark the point in
the middle.
LADY rough ___:___:___:___:___:___:___ smooth
ME fair ___:___:___:___:___:___:___ unfair, etc.
Fig. 2: Semantic differential scale, Form I. Source: Osgood et al. 1957: 81.
In the first form the scale is directly behind the concept. The advantage of this form is that
the participants constantly have to judge another concept, so that they cannot answer
automatically.
LADY
rough ___:___:___:___:___:___:___ smooth
fair ___: ___:___:___:___:___:___ unfair
active ___:___:___:___:___:___:___ passive etc.
Fig. 3: Semantic differential scale, Form II. Source: Osgood et al. 1957: 81.
10
In the second form different scales appear under one concept. This form is easier to fill out for
the informants. There is no evidence that the two different forms lead to different results (cf.
Osgood 1957: 81f.).
Most semantic differential scales have seven points. Research of Osgood (1957) has
shown that this amount of points is the most suitable for a semantic differential scale. On
scales with more points, the most outer points are hardly used. When the scales have less than
seven points, participants claimed to not have enough points to express their judgement (cf.
Osgood 1957: 85).
In MGT-studies, the bipolar pairs are often grouped into different dimensions. Researchers
often have different opinions about what these dimensions should look like. Zahn and Hopper
(1985), for instance, used pairs from the dimensions ‘superiority’ (such as strong – weak),
‘attractiveness’ (such as nice – awful) and ‘dynamism’ (such as energetic – lazy) (cf. Zahn
and Hopper 1985: 117f.). Lambert (1972) on the other hand uses the dimensions
‘competence’ (like intelligent – not intelligent), ‘personal integrity’ (like reliable –
unreliable) and ‘social attractiveness’ (like friendly – unfriendly). Not only the choice for
dimensions, but also the determination of which traits belong to which dimension, is
sometimes debatable. As mentioned above, Lambert sees ‘friendliness’ as
part of the
attractiveness dimension, while in other projects (for example Ytsma 1990) it is seen as part
of the solidarity dimension.
Something that should be taken into account when using semantic differential scales is
that a high score on a personality trait does not automatically lead to a positive attitude. If
someone rates a certain concept high on a scale, it does not always imply that his attitude
towards the concept is positive. We can think someone is rich, but that does not automatically
mean that we hold a positive attitude towards that person. For example, we could dislike rich
people because we are poor ourselves (cf. Garrett 2010: 71). If a high rating on a certain scale
can be seen as positive can depend on the judgements of concepts and associations with the
personality traits used in the scale.
As noted earlier, one advantage of the MGT is that it seems to be a good method to
measure covertly held attitudes. Another advantage is that the MGT’s way of questioning
does not as easily lead to socially desired answers, compared to most direct measurements.
The MGT certainly has its advantages, but there are some problems that should be addressed
here as well. Firstly, it is questionable if the informants perceive the language varieties used in
the fragments the same way as the researcher does. Participants may recognize a certain
accent that the researcher did not hear or vice versa, or the participants and researcher could
11
have different opinions about what bad grammar or standard language is (Garrett 2010: 58).
Secondly, the recording of the fragments might cause problems. Mostly, the speakers are
asked to read aloud a written text. This may sound slightly formal. Therefore it cannot be
assumed ‘that more spontaneous speech will be evaluated in the same way’ (Garrett 2010:
58). The most frequently uttered criticism of the MGT is that it assumes that ‘each population
or sub-population is characterized or identifiable by a single language variety’ (Agheyisi and
Fishman 1970: 146). Because of the problems that are linked to the MGT, adaptations of the
technique as well as other indirect methods are used in a number of language attitude studies.
A selection of these investigations will be discussed here.
Instead of making recordings with bilingual speakers, in some studies different
(monolingual) speakers are asked to record the speech-fragments. This is known as the
‘Verbal Guise Technique’. This technique is mostly used when a researcher is not able to find
multilingual speakers (cf. Garret, Coupland and Williams 2003: 53).
Another example of an adapted version of the MGT is Kimple’s (1968) study into
language varieties in conversations. He called his method the ‘Mirror Image Techniqe’ (MIT).
In this method, speakers recorded two different conversations in multiple languages. The
voices were divided over the following four versions of each of the two conversations (cf.
Agheyisi and Fishman 1970: 147):
i.
One, in which all speakers spoke the same language A;
ii.
Another version, in which some of the speakers spoke language A in some roles, and
B in other roles;
iii.
Another conversation, in which all speakers spoke the same language B;
iv.
And a last one, in which the languages in the particular roles of the second
conversation were switched (mirror image).
The recipients had the task to judge the fragments with regard to the relationship between the
speakers. It turned out that ‘speakers do have certain systematic notions about language
appropriateness with respect to factors such as topic, role-relation, and setting’ (Agheyisi and
Fishman 1970: 147).
12
2.2 Previous Studies into Language Attitudes
This section provides an overview of earlier investigations into language attitudes. On the one
hand, a number of projects that focus on attitudes towards the Frisian language will be
discussed. On the other hand a small insight in investigations into language attitudes towards
other minority languages is given, to be able to examine if certain aspects of language
attitudes towards Frisian are general for language attitudes towards minority languages.
2.2.1 Studies into Attitudes towards Frisian
The discussed projects about attitudes towards Frisian in the following sections are divided
into three categories: Projects in which direct methods are used (section 2.2.1.1), projects, in
which indirect methods are used (section 2.2.1.2) and language surveys (section 2.2.1.3). In
Friesland, a number of language surveys have been held to examine what the state of the
language is. In these language surveys aspects such as people’s competence in Frisian and the
use of the language have been investigated. Language attitudes are always an important part
of these surveys. Therefore, a separate section is reserved for discussing those surveys.
2.2.1.1 Direct Methods
Over the years, a few direct studies, in which language attitudes towards Frisian were directly
measured, have been carried out. Five of those are discussed in this section.
Smith (1979) carried out one of the first studies into language attitudes towards Frisian.
His study focussed on language behaviour and language attitudes in Terherne, a bilingual
community near the town Sneek, in the south-western part of Friesland. Because of the fact
that Terherne is located next to the Lake of Sneek, a large number of people own a holiday
home in Terherne and live there every summer (Smith 1978: 152ff.; Smith 1979: 7ff.).
Smith questioned both the actual inhabitants and the summer inhabitants of Terherne as
well as Dutch people living in Terherne through questionnaires and compared their results.
All three groups showed strikingly positive attitudes towards Frisian. The Dutch and summer
inhabitants of Terherne were almost as positive towards Frisian as the Frisian people living in
Terherne. The participants had to indicate what they thought about the preservation of the
Frisian language. It turned out that the Frisian inhabitants were more positive about the
13
preservation of the Frisian language than their Dutch and summer fellow-villagers (cf. Smith
1978: 133ff.; Smith 1979: 34ff.).
Another project was carried out by Gorter in 1985. He investigated the language situation
in the Frisian municipality It Hearrenfean. About 593 inhabitants of this region participated in
the project. Gorter conducted his questionnaires together with students of administrative
schools in Friesland. Gorter measured the attitudes of the inhabitants of It Hearrenfean while
at the same time measuring the attitudes of the students towards Frisian. For his investigation,
Gorter used 14 Likert-scales (Gorter 1985: 87ff.; Gorter en Ytsma 1988: 66).
The results showed that language background was an important variable: The Frisian
speaking inhabitants of It Hearrenfean held a more positive attitude than the participants who
did not speak Frisian. Furthermore, the students of the administrative schools had a more
negative attitude than the population of It Hearrenfean. Gorter explains that by referring to the
level of education and claims that people with a higher level of education have a more
negative attitude towards Frisian than people who are less educated (cf. Gorter and Ytsma
1988: 67f.).
In 1990, Jonkman investigated the attitudes towards Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert
Vernacular (Town Frisian). In contrast with his other language attitude investigations (cf.
section 2.2.1.2). Jonkman did not use the Matched Guise Technique, but he used ‘conceptual
guises’, i.e. he asked his participants to evaluate the concepts of certain languages (in this
study Frisian, Dutch and the Ljouwert Vernacular) on a number of personality traits. 282
inhabitants of Leeuwarden (Ljouwert), the capital of Friesland, participated. 74 of them had
Frisian as first language, 153 Dutch and 55 spoke the Ljouwert vernacular. It turned out that
Dutch scored the highest on the status traits. The participants evaluated Frisian the highest on
the solidarity traits. In total, the participants had the most positive attitude towards Dutch,
followed by Frisian. The Ljouwert vernacular scored the lowest (cf. Jonkman 1990: 16ff.).
Spelberg and Postma (1995) carried out a research project to measure the attitudes of
MDGO-students (social services/welfare) towards Frisian as a language in welfare. As a
technique they used Likert-scales and direct questions. 1466 students participated. The results
showed that the respondents who were native speakers of Frisian held a more positive attitude
towards Frisian and Frisian as a language in welfare than the Dutch informants. Another
interesting result was connected to the amount of education in Frisian the participants had
had. The more Frisian lessons they had had in school, the more positive their attitudes towards
Frisian were. Following from these results can therefore be concluded that the greater the
14
knowledge of Frisian, the more positive the attitudes towards Frisian are (cf. Spelberg and
Postma 1995: 32ff.).
A last project worth mentioning in this context is the investigation done by Bangma
(2009). Bangma examined the attitudes held by pupils in 7th and 8th grade (9- to 13-year-olds)
of primary schools at the Frisian country side. In the scope of the project the Trijetalige
Skoalle (‘Trilingual School’), that was carried out by the Fryske Akademy and the Province of
Friesland (cf. section 1. Introduction), she compared the results of pupils attending a trilingual
school with the results of pupils that attended a mono- or bilingual school. The project had
198 respondents. 30% of the participants attended a monolingual school, 34% a bilingual one
and 36% a trilingual one (cf. Bangma 2009: 27ff.). The results of Bangma’s investigation
showed that the pupils of multilingual schools have a more positive attitude towards the
Frisian language. This also holds for children with Frisian as first language. The results also
showed that the educational system does not affect the level of self-confidence of the children.
These results are in contradiction with the results of Van Ruijven and Ytsma’s (2008) report
on the effects of the trilingual school. They found that pupils attending trilingual schools are
more confident when speaking English than the pupils attending mono- or bilingual schools.
2.2.1.2 Indirect Methods
Considering indirect methods, which are meant to measure people’s covertly held attitudes,
only a few studies have been carried out investigating language attitudes towards Frisian
using the Matched Guise Technique (MGT). Van der Plank (1980) was the first one to
investigate language attitudes towards the Frisian language through an MGT-research. He
tried to investigate how people in Friesland react to Dutch and Frisian (cf. van der Plank
1980: 23). He used a conversation between a social worker and a client that was recorded in
Frisian and Dutch by the same speakers.
Thirty respondents participated in the project. 15 of them were students with a Frisian or a
Dutch language background. The other half consisted of ‘normal’ people with Frisian as a
first language. Considering the fact that the questionnaire consisted of two fragments only, the
risk that people would notice that they were hearing the same speakers twice was very
present. For that reason, Van der Plank decided to let half of the sample hear the Dutch
fragment and the other half the fragment in Frisian (cf. van der Plank 1980: 26f.).
The participants had to rate the speakers on a semantic differential scale with 20 pairs
from the dimensions ‘relationship’ (for example honest – dishonest), ‘contact’ (for example
15
outgoing – shy) and ‘authority’ (for example self-confident – insecure). The positive and
negative words appeared in turns on the left and right side of the scale to avoid automatic
judging (cf. van der Plank 1980: 28).
The outcomes showed that the subjects with a language background in Frisian rated the
Frisian speakers higher than the Dutch speakers. That was the same for both students and
‘normal’ participants. The Dutch informants showed no differences in rating the Frisian and
Dutch speakers (cf. van der Plank 1980: 37).
Jonkman (1982) was the second person to carry out an investigation of language attitudes
towards Frisian and a selection of Frisian dialects. This was his first MGT-project. He
examined the language attitudes held by students born in Friesland, but living in Groningen at
the time of the investigation. He investigated their attitudes towards standard-Frisian,
standard-Dutch, ‘neutral’ Frisian and the two dialects Kleifries (a dialect spoken in the
northern part of Friesland) and Zuidwesthoeks (a dialect spoken in the south-western part of
Friesland) (cf. Jonkman 1982: 23ff.). Jonkman used route descriptions (Paadwizers) to a
number of places in Leeuwarden, the capital of Friesland. In total, the project contained six
fragments (all with a different text); standard Frisian was used in two fragments, the other
four varieties were each used in one fragment.
Speaker:
Fragment 1:
Fragment 2:
Speaker 1
Bad Frisian
Neutral Frisian
Speaker 2
Kleifries (dialect)
Standard Frisian
Speaker 3
Standard Dutch
Standard Frisian
Table 2: The speakers and the fragments they recorded. Source: Jonkman 1982: 30ff.
The fragments were recorded by three bilingual speakers. One speaker covered a fragment in
‘bad’ Frisian (not a real variety, but rather ungrammatical Frisian) and one in ‘neutral’
Frisian. The second speaker recorded one fragment in Kleifries and one in standard Frisian.
The last speaker took care of the standard Dutch fragment and the other standard Frisian
fragment (cf. Table 2). Jonkman recorded the fragments along the side of the road, to let the
fragments seem as ‘real’ as possible (cf. Jonkman 1982: 28ff). This is a strange choice,
considering the fact that each fragment has other background noises that way. This may have
affected the judgements of the participants.
In total, twelve students with a language background in Frisian and twelve students with
Dutch as first language participated. They had to rate the speakers on ten personality traits
16
from the dimensions ‘competence’ (such as intelligent – stupid), ‘attractiveness’ (such as
friendly – unfriendly) and ‘integrity’ (such as fair – unfair) on a seven-point-scale (cf.
Jonkman 1982: 38ff.).
Jonkman’s results showed that the judgements of the Frisian subjects did not show a lot of
variation. This was the case for the ratings of the Frisian dialect-fragments as well as the
standard Dutch fragments. Although Jonkman did not expect to find many differences in the
ratings of the Dutch participants, the results of those showed more differences than the
outcomes of the Frisian subjects. The Dutch subjects did make a distinction between the
various Frisian dialects. They judged the Frisian dialect-fragments lower than the recordings
in standard speech (cf. Jonkman 1982: 44ff.).
In 1985 Jonkman carried out another investigation using the MGT. This time he
investigated the status of the Frisian and Dutch language. In addition one of his research
questions was what the consequences of certain language behaviour (for example answering
in Frisian, when someone is asking a question in Dutch) are (cf. Jonkman 1985: 37f.). For his
second Matched-Guise-project Jonkman used route descriptions again, this time in the form of
three conversations, in which the first speaker gave the second speaker a route description to
certain places. In the first fragment, in which a person wanted to go to the cinema, both
speakers spoke Dutch. In the second fragment, in which a person wanted to go to the library,
both speakers spoke Frisian. In the last fragment, a person asked where the city hall was in
Dutch and the second speaker answered in Frisian. The three conversations were all recorded
twice. The first time, the three different roles were recorded by three different speakers. The
second time, the three different roles were recorded by one and the same bilingual speaker.
Following from that, the last series of fragments were the actual MGT-fragments. Because the
same person recorded different roles, the roles could not influence the evaluation of the
language. That is why Jonkman called these recordings Skaadwizers (‘shadow guides’). The
other series of fragments were recorded by other speakers and were put between the three
Skaadwizer-fragments to reduce the risk that participants would notice that they were rating
the same speaker (cf. Jonkman 1985: 40ff.).
88 Dutch and Frisian students of the teacher training programme in Friesland (17- to 24year-olds) participated in the project. They had to rate the speakers through a semantic
differential scale on ‘status’ (like civilized – not civilized) and ‘solidarity’ (like warm – cold).
Apart from that, the subjects had to answer open questions on the language behaviour in the
fragments (cf. Jonkman 1985: 43f.).
17
The results of the Skaadwizer-investigation showed that the Frisian participants rated
Frisian higher on the solidarity traits. The Dutch participants rated Frisian and Dutch the same
on the solidarity traits. For the judgements on the status traits there were no differences found
between the Dutch and Frisian fragments. With regard to language behaviour, both groups
disapproved of the conversations, in which the second speaker answered in Frisian, while the
first one was asking a question in Dutch (cf. Jonkman 1985: 61ff.).
Ytsma (1990) was the first one to carry out a MGT-project in primary schools. He
investigated the language attitudes towards Frisian held by pupils of primary schools in the
Frisian country side. He considered primary language, gender and grade (5th grade and 8th
grade) as background variables. He used four fragments (two in Frisian, two in Dutch),
recorded by two male bilingual speakers. The speakers read out aloud a text about the weather
(cf. Ytsma 1990: 172f.). In total, 156 pupils (82 boys and 60 girls) participated in the
investigation. 46 of them had Dutch as native language, 96 had a language background in
Frisian. 69 pupils attended the 5th grade and 73 the 8th grade. The pupils had to rate the
fragments on eleven personality traits. In addition, they had to answer the question if they
would want to have the speaker as a teacher, father or neighbour and they had to point out,
what kind of career they thought the speaker would have. Apart from the MGT, the children
had to fill out 10 Likert-items on Frisian as a language at school, using Frisian as an oral
language, the symbolic value of Frisian, Frisian on television and their own ethnicity. Ytsma
included the Likert-scales, so that he could make a comparison between direct and indirect
measurements (cf. Ytsma 1990: 173f.).
The results of the Likert-items showed that only the language background made a
difference. The Dutch children had a negative attitude towards Frisian, the Frisian pupils held
a neutral attitude towards their own language. A striking result was that the Frisian pupils had
a more negative attitude towards Frisian in the 8th grade than they had in the 5th (cf. Ytsma
1990: 174f.). It seems that those Frisian speaking pupils that hold a neutral attitude towards
their own language in the 5th grade have taken over the negative attitude that their Dutch
speaking class mates hold towards Frisian by the time they attend 8th grade.
Regarding the MGT, the results showed that both Frisian and Dutch subjects rated Frisian
high on solidarity traits. The Frisian pupils rated Dutch higher on status traits. Once again, the
Frisian pupils rated their own language as more negative in the 8th grade than they did in the
5th grade here. The Dutch participants on the contrary, rated Frisian higher on solidarity traits
in the 8th grade than they did in the 5th grade. Finally, the boys rated Frisian lower on status
than the girls (cf. Ytsma 1990: 175ff.).
18
Ytsma found two correlations, which were both very weak. On the one hand he found that
when someone rated Frisian lower on solidarity and Dutch higher on status in a MGT-part, he
or she held a more negative overt attitude towards Frisian as well. Both dimensions of the
MGT correlated as well; a low solidarity ranking for Frisian went together with a high status
ranking for Dutch (cf. Ytsma 1990: 179).
2.2.1.3 Language Surveys
Aside from the investigations discussed in the previous sections, there have been a few
language surveys carried out in Friesland. The study of language attitudes played a role in
these. The methods and results of those surveys will be discussed here.
In 1969, Pietersen carried out the first language survey in Friesland. The part of the survey
concerned with attitudes towards Frisian contained questions about language behaviour, in the
form of reading Frisian books and listening to Frisian radio, and questions about what
Pietersen called language ideology (the system of norms and expectations that one has about a
language, on which one justifies the use of a language in certain situations and the feeling one
has for that language) in addition, there were a number of questions about the attractiveness
and status of Frisian (cf. Pietersen 1969: 91).
Pietersen’s questionnaire contained 76 closed questions, mostly containing Likert-scales
(with five or three points). 800 people (12 years and older) living in Friesland participated in
the project. Since people of eleven municipalities in Friesland took part in the investigation,
this group formed a representative sample for the population of Friesland (the Frisian isles not
included) (cf. Pietersen 1969: 10).
The results concerning the language behaviour showed that 53% of the people living in
Friesland read a Frisian book sometimes. However, 73% of those still read Dutch books more
often. About half of the people living in Friesland sometimes listen to Frisian radio-programs
(cf. Pietersen 1969: 130). Considering the language ideology, the following conclusions were
made:
i.
Elderly people showed more affinity for Frisian than younger people;
ii.
People who are born in Friesland showed a greater connection with Frisian than
people who moved from other Dutch provinces to Friesland;
19
iii.
People who lived on the countryside had a greater feeling for Frisian than the people
who lived in the urban regions;
iv.
Religious people (mostly Christian) seemed to have a greater connection with Frisian
than people, who never visited a church;
v.
Farmers had the greatest affinity with Frisian, members of the middle and higher class
the weakest;
vi.
Income did not affect the amount of affinity with Frisian;
vii.
Education did; the higher the level of education, the weaker the connection with
Frisian (for all conclusions, cf. Pietersen 1969: 133f.).
Furthermore, the survey contained a question in which the participants were asked to make a
rank order of seven languages (Frisian, Dutch, English, German, French and two Dutch
dialects: Limburgs and Gronings), with the most beautiful language on top. Frisian was
ranked as the most beautiful language, followed by Dutch. This was related to the rank order
of population groups: Frisians were ranked the highest, followed by the Dutch. Although the
participants claimed Dutch to have more power than Frisian, the results did not confirm that
Dutch had more status than Frisian (cf. Pietersen 1969: 138ff.).
Finally, the informants were asked in which language they address people in certain
domains. The results showed that 93% of the Frisians claimed to speak Frisian if they opened
the door after someone rang their doorbell. In the supermarket, 85% of the Frisians would
speak Frisian. Only 58% of the Frisians would address a person in a higher function (doctor,
director etc.) in Frisian (cf. Pietersen 1969: 59ff.).
Based on Pietersen’s project, about ten years later, Gorter and Jonkman (1984) carried out
another large language survey in Friesland. 1126 people participated in this investigation (cf.
Gorter and Jonkman 1984: 264). In a section about language ideology, the conclusions were
the same as in Pietersen’s survey (cf. i-vii above). However, Gorter and Jonkman (1984)
found that language background played the largest role in the forming of a language ideology.
The results showed as well, that people (both Frisian and not Frisian) living in areas where
Frisian is the main spoken language held more positive attitudes than people who lived in
areas where most people spoke Dutch (cf. Gorter and Jonkman 1984: 425ff.).
Furthermore, just as in Pietersens’s survey, the participants in Gorter and Jonkman (1984)
were asked which language they spoke to people in certain occupations (for example a doctor,
a tourist, a teacher etc.). These occupations were divided into occupations with a higher and
20
occupations with a lower status. The results showed that people in lower occupations are more
often addressed in Frisian than people in higher occupations. The outcomes also showed that
participants with a higher social economic status were less positive towards Frisian than those
with a lower social economic status (cf. Gorter and Jonkman 1984: 181ff.).
A final interesting result brought the question about Frisian as a language in school. 16%
of the participants were against the law that makes the teaching of Frisian in Frisian primary
schools obligatory. These were mostly people that moved from other Dutch provinces to
Friesland, people who do not have Frisian as their first language, or elderly people (cf. Gorter
and Jonkman 1984: 428f.).
In 1995, Gorter and Jonkman carried out another language survey, from which they
compared the results to the results of the surveys from 1969 an 1984. This time, 1368 people
participated (cf. Gorter and Jonkman 1995: 5). The results were approximately the same as in
1969 and 1984. The language attitudes towards Frisian did not change and language
background was still the most important background variable (cf. Gorter and Jonkman 1995:
32ff.). The results for the language behaviour hardly changed as well. Only the use of Frisian
in public places showed a small decrease (cf. Gorter and Jonkman 1995: 16ff.).
2.2.2 Research into Attitudes towards Other Minority Languages
In this section an overview of research projects into attitudes towards a number of other
minority languages is made to investigate if certain tendencies that were noticeable through
the results of the Frisian projects can be seen as general for minority languages.
First of all, a few investigations on attitudes towards Welsh are summarized. Welsh is a
minority language spoken in the south-western part of the United Kingdom. Since 1901, the
number of people that speak Welsh has been decreasing. Since 1991, however, this number is
stabilizing, probably because more people are realizing what the consequences of the
extinction of the Welsh language would be, and because of the growth of the Welsh media
(cf. Laugharne 2007: 208f.).
Furthermore, a few projects on attitudes towards Catalan will be discussed. The language
situation in Catalonia shows similarities to the situation in Friesland insofar that both Catalan
and Frisian received status as an official language not so long ago (Catalan in 1983, Frisian in
21
1970). Due to this fact, a lot of changes in language policies have taken place in Friesland as
well as Catalonia (cf. Woolard and Gahng 1990: 314ff.).4
2.2.2.1 Welsh
Wales is a region in the south-western part of the United Kingdom. About 5.2 million people
live in Wales. Today, 20% of these people speak Welsh, a language that is part of the Celtic
language family. The number of Welsh speakers has been decreasing for a long time. For
example, in 1901 50% of the Welshmen were able to speak Welsh. Following from that, this
number decreased with 30% in one century. On the other hand, this number has been
stabilizing since 1991, probably because growing sense of the consequences of the extinction
of the language and the increase of Welsh media. This situation offers a lot of opportunities
for the study of language attitudes (cf. Laugharne 2007: 208ff.).
In 1973, Bourhis, Giles and Tajfel carried out a Matched Guise project to investigate how
Welsh people evaluated Welshmen that spoke different languages. The 63 participants were
divided into three groups:
i.
‘Welshmen who prefer to use their native tongue,
ii.
Welshmen who cannot speak [Welsh] but who nevertheless have traces of a Welsh
accent in their speech,
iii.
Welshmen who cannot speak [Welsh] and whose English is characterized by an RP5style of speech’ (Bourhis, Giles and Tajfel 1973: 451)
Two male bilinguals recorded the same text three times; once in a South-Welsh dialect, once
in English with a South-Welsh accent and once in Standard English. The speakers read a
neutral text consisting of 290 words in 90 seconds. In addition, four filler voices were used
(cf. Bourhis, Giles and Tajfel 1973: 452).
The results showed that the level of Welsh language background did not play a role in
forming attitudes. All groups rated the South-Welsh dialect-fragments higher than the
recordings in Standard English (cf. Bourhis, Giles and Tajfel 1973: 457).
4
Interestingly, Welsh and Catalan are often linked to Frisian, cf. for example Ytsma, Viladot and Giles 1994;
Huguet 2007 and the PowerPoint presentation from Hilton, Gooskens, Schüppert, Van Bezooijen and Van
Heuven at the Dei fan de Fryske Taalkunde from the Fryske Akademy in October 2010: Attitudes towards
Frisian – in the Netherlands and Beyond.
5
RP: Received Pronunciation, the standardized version of English.
22
In the same year, Sharp carried out a project about language attitudes of secondary school
pupils towards Welsh and English. 4015 pupils participated in the project. They had to fill out
a questionnaire and scale conceptual guises of English and Welsh on a semantic differential
scale (cf. Sharp 1973: 158).
The main outcomes were as follows: The older the pupils were, the more positive they
were towards English and the more negative attitudes they held towards Welsh. It was striking
that English speaking pupils attending bilingual schools were more positive to Welsh than
pupils that were actually Welsh speaking (cf. Sharp 1973: 155f.). The results from the
semantic differential scales showed some interesting results as well. English was rated high
on all scales, while Welsh only scored high on the integrity traits, such as friendly and warm
(cf. Sharp 1973: 314ff.).
In 2007, Laugharne carried out another research project about language attitudes towards
Welsh and English in the scope of the project ‘Multilingualism in European Bilingual
Contexts’. 203 trainee teacher students were tested. The sample was slightly unequal. 46% of
the students had English as their native language, 25% spoke Welsh as mother tongue, 26%
considered themselves native speakers in both languages and 3% claimed to have another first
language (cf. Laugharne 2007: 217).
In general, participants were more favourable towards Welsh than they were to English.
The results of Laugharne’s project showed that the first language of the respondents played an
important role in the forming of their attitudes. The participants with Welsh as a first language
(bilinguals included) held a more positive attitude towards Welsh than the other informants.
Town size was also an important background variable. Respondents that came from towns
with less than 100.000 inhabitants held more positive attitudes towards Welsh than informants
from larger cities (cf. Laugharne 2007: 219ff.).
Summarizing, a number of similarities between the attitudes towards Welsh and the
attitudes towards Frisian can be made. Firstly, the outcomes of the investigations into attitudes
towards the Welsh language show that people who speak Welsh themselves hold a more
positive attitude towards Welsh than people who only speak English. The same observation
can be made in relationship to Frisian; people who speak Frisian as a first language hold more
positive attitudes towards Frisian than people who speak Dutch as a mother tongue (cf. Smith
1979; Van der Plank 1980; Gorter 1985; Spelberg and Postma 1995 and Ytsma 1990).
Secondly, the outcomes of the investigations discussed above point out that the older people
are, the more positive their attitude towards Welsh is. This is the case for Frisian as well (cf.
Pietersen 1969, Gorter and Jonkman (1984), Gorter and Jonkman (1995). Finally, the
23
outcomes of Laugharne’s (2007) project show that people who come from smaller towns hold
more positive attitudes towards Welsh than people who live in larger cities. Similar results
were found in Friesland. The language surveys of Pietersen (1969), and Gorter and Jonkman
(1984, 1995) point out that people who live in the Frisian countryside hold more positive
attitudes towards Frisian than the inhabitants of the Frisian cities.
2.2.2.2 Catalan
During the regime of the Spanish dictator Franco, the minority language Catalan, spoken in
Catalonia, was severely suppressed. After Franco’s death in 1975, the language situation in
Catalonia changed a lot. Catalonia became politically autonomous and policies to preserve
Catalan were formed. The great amount of Spanish-speaking immigrants moving to Catalonia
from South-Spain slowed down this process. In 1983, however, the official language status of
Catalan was established. Since then it is allowed to use Catalan as a language in government
and administration, a Catalan television channel has been set up and it is obligatory to teach at
least one subject in Catalan at school (cf. Woolard and Gahng 1990: 314ff.).
Because of the changes in language policies, Catalonia forms an interesting region for
language attitude research. Woolard and Gahng (1990) investigated changes in language
attitudes towards Catalan and Spanish between the period five years after the end of Franco’s
regime and 1987, when the moment that Catalan had gained the status of an official language
(1983) was a few years ago. Their first measurement took place in Barcelona in 1980, a few
years after the end of the regime of Franco, when Catalan just got the status of an official
language. 240 secondary school students participated. As method, the Matched Guise
Technique was used. Four young women read a one-minute-long text with an academic
subject, once in Spanish and once in Catalan. Together they recorded eight fragments. The
respondents had to rate the fragments on solidarity and status traits (cf. Woolard and Gahng
1990: 317f.).
The participants of the first project rated Catalan higher on status and Spanish higher on
solidarity traits. Although it is unusual that a minority language is judged higher on status
than the majority language used in the same region, the greater status of Catalan could be
connected to the ‘superior economic position of Catalans’ (Woolard and Gahng 1990: 351).
The Spanish respondents rated the Spanish speakers higher when they used Spanish than
when they spoke Catalan. Woolard concluded from these outcomes, ‘that second language
24
speakers of Catalan were likely to be discouraged rather than recruited in informal interaction’
(Woolard and Gahng 1990: 315).
The second project was carried out in 1987. The same method and fragments as in 1980
were used. This time, 276 secondary school students participated. Their language background
differed slightly from that one of the respondents in 1980 (cf. figure 4). The number of
participants that had Spanish as first language was the same. In 1987 there were less
respondents that spoke Catalan as mother language, but the amount of informants that
indicated both languages as their home language was larger than in 1980 (cf. Woolard and
Gahng 1990: 319).
Fig. 4: The home language of the participants in 1980 and 1987. Castilian is another name for Spanish. Source:
Woolard and Gahng 1990: 319.
The results of the second measurement showed, that the difference between the solidarity and
status ratings of the Catalan fragments had decreased. The judgements on the status of Catalan
stayed the same. The solidarity ratings, on the other hand, were more positive than in 1980.
This was the case for attitudes towards the use of Catalan by Spanish native speakers as well
(cf. Woolard and Gahng 1990: 320ff.).
Huguet and Llurda (2001) investigated the attitudes towards Catalan and Spanish in
Catalonia, where Catalan has an official status, and in the border area of Aragon, a region
close to Catalonia, where Catalan is spoken but does not have an official status. Huguet and
Llurda considered home language, social professional status, the region where the participants
lived and the amount of classes they took in Catalan as background variables (cf. Huguet and
Llurda 2001: 270).
25
In total, 257 school students (13- and 14-year-olds) filled out a questionnaire: 94 from
Catalonia and 163 from Aragon. The results showed that the respondents from Catalonia were
more positive towards Catalan than the participants from Aragon. Participants that took
classes in Catalan had a more favourable attitude towards that language than the respondents
that did not take classes in Catalan. For the results of the Catalan respondents, the home
language did not affect the attitudes towards Catalan, but did play a role for the attitudes
towards Spanish; bilingual informants of Catalonia were more positive towards Spanish. For
the results of the respondents living in Aragon, it was exactly the other way around. The home
language did not affect the attitudes of the participants of Aragon towards Spanish, but
Catalan speakers from Aragon were more positive towards Catalan than the subjects from
Aragon that did not speak Catalan. Social professional status did not affect the outcomes (cf.
Huguet and Llurda 2001: 318ff.).
In 2007, Huguet carried out another language attitude study in the scope of the project
‘Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts’.6 Through a direct questionnaire, he
investigated the language attitudes of 309 students from the universities of Girona and Lleida
towards Catalan, Spanish and English. The distribution of the participants was very spread
out. 88% of the respondents were females and only 12% were males. 64% of the participants
spoke Catalan as first language, 22,5% Spanish, 13% had both languages as mother tongues
and 0,5 % had another native language (cf. Huguet 2007: 26f.).
In total, the participants were most positive towards Catalan. Spanish and English were
judged the same. The first language of the informants affected the results insofar that the
respondents with Catalan as native language held a more favourable attitude towards Catalan
than those with other language backgrounds. The ones that had education in Catalan were
more positive towards Catalan than the participants that did not. Another variable that
affected the outcomes was the size of the city the participants lived in. Respondents from
cities with more than 100.000 residents held more positive attitudes towards Spanish than the
informants from smaller cities. Social economic status did not play a role for the results (cf.
Huguet 2007: 27ff.).
Summarizing, just as for Welsh, there can be found similarities between the attitudes
towards Catalan and the attitudes towards Frisian. For example, people who speak Catalan as
a first language hold more positive attitudes towards Catalan than people who have Spanish as
a native language. This also counts for Frisian; Frisian speaking people hold more positive
6
For comparisons: cf. The project of Laugharne (2007) on language attitudes towards Welsh (section 2.2.2.1).
26
attitudes towards Frisian than Dutch speaking people (cf. cf. Smith 1979; Van der Plank 1980;
Gorter 1985; Spelberg and Postma 1995 and Ytsma 1990). Although there are similarities
between the attitudes towards Frisian and the attitudes towards Catalan, there are differences
as well. For instance, in the investigation of Woolard and Gahng (1990) Catalan scores higher
on status traits than Spanish. None of the investigations discussed in this literature review lead
to a similar result for Frisian.
The comparisons with attitudes towards Catalan and Welsh can be helpful to understand
the attitudes towards Frisian in a broader perspective. Some tendencies seem to be general for
minority languages, like the fact that people who speak a minority language as a first
language often hold more positive attitudes towards that minority language than people who
speak the majority language of a region. Other tendencies are more specific for a certain
minority language. The fact that some people attribute a higher status to Catalan than to
Spanish, which probably has to do with the ‘superior economic position of Catalans’
(Woolard and Gahng 1990: 351), can be seen as an example of this.
2.3 The Present Study
This literature review discussed the theory of language attitudes and earlier investigations into
attitudes towards Frisian. Based on the results of these earlier investigations, the research
questions and hypotheses for the present study can be formulated in this section. First, the
outcomes of the previous studies into language attitudes discussed in the literature review are
summarized in the table below. The table provides a quick overview of previous
investigations and the background variables that played an important role in relationship to
the attitudes towards Frisian measured in the described investigations. The hypotheses for the
present study are based on those outcomes.
Type of
Investigation
Frisian – Direct
methods
Smith (1979)
Gorter (1985)
Sample
Results
Frisian and Dutch
inhabitants and
summer villagers of
Terherne
Inhabitants of It
Hearrenfean and
students of
administration
schools
1. All three groups hold positive attitudes towards Frisian
2. Frisians speaking people are more positive about the
preservation of the Frisian language than Dutch speaking people
1. Frisian speaking people hold a more positive attitude towards
Frisian than Dutch speaking people
2. Students hold more negative attitudes towards Frisian than the
adults of It Hearrenfean
27
Jonkman (1990)
Spelberg and
Postma (1995)
Bangma (2009)
Frisian – Indirect
methods
Van der Plank
(1980)
Jonkman (1982)
Jonkman (1985)
Ytsma (1990)
Frisian – Language
surveys
Adults living in
Leeuwarden
Welfare students
9- to 13-year-old
pupils of tri- and
monolingual
schools
Frisian and Dutch
university students
and Frisian adults
Frisian and Dutch
university students
Students of a
teacher training
programme in
Friesland
5th and 8th graders
of primary schools
on the Frisian
countryside
People living in
Friesland
1. Dutch conceptual guises score higher on status traits
2. Frisian conceptual guises score higher on solidarity traits
1. Native speakers of Frisian hold more positive attitudes towards
2. The more education in Frisian people have had, the more
positive is their attitude towards Frisian
1. Pupils of trilingual schools hold more positive attitudes towards
Frisian than pupils of monolingual schools
2. Frisian speaking pupils hold more positive attitudes than Dutch
speaking pupils
Frisian speaking people hold more positive attitudes towards
1. Frisian speaking students evaluate Frisian and Dutch the same
2. Dutch speaking students rate the Frisian dialects more negative
than Standard Frisian
1. Frisian scores higher on solidarity traits
2. Regarding status traits, no differences were found
3. All students reacted in a negative way to a conversation in
which someone answered a Dutch question in Frisian
1. Dutch speaking pupils hold more negative attitudes towards
Frisian than Frisian speaking pupils
2. Frisian speaking 8th graders hold more negative attitudes
towards Frisian than Frisian speaking 5th graders
3. Frisian scores higher on solidarity traits
4. Frisian speaking pupils rate Dutch higher on status traits than
Frisian
5. Pupils with a covert negative attitude towards Frisian hold overt
negative attitudes towards Frisian as well
1. Elderly people showed more affinity for Frisian than younger
people;
2. People who are born in Friesland showed a greater connection
with Frisian than people who moved from other Dutch provinces
to Friesland;
3. People who lived on the countryside, had a greater feeling for
Frisian than the people, who lived in the urban regions;
4. Religious people (mostly Christian) seemed to have a greater
connection with Frisian than people, who never visited a church;
5. Farmers had the greatest affinity with Frisian, members of the
middle and higher class the weakest;
6. Income did not affect the amount of affinity with Frisian;
7. Education did; the higher the level of education, the weaker the
connection with Frisian (for all conclusions, cf. Pietersen 1969:
133f.).
8. People in lower occupations are more often addressed in Frisian
than people in higher occupations
Table 3: The outcomes of earlier research projects into language attitudes towards Frisian.
28
The three main questions of the present study are as follows:
i.
Other studies (cf. Woolard and Gahng 1990) show that minority languages can gain
more status after positive changes in language policies. For the past several years the
use of Frisian has been heavily encouraged by the Province of Friesland. What kinds
of attitudes towards Frisian do adults living in Friesland hold after such a period?
ii.
As mentioned in section 1. Introduction, the number of trilingual schools is growing
rapidly in Friesland and the Province of Friesland is trying to make parents more
conscious of the advantages of raising their children bilingually. As Van Ruijven and
Ytsma (2008) and Bangma (2009) point out, trilingual education has a positive effect
on the pupils that attend trilingual schools. Their results in Frisian are better and their
attitudes towards Frisian are more positive than those of children who attend
monolingual schools. But do parents of children attending trilingual schools also hold
more positive attitudes towards Frisian than parents of children that attend
monolingual schools?
iii.
Several studies indicate that overtly held attitudes can often differ from covertly held
attitudes (cf. for instance LaPiere (2010)). Can different methods reveal these
differences in attitudes, i.e. do different measurements lead to different results?
Based on the literature review the following hypotheses can be formulated in relationship to
the research questions:
i.
Language background. Participants who speak Frisian as native language will hold
more positive attitudes towards Frisian than the informants who speak Dutch as first
language.
ii.
Educational background in Frisian. Since previous investigations have indicated
that the amount of education in a minority language has a positive effect on the
attitudes of pupils towards that language, it is assumed that this is the case for the
participants of the present study as well. People with a higher level of Frisian will be
more positive towards Frisian than participants with a lower level of Frisian.
iii.
Mono- versus trilingual schools. Since children attending trilingual schools hold
more positive attitudes towards Frisian than children that attend monolingual schools,
it is expected that this also holds for parents of children attending tri- and monolingual
schools. The attitudes of parents of children that attend trilingual schools towards
29
Frisian will be more positive than the attitudes of parents of children attending
monolinguals schools.
iv.
Direct versus indirect measurements. Because of the fact that the chance of getting
socially desired answers is more present when using direct methods than when using
indirect methods, it can be expected that the direct measurements used in this
investigation will result in more positive attitudes than the indirect measurements,
assuming that different measurements will lead to different results.
v.
Status versus integrity and attractiveness traits. The part in which the attitudes are
indirectly measured will consist of a number of Matched-Guise-Fragments which the
participants have to rate on status, integrity and attractiveness traits. Based on findings
in previous investigations we can expect that Dutch will be rated higher on the status
traits, while Frisian will score higher on the attractiveness and integrity traits.
30
3. Methodology
To measure the attitudes of people living in Friesland towards Frisian and Dutch, a web based
survey was developed. Due to the two different groups of participants (the parents of Frisian
primary school pupils and the ‘regular’ adults living in Friesland) two separate surveys were
designed. To be able to randomize questions, two versions of each survey were created. In
total there were four versions. The surveys for the parents and the ‘regular’ adults were nearly
the same (for the differences, cf. section 3.2 Background Variables). Both surveys can be
found in Appendix A and B.
In order to be able to investigate if different methods lead to different results, the survey
included two different measurements: Indirect questions about the participants’ attitudes
towards Frisian in the form of a Matched Guise Test and a list of direct questions about their
attitudes towards Frisian. Both techniques will be further explained in section 3.1 Instruments.
Section 3.2 discusses which background variables are taken into account. Section 3.3 Setting
covers information about the program that was used to get the survey online and how the data
was gathered. Section 3.4 Pilot is concerned with the set-up of the test version of the survey.
The last two sections are concerned with the sample and the processing of the data.
3.1 Instruments
3.1.1 The Matched Guise Test
In the Matched Guise Test, six fragments (three in Frisian, three in Dutch) were used as
stimuli. All the fragments contained the same text. In order to reduce the influence of the
participants’ attitudes towards a certain topic, the topic of the text had to be as objective as
possible (cf. Jonkman 1982: 9). Therefore, one of Jonkman’s Paadwizers (route descriptions)
in ‘neutral Frisian’ was chosen as text for the fragments (cf. Jonkman 1982: 30). The Frisian
text was slightly adapted (the first sentence and some pauses of the original text from
Jonkman were removed) and then translated into Dutch7:
7
Free translation of the author: “The Weigh house? That is pretty easy to explain. At best I’ll send you in that
direction. Look, you have to go past the car park towards that corner over there. You have to go through the
alley, which is right in front of you. You have to go through there and then you are at the quiet side of the
Nieuwstad (shopping street of Leeuwarden). Well, there you have to go to the left, along the canal, straight
on. Then you’ll see it on the end of the Nieuwstad. So, from here on to that corner over there, through the
alley, to the left near the canal, straight ahead and then you’re there.”
31
Frisian text
De Waach? Dat is wol maklik út te lizzen. Ik kin je it bêste dy kant útstjoere. Sjoch, jo moatte hjir bij it
parkearterrein lâns, nei dy hoeke dêr ta. Je moatte dan it steechje ha, dêr’t je rjocht op oan rinne. Dêr moatt’ je
troch, en dan komm’ je, op ‘e stille kant fan de Nijstêd út. No, dêr moatt’ je linksôf, sa bij it wetter lâns, rjocht
út. Dan sjogg’ je ‘m oan ‘e ein fan ‘e Nijstêd wol stean. Dat, hjirwei nei dy hoeke ta, it steechje troch, linksôf bij
it wetter, en dan mar rjochttroch en dan binn’ je der.
Dutch text
De Waag? Dat is wel makkelijk uit te leggen. Ik kan u het best die kant opsturen. Kijk, u moet hier bij het
parkeerterrein langs, naar die hoek daar toe. U moet dan het steegje hebben, waar u recht op af loopt. Daar moet
u doorheen en dan komt u op de stille kant van de Nieuwstad uit. Nou, daar moet u linksaf, zo bij het water
langs, rechtdoor. Dan ziet u hem op het eind van de Nieuwstad wel staan. Dus, vanaf hier naar die hoek toe, het
steegje door, linksaf bij het water en dan steeds rechtdoor en dan bent u er.
Jonkman recorded his fragments on the side of the road, to let the fragments sound as real as
possible (cf. Jonkman 1982: 29). In the present investigation, this was not the case, because
all the fragments would have different noise if recorded next to the road. Therefore, all the
fragments were recorded in the same quiet room.
The fragments were recorded by three bilingual speakers (from now on referred to as
speaker A, B and C). They each recorded the text once in Frisian and once in Dutch, which
comes down to a total of six fragments. They were asked to record the fragments in Standard
Dutch and Standard Frisian. All three speakers were males between the age of 50 and 60.
They all indicated that Frisian was their native language, but that they speak Dutch as well.
However, their Dutch has a slight Frisian accent. It is hard to find native speakers of Frisian,
who speak Dutch without a Frisian accent. Since the aimed participants of this project were
expected to be adults living in Friesland, the accented Dutch of the speakers was not
considered to be problematic, because adults living in Friesland more often hear Dutch with a
Frisian accent than Standard Dutch.
Speaker A was 53 years old. He was born in Rinsumageest and now lives in Damwoude.
He has never lived outside the province. Speaker B was 58 years old and born in Heerenveen.
He has lived outside the province of Friesland for ten years. He now lives in Jorwert. Speaker
C was born in Oosterbierum. He left the province for 5 years and lives in Dokkum now.
32
To make sure that the participants did not know what the questionnaire was about, the
Matched Guise fragments formed the first part of the questionnaire. The participants were told
that they were going to hear six different speakers, who would explain them how to go to De
Waag, a building in the centre of Leeuwarden, the capital of Friesland. Because participants
may judge the first fragments differently because of their need to get used to the type of
questioning (cf. Lambert and Taylor 1972: 81) the fragments were presented in two different
orders. Both orders were used twice: Once for the parents and once for the ‘regular’ adults.
The first order was as follows:
i.
Speaker A Frisian
ii.
Speaker B Dutch
iii.
Speaker C Frisian
iv.
Speaker A Dutch
v.
Speaker B Frisian
vi.
Speaker C Dutch
The second order was as follows:
i.
Speaker B Dutch
ii.
Speaker C Frisian
iii.
Speaker A Dutch
iv.
Speaker B Frisian
v.
Speaker C Dutch
vi.
Speaker A Frisian
The fragments were slightly adapted with GoldWave. Noise from starting and ending the tape
was removed and a pause of one second was inserted at the end and the beginning of the
fragment. The fragments were converted into MP3 files and were presented in the survey in a
version of Flash Player. For the participants that did not have Flash Player on their
computers a separate link to the MP3 file was embedded as well, so the fragments could be
played in a program that they did have on their own computers (for example Windows Media
Player). The number of times that the participants could hear the fragments was not limited,
as long as the participants stayed on the same page of the questionnaire. The participants only
had the possibility to go forward in the questionnaire but were not allowed to go back. Once
they filled out the questions about the concerned speaker and had hit the button to go to the
next page, they could not go back to hear the previous fragment.
33
The duration of all fragments was about 37 seconds (cf. table 4). The durations of the
fragments of Speaker C varied the most. His Dutch fragment had a length of 36 seconds,
while his Frisian fragment was 34.7 seconds long. The difference in length of the fragments of
Speaker A and B were nearly the same. The Frisian fragment of Speaker A had a length of
37.8 seconds. His Dutch fragment took 38.5 seconds. Speaker B’s Frisian fragment was 37.6
seconds long. His Dutch fragment had a length of exactly 37 seconds.
Speaker
Duration Frisian fragment
Duration Dutch fragment
Speaker A
37.8 seconds
38.5 seconds
Speaker B
37.6 seconds
37 seconds
Speaker C
34.7 seconds
36 seconds
Table 4: The duration of the fragments in seconds.
After hearing the fragment, the participants were asked to rate the speaker on six personality
traits that represented three dimensions: ‘Friendliness’ and ‘attractiveness’ (dimension:
‘attractiveness’), ‘perceived wealth’ and ‘intelligence’ (dimension: ‘status’) and honesty and
helpfulness (dimension: ‘integrity’). The choice for these traits and dimensions was partly
based on the investigation of Jonkman (1982). Jonkman used the dimensions ‘attractiveness’
and ‘integrity’ as well. As a third dimension he used ‘competence’. He considered the
‘intelligence’ trait to be a part of that third dimension. In the present investigation the choice
was made to replace the ‘competence’ dimension with the ‘status’ dimension, because other
investigations showed that Dutch and Frisian are often rated differently on status traits (cf. for
example Ytsma (1990)). ‘Intelligence’ was considered to be a part of the ‘status’ dimension,
as well as ‘perceived wealth’, which was also used by Ytsma (1990: 176). The ‘attractiveness’
traits (‘friendliness’ and ‘attractiveness’) both came from Jokman’s (1982) investigation. The
‘integrity’ trait ‘honesty’ came from Jonkman’s investigation as well. As a second ‘integrity’
trait ‘helpfulness’ was chosen. The traits were put in such an order that one trait was not
followed by another trait of the same dimension.
34
Each trait was presented on a semantic differential scale. The scale had five points:
“totally disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “not disagree nor agree” (3), “agree” (4) and “totally
agree” (5):
1 2 3 4 5
unfriendly
o o o o o friendly
poor
o o o o o rich
dishonest
o o o o o honest
unattractive
o o o o o attractive
not intelligent
o o o o o intelligent
not helpful
o o o o o helpful
3.1.2 Direct Questionnaire
The second part of the questionnaire contained three types of direct questioning. The first type
consisted of four conversation situations. These conversation situations were inserted in the
questionnaire in order to gain insight in the conative side – which says something about how
someone wishes to react in a certain language situation – of the participants’ language
attitudes towards Frisian. Together with the question types discussed below, all sides of the
concept of language attitudes (cognitive, affective and conative) can be taken into account.
The question consisted of four different conversation situations. The participants were asked
to imagine the situations and indicate how they would react. They could choose one answer
out of three possibilities, one in favour of Frisian, one in favour of Dutch or a neutral answer.
For example:
Situation 1.
You have an extra ticket to a football game. There are two persons that would like to
have the ticket. One of them asks you in Frisian if he could have the ticket, the other one
does the same in Dutch. Which one do you give the ticket to?
a. I will give my ticket to the Frisian speaking person
b. I will give my ticket to the Dutch speaking person
c. I do not care who gets my ticket
35
In the second situation, the participants had to imagine that they would have to go to a
hairdresser. In the village they had just moved to, there were a Frisian and a Dutch
hairdresser. Which one would they go to? Just as in the first situation, the participants could
choose between a Frisian speaking hairdresser, a Dutch speaking hairdresser or a neutral
answer.
The third situation was about a school teacher that spoke Frisian at a school, where normally
Frisian was not spoken. The participants had to indicate how they would react. They could
make a choice from the following answers:
a. I do nothing, because I do not care that the teacher speaks Frisian at school
b. I think it is wrong that the teacher speaks Frisian at school, but I do nothing
c. I contact the teacher, because I think it is wrong that the teacher speaks Frisian
In the final situation, the participants had to imagine that they asked someone a question in
Dutch, which was answered in Frisian. Similar to the third situation, they could choose to do
nothing, because they did not care, do nothing, even though they thought it was wrong to
answer a Dutch question in Frisian or say something, because they thought it was wrong.
The conversation situations were followed by a list of 12 job positions. This question was
included in the questionnaire in order to gain more insight into what status the participants
would attribute to Frisian. The question was based on a question from Pietersen’s (1969)
investigation, in which participants had to indicate if they would address someone of a certain
occupation in Frisian or Dutch. The question was slightly adapted for the present study. In
order to be able to investigate what kind of status people connect to low, medium and high job
positions, the participants had to indicate if they thought that someone with one of those job
positions would speak Frisian or Dutch, instead of indicating in which language the
participant himself would address someone with a certain job position. The job positions
could be grouped into three classes:
a. Low: Bus driver, road worker, hair dresser and employee in a supermarket
b. Middle: Teacher, nurse, police officer and broker
c. High: Professor, manager, doctor and minister
In Dutch the feminine name for a job sometimes differs from the masculine name for a job.
For example, a male teacher is called a leraar, whereas a female teacher is called a lerares. In
the survey, all jobs were given the masculine names in order to make sure that only the
attitudes towards the jobs were measured and not those towards gender.
36
Regarding the high class, it is important to mention that a doctor and a minister normally
play an important role in (Frisian) villages. Mostly, they have more contact to the inhabitants
of the village than a professor or a manager. This means that participants perhaps talk Frisian
to people in those two occupations more often than to a professor or manager. This might
have influenced the results and should be taken into account in the analysis of the data.
The third question of the direct part of the survey consisted of 18 statements. These
statements could be divided into three groups. The first group contained six statements about
learning Frisian as a language:
i.
Everybody in Friesland should learn Frisian
ii.
I think it is wrong when my child learns Frisian at school
iii.
Knowledge of the Frisian language helps someone to learn other languages more
easily
iv.
A child that learns Frisian at school does not speak Dutch very well
v.
Frisian should be a language of instruction at primary schools, for example during
math or history class
vi.
A child that speaks Frisian gets lower grades than a child that speaks Dutch
The second group consisted of statements about people that speak Frisian:
i.
Someone who speaks Frisian is honest
ii.
Someone who speaks Frisian is friendly
iii.
Someone who speaks Frisian is rich
iv.
Someone who speaks Frisian is unintelligent
v.
Someone who speaks Frisian is not helpful
vi.
Someone who speaks Frisian is unattractive
These statements were included in order to be able to make a reliable comparison between the
direct and indirect measurements (cf. hypothesis iv – Direct measurements will result in more
positive attitudes than indirect measurements). Six ‘control’ statements about people who
speak Dutch were included in the question as well, which will not be taken in account during
the analysis:
i.
Someone who speaks Dutch is unfriendly
ii.
Someone who speaks Dutch is poor
iii.
Someone who speaks Dutch is dishonest
37
iv.
Someone who speaks Dutch is intelligent
v.
Someone who speaks Dutch is helpful
vi.
Someone who speaks Dutch is attractive
3.2 Background variables
The final part of the survey contained questions about the background of the participants. The
questions were not entirely the same in the surveys for the parents and the ‘regular’ adults.
Both surveys included questions about age, gender, level of education, place of birth, place
where the participants grew up, first language, languages that are spoken at home and the
participants’ level of reading, writing, hearing and speaking Frisian. The participants had to
indicate if they had a ‘low’ (1 point) ‘moderately’ (2 points) ‘good’ (3 points) or ‘excellent’ (4
points) level for each skill. Both surveys contained the question if the participants had one or
more children that attend primary school, if yes, what the name of that school was and why
they choose to let their children attend that school as well. In addition, the survey for the
‘regular’ adults contained a question which jobs the participants had or if they were students
(if yes: which degree?) and a question about their present residence. The surveys for the
parents and the ‘regular’ adults were slightly different because of organizational matters.
When the survey for the adults was launched, the few additional questions could not be
included in the survey for the parents, because that survey was launched earlier.
3.3 Setting
The survey was created online with the program Survey Gizmo. This program was chosen
because it offers the possibility to upload sound fragments as well as the possibility to launch
more surveys at one time and to gather a large amount of responses. The links to the online
surveys were spread in two different ways. Parents were approached by handing out flyers at
primary schools. Some parents were approached by e-mail (if the e-mail addresses of the
parents were known by the directors of the schools), which was not an easy way to spread the
links, because many school boards do not have e-mail addresses of their pupils’ parents. The
adults were also approached through social networks. A link to the server was spread on
Facebook and among acquaintances of the researcher with the message to send it to people
who met the criteria to take part in the survey. The participants had to be adults (18 years and
38
older), live in Friesland and speak Frisian or Dutch as mother tongue in order to be eligible to
participate in the project. In the introduction of the survey, the participants were told that they
were going to take part in an investigation about languages in Friesland and that the method
that was used had not very often been tested with in Friesland. Because the participants had to
know as little as possible about the project, no further information was given.
3.4 Pilot
Before the survey was launched, it was tested in a pilot version. The participants of the pilot
first completed the entire survey. After that they answered seven additional questions about
the design of the survey. Since the survey was developed on the internet the participants could
not directly ask the researcher for explanations if something was not clear. Therefore the goal
of this pilot version was first of all to examine if the explanations in the survey were clear
enough and if the fragments were embedded in the right way in the survey, so that the
participants could easily play them on their computers. Secondly, it was important to make
sure that participants did not notice the aims of the Matched Guise Test. Therefore, the pilot
contained the question: “Did you notice something strange with regards to the fragments?”
Thirdly, the pilot contained a few questions about the difficulty of the questions in the
survey. The target group of this investigation were adults living in Friesland. No restrictions
for the level of education were set. Since the Matched Guise Technique has mostly been used
with students until now, i.e. higher educated participants, it was important to test beforehand
if the type of questioning is also suitable for participants with other educational backgrounds.
As mentioned above, the survey was developed on the internet. Following from that, the
participants made the questionnaire without supervision of the researcher, so that they could
easily make the choice to quit halfway the survey. Therefore, it was important to examine if
the participants did not find the survey boring or too extensive. Finally, the participants had
the option to write down other comments in relationship to the survey in an open question.
Seven people participated in the pilot. Information about their background can be found in
table 5.
39
Background
Number of
Background
participants
Age
Number of
Participants
Level of education
30-39
5
Primary school
1
40-49
1
Secondary school
2
50-59
1
MBO (vocational
3
education)
Gender
University
1
Female
5
Mother tongue
Male
2
Frisian
5
Dutch
1
Town Frisian
1
Table 5: Background of the participants of the pilot survey.
All participants found the explanations in the survey very clear. They also indicated that they
understood the content of the questions. Two participants found some questions a little bit
difficult. None of the participants reported problems regarding the fragments. All participants
could play them on their computers. One participant found the fragments too long, the other
participants found them exactly right. One participant found the survey a little bit boring, the
others had no opinion or enjoyed taking the survey. Only one participant noticed that instead
of 6 monolingual 3 bilingual speakers were used for the Matched Guise Technique.
Considering the fact that hardly any problems occurred during the pilot, the survey seamed
suitable enough for the actual investigation.
3.5 Sample
The table below provides information about the background of the participants. In total, 156
adults participated. Because of the snowball-effect that was created because participants
themselves had the possibility to send the link to the survey to other people who met the
criteria to take the survey, the researcher had less influence in selecting the sample. Therefore,
six people who lived outside the province of Friesland at the moment of the investigation and
one person that had German as native language took part in the survey. It was decided to
leave these participants out, because they did not meet the criteria that were set for the
sample. The final size of the sample came down to a total of 150 participants. 36 of them were
approached through primary schools, 114 through social networks. About half of them took
40
the version in which the fragments were presented in order A, the other half took the version
in which the fragments were presented in order B.
Table 6: Background of the participants. A number of questions was not answered by all participants. This has
to do with the fact that these questions were not included in the survey for the parents of primary school kids.
Social status is based on the job positions of the participants. This could be determined for only 89 people. 36
participants were parents of primary school pupils. Their survey did not contain a question about their job
positions. 25 were unemployed or retired.
3.6 Processing the Data
The data was processed in SPSS 19. For each of the four question types was examined if the
outcomes differed significantly on the level of the following background variables: gender,
age, level of education, social status (based on job position), first languages, the languages the
participants speak at home, the participants’ level of Frisian, the place where the participants
were born, the place where they were raised, the question if they live in a town or a village at
the moment and the question if they have children attending a tri- or monolingual school (in
41
case of the parents). In order to make the reporting on the results easier, each background
variable got a short label. These labels are presented in the table below.
Label:
Gender
Age
Level of education
Social status
L1
Home languages
Level of Frisian
Based on:
Gender
Age
Level of education
Job position
First language(s)
The language that are spoken at home
Level of Frisian (the scores on writing,
reading, hearing and speaking taken
together)
Place of birth
Place where the participants were born
Raised
Place where the participants were raised
Town/village
Present residence of the participants
3/1-lingual
Participants children attending a monoor trilingual school
Table 7: Labels of the background variables.
It is often stated that data of a semantic differential scale should be analysed as ordinal data.
However, in the case of the present study, treating the data as interval data does not harm the
outcomes, because the options were presented both with grades and labels: “1. totally
disagree”, “2. disagree”, “3. not disagree nor agree”, “4. agree” and “5. totally agree”.
Therefore, the evaluations on the semantic differential scales of the MGT-fragments were
interpreted as an evaluation through grades, which made it possible to do parametric tests,
which are after all more powerful than non-parametric tests (Field 2005: 63f). This holds also
for the statements which were also presented with grades and label. The data of the job
positions was treated as interval data as well. When a job was labelled as Frisian, it got zero
points, when it was labelled as Dutch, it got one point.
If gender, place of birth, raised, the town/village and 3/1-lingual affected the scores of the
MGT-fragments, statements and job positions were each time tested through a t-test. With an
ANOVA it was tested, if level of education, social status, L1, home languages and level of
Frisian affected the scores of the MGT-fragments, statements and job positions. A correlation
had to show if age affected the scores of the MGT-fragments, statements and job positions.
The data of situations of conversations was nominal data. Therefore, Chi-square tests had
to reveal if there was an association between gender, age, level of education, social status, L1,
home languages, level of Frisian, place of birth, raised, town/village and 3/1-lingual.
42
4. Results
This chapter reports on the results of the present study. The results are presented per question
type. At the beginning of each separate result section it is explained, which scores were taken
into account.
4.1 The Matched Guise Test
4.1.1 Overall Ratings
For the overall results, the scores of all personality traits of all three speakers were taken in
account. This came down to 18 scores between 1 (representing the negative pole of the
semantic differential scale) and 5 (representing the positive pole of the semantic differential
scale), that were added up. The maximum score that each language could get this way was 90.
Overall, the Frisian fragments were evaluated higher than the Dutch fragments. The
Frisian fragments had a mean (M) of 71.3. The mean of the Dutch fragments was 68.7. The
standard deviation (SD) for both languages was 7.6, from which can be concluded that the
scores for the Dutch and the Frisian fragments were both equally spread.
Several statistical tests showed that differences in score of the Frisian and Dutch
fragments were not significant for the following background variables: gender, age, level of
education, social status, L1, home languages, place of birth, raised, town/village and 3/1lingual. There was a significant correlation between the level of Frisian of the participants and
the scores of the Frisian fragments, r = .240 ; p<0.01 (two-tailed). The higher the level of
Frisian of the participants, the higher they evaluated the Frisian fragments. This was not the
case for the scores of the Dutch fragments. The correlation between the level of Frisian of the
participants and the scores of the Frisian fragments is shown in figure 5.
43
Fig. 5: The correlation between level of Frisian and the scores of the Frisian fragments. The higher the
participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments.
4.1.2 Dimensions
In order to be able to compare the scores on the three different dimensions ‘attractiveness’,
(which consists of the personality traits ‘friendliness’ and ‘attractiveness’), ‘status’ (which
consists of the personality traits ‘intelligence’ and ‘perceived wealth’), and ‘integrity’ (which
consists of the personality traits ‘honesty’ and ‘helpfulness’) in relationship to the Dutch and
Frisian fragments, the scores for the two personality traits of each dimension of all three
speakers were taken into account. This comes down to six scores, again between 1 and 5 that
were added up and could lead to a maximum score of 30 for each dimension. The outcomes
per dimension will be discussed in de following sections.
Overall, the Frisian fragments (M=23.1, SD=3.1) scored higher on the attractiveness
dimension than the Dutch fragments (M=22.1, SD=3.1). Several statistical tests showed that
the difference between the attractiveness scores of the Frisian and Dutch fragments was not
significant on the level of the following background variables: gender, level of education,
social status, place of birth, raised, town/village and 3/1-lingual. There was a significant
44
correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments, r = .191;
p<0.05 (two-tailed). The older the participants were, the higher they rated the Frisian
fragments on the attractiveness dimension. This correlation is illustrated in the figure below.
Fig. 6: The correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments. The older the
participants are, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on the attractiveness dimension.
Moreover, a Pearson Correlation showed that there was a significant positive correlation
between the level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments, r = .254;
p<0.01 (two-tailed). The higher the participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they rated the
Frisian fragments. This correlation is shown in figure 7.
45
Fig. 7: The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments. The
higher the participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on the attractiveness
dimension.
A Pearson Correlation showed that there was a significant positive correlation between the
level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Dutch fragments as well, r = .165; p<0.05
(two-tailed). The higher the participants’ level of Frisian was, the higher they rated the Dutch
fragments in terms of attractiveness. The correlation between the level of education of the
participants and the scores of the Dutch fragments is shown in the figure below.
Fig 8: The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Dutch fragments. The higher
the participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they evaluate the Dutch fragments on the attractiveness dimension.
46
4.1.2.2 Status Ratings
Overall, there is no statistically significant difference between the Frisian (M=21.7, SD=2.65)
and Dutch fragments (M=21, SD=2.51) on the status dimension. However, an ANOVA
showed that there was a significant effect of the L1 on the status scores of the Frisian
fragments, F(149) =4.242, p<0.01. The participants that had Frisian as a mother tongue
(M=21.2, SD=2.59) evaluated the Frisian fragments higher on status than the participants who
had Dutch as first language (M=20.67, SD=1.94). However, the participants that had both
Frisian and Dutch as native languages (M=20.17, SD=1.94) and the participants that had a
dialect as mother tongue (M=22.5 SD=3.54) did not differ significantly from the other groups.
L1 did not affect the status scores of the Dutch fragments.
Furthermore, an ANOVA showed that there was a significant effect of home languages on
the status scores of the Frisian fragments as well, F(149)=6.327, p<0.01. The participants who
spoke Frisian at home (M=21.24, SD=2.63) evaluate the Frisian fragments higher on the
status dimension than those who spoke Dutch at home (M=20.58, SD=1.88). Nevertheless,
the participants that spoke both Frisian and Dutch at home (M=20.92, SD=2.63), showed no
significant differences with the other groups. Home languages did not interact with the status
scores of the Dutch fragments.
Moreover, a t-test showed that on average, the people who were born in Friesland
(M=20.19, SD=1.99) evaluated the Frisian fragments higher on status than the people who
were born outside of Friesland (M=21.89, SD=2.86). This difference was significant (t(148)=
-2.784; p<0.05). This was not the case for the Dutch fragments.
Finally, a Pearson Correlation showed that there was a significant positive correlation
between the level of Frisian and the status scores of the Frisian fragments, r = .292; p=0.0
(two-tailed). The higher the participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they rate the Frisian
fragments on status. This was not the case for the Dutch fragments. The correlation between
the participants’ level of Frisian and the status scores of the Frisian fragments is shown in
figure 9.
47
Fig. 9: The correlation between level of Frisian and the status scores of the Frisian fragments. The higher the
participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on the status dimension.
A number of statistical tests showed that age group, gender, level of education, social status,
town/village and 3/1-lingual did not affect the scores of the fragments.
4.1.2.3 Integrity Ratings
On average, the Frisian fragments (M=26.49, SD=3.02) score higher on the integrity
dimension than the Dutch fragments (M=25.65, SD=3.36). No significant differences in
relationship to the background variables were found.
4.1.3 Personality Traits
The sections below report on the ratings of the Frisian and Dutch fragments per personality
trait.
4.1.3.1 Overall Ratings
Looking at the overall results for the personality traits (cf. figure 10 and 11), the Dutch and
Frisian fragments seem to score nearly the same for all personality traits.
48
Fig. 10: The ratings of the Dutch fragments on the personality traits.
49
Fig. 11: The ratings of the Frisian fragments on the personality traits.
50
4.1.3.2 Friendliness Ratings
Gender, level of education, social status, L1, home languages, level of Frisian, place of birth,
raised, town/village and 3/1-lingual did not significantly affect the friendliness scores of the
Dutch and Frisian fragments. A Pearson Correlation however showed that there was a
significant positive correlation between the age of the participants and the friendliness scores
of the Dutch fragments, r = .163; p<0.05 (two-tailed). The older the participants were, the
higher they rated the Dutch fragments on friendliness. Although the correlation can be barely
noticed with the naked eye, this correlation is illustrated in the figure below. Age did not
affect the friendliness ratings of the Frisian fragments.
Fig. 12: The correlation between age and the friendliness scores of the Dutch fragments. The older the
participants are, the higher they evaluate the Dutch fragments on friendliness.
4.1.3.3 Perceived Wealth Ratings
ANOVAs showed that the difference between the perceived wealth scores of the Frisian and
Dutch fragments was not significant on the level of the following background variables:
gender, age, level of education, social status, L1, raised and 3/1-lingual. There is an effect of
home languages on the perceived wealth of the Frisian fragments. An ANOVA revealed that
on average, the people who speak only Frisian at home (M=10.45, SD=1.43) evaluated the
Frisian fragments as more wealthy sounding than the people who speak only Dutch at home
51
(M=9.38, SD=1.2), F(149)=5.957, p<0.01. The group of people, who speak both Dutch and
Frisian at home, did not differ significantly from the other two groups. There were no
significant differences in relationship to home languages found for the Dutch fragments.
Furthermore, a t-test shows that the people who were born in Friesland (M=10.22,
SD=1.43) evaluated the Frisian fragments higher on status than the people who were born
outside of Friesland (M=9.57, SD=1.21). This difference was significant (t(148)= -2.213;
p<0.05). This was not the case for the Dutch fragments.
A t-test showed also that the present residence of the participants had a significant effect
(t(112)= 2.204; p<0.05) on the perceived wealth scores of the Frisian fragments (on the Dutch
fragments the present residence has no significant effect). Participants who lived in a town
(M=9.8, SD=1.25) rated the Frisian fragments significantly lower on the perceived wealth
scale than participants who lived in a village (M=10.39, SD=1.49) during the investigation.
Finally, a Pearson Correlation revealed that there was a significant positive correlation
between the level of Frisian and the perceived wealth scores of the Frisian fragments, r =
.261; p<0.01 (two-tailed). The higher the participants’ level of Frisian was, the higher they
rated the Frisian fragments on perceived wealth. This correlation is illustrated in figure 13. No
correlation could be found between the level of Frisian and the perceived wealth scores of the
Dutch fragments.
Fig. 13: The correlation between level of Frisian and the perceived wealth scores of the Frisian fragments. The
higher the participants’ level of Frisian is, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on perceived wealth.
52
4.1.3.4 Honesty Ratings
Almost no background variables affected the ratings of the Dutch and Frisian fragments on
the honesty scale. A t-test showed that only the present residence of the participants affected
the scores of the Frisian (not the Dutch ones) fragments. On average, the people who lived in
a town (M=12.49, SD=1.96) evaluated the Frisian fragments lower on honesty than the people
who lived in a village (M=13.22, SD=1.55). This difference was significant (t(112)= 2.205;
p<0.05).
ANOVAs showed that the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments differed significantly
on the level of L1, F(149)=5.038, p<0.01. The participants that had Frisian as mother tongue
(M=10.6, SD=1.89) evaluated the Frisian fragments higher on attractiveness than the
participants who had a dialect as first language (M=7, SD=4.24) and the participants that had
Dutch as native language (M=9.56, SD=1.68). The difference between the dialect and the
Dutch group was also significant. However, the participants that had both Frisian and Dutch
as native languages (M=10, SD=1.55) did not differ significantly from the other groups. L1
did not affect the status scores of the Dutch fragments.
In addition, an ANOVA revealed that home languages significantly affect the
attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments as well, F(149)=4.536, p<0.05. The participants
that spoke only Frisian at home (M=10.51, SD=1.98) rated the Frisian fragments higher than
the participants who had only Dutch as home language (M=9.27, SD=1.83). The participants
that spoke both Frisian and Dutch at home (M=10.46, SD= 1.83) did only significantly differ
from the group that had only Dutch as home language.
A Pearson Correlation showed that there was a significant correlation between the age of
the participants and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments, r = .205; p<0.05 (twotailed). The older the participants were, the higher they rated the Frisian fragments on
attractiveness. This correlation is shown in the figure below.
53
Fig. 14: The correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments. The older the
participants are, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on attractiveness.
A Pearson Correlation also revealed that there was an even stronger significant correlation
between the age of the participants and the attractiveness scores of the Dutch fragments, r =
.276; p<0.01 (two-tailed). The older the participants were, the higher they rated the Dutch
fragments on attractiveness. This correlation is shown in figure 15.
Fig. 15: The correlation between age and the attractiveness scores of the Dutch fragments. The older the
participants are, the higher they evaluate the Dutch fragments on attractiveness.
54
Furthermore, a Pearson Correlation showed that there was a very strong positive correlation
between the participants’ level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian
fragments, r = .293; p=0.00 (two-tailed). The higher the participants’ level of Frisian was, the
higher they rated the Frisian fragments on attractiveness. This correlation is shown in the
figure below.
Fig. 16: The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Frisian fragments. The
higher the participants’ level of Frisian is, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on attractiveness.
This is the same for the Dutch fragments, r = .227; p<0.01. The higher the participants’ level
of Frisian, the higher they rated the Dutch fragments.
Fig. 17: The correlation between level of Frisian and the attractiveness scores of the Dutch fragments. The
higher the participants’ level of Frisian is, the higher they evaluate the Dutch fragments on attractiveness.
55
Gender, level of education, social status, place of birth, raised, town/village and 3/1-lingual
did not affect the attractiveness scores of the fragments.
4.1.3.6 Intelligence Ratings
First of all, the intelligence scores of the Dutch and Frisian fragments did not significantly
differ on the level of gender, age, level of education, social status, raised, town/village and
1/3-lingual. However, an ANOVA showed that L1 affects the scores of the Frisian fragments
on intelligence, F(149)=4.294, p<0.01. The participants that spoke only Frisian (M=11.76,
SD=1.6) rated the Frisian fragments higher on intelligence than the participants who had only
Dutch as native language (M=10.72, SD=1.47). The participants that had both Frisian and
Dutch (M=11.83, SD=1.72) or a dialect (M=12.5, SD=0.71) as mother tongue did not
significantly differ from the other groups. L1 did not significantly affect the intelligence
scores of the Dutch fragments.
Home languages did affect the intelligence scores of the Frisian fragments either,
F(149)=3.874, p<0.05. The participants that spoke only Frisian at home (M=11.85, SD=1.68)
rated the Frisian fragments higher on intelligence than the participants who had only Dutch as
home language (M=10.88, SD=1.51). The participants that spoke both Frisian and Dutch
(M=11.38, SD=1.5) at home did not significantly differ from the other groups. Once again,
home languages did not significantly affect the intelligence scores of the Dutch fragments.
A t-test revealed that on average, the people who were born in Friesland (M=11.67,
SD=1.2) evaluated the Frisian fragments higher on intelligence than the people who were
born outside of Friesland (M=10.62, SD=1.64). This difference was significant (t(148)= 2.832; p<0.01). This was not the case for the Dutch fragments.
Finally, there was a significant positive correlation between the participants’ level of
Frisian and the intelligence score of the Frisian fragments, r = .251, p<0.01. The higher the
participants’ level of Frisian, the higher they rated the Frisian fragments on intelligence. This
was not the case for the Dutch fragments. The correlation between the level of Frisian and the
intelligence scores is shown in the figure below.
56
Fig. 18: The correlation between level of Frisian and the intelligence scores of the Frisian fragments. The
higher the participants’ level of Frisian is, the higher they evaluate the Frisian fragments on intelligence.
4.1.3.7 Helpfulness Ratings
Statistical tests revealed that none of the background variables significantly affect the
helpfulness scores of the Dutch and Frisian fragments.
4.1.3.8 Summary
The table below recapitulates the background variables that had a significant effect on the
overall scores, the three dimensions and the six personality traits. Most significant differences
were found in relationship with the Frisian fragments. Someone’s attitude towards the Frisian
language seems to be positively influenced if the native language is Frisian, if Frisian is
spoken at home, if one is born in Friesland, if one lives in a town instead of a village and if
the level of Frisian is high. Age and level of Frisian seem to interact with the attitude towards
the Dutch language. The older someone is and the higher his or her level of Frisian is, the
more positive the attitude towards Dutch.
57
Table 8: The significant background variables for the overall scores, the dimensions and the personality traits,
ordered by language (X = no significant background variables).
4.2 Statements
The sections below report on the results of the statements that were included in part of the
survey which contained direct questions about Frisian. In order to be able to answer the
question if different measurements lead to different results, in section 4.2.1 the results of the
direct statements about people who speak Frisian are described and compared to the indirect
ratings of the MGT. Section 4.2.2 is concerned with the results of the statements about
learning Frisian.
4.2.1 Personality Traits
Figure 19 shows the direct (blue line) and indirect ratings (red line) of the Frisian fragments.
Looking at the figure, it becomes very clear that Frisian is rated differently in both methods.
The results show that Frisian scores lower on ‘friendliness’, ‘perceived wealth’ and ‘honesty’
using the direct method. Frisian scores higher on ‘attractiveness’ and ‘intelligence’ and nearly
the same on ‘helpfulness’ compared to the indirect ratings.
58
Fig. 19: Direct (blue) and indirect (red) ratings of Frisian.
Following from that, it can be stated that different measurements indeed do lead to different
results. The results show however that this does not necessarily mean that people give more
positive answers to direct questions, since the fragments are rated lower on four of the six
personality traits in the direct measurement.
4.2.2 Learning Frisian
In order to measure the participants’ attitudes towards learning, six statements about learning
Frisian were formulated. The scores on this scale were added up for each participant, with a
maximum score of 30. These scores were used to examine if participants had different
attitudes on the level of a number of background variables. A reliability test showed that the
statements about learning Frisian formed a reliable scale, Chronbach’s α = 0.717 (cf. table 9).
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Cronbach's
Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple
Item Deleted
Total Correlation
Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Statement 1
19,99
16,369
,371
,176
,707
Statement 2
18,52
18,560
,513
,280
,677
Statement 3
19,13
16,581
,511
,284
,661
Statement 4
19,19
15,875
,481
,323
,668
Statement 5
20,38
13,955
,525
,302
,656
Statement 6
18,72
18,324
,395
,267
,694
Table 9: Internal Reliability Coefficients of the statements about learning Frisian.
59
ANOVAs showed that gender, level of education, social status, town/village and 3/1-lingual
did not significantly affect the participants’ attitudes towards learning Frisian.
A Pearson Correlation showed that there was a significant positive correlation between
age and the attitude towards learning Frisian, r = .275 p<0.01. The older the participants were,
the more positive their attitude towards learning Frisian was. This correlation is shown in the
figure below.
Fig.20: The correlation between age and the attitudes towards learning Frisian.
An ANOVA revealed that L1 affects the attitude towards learning Frisian, F(149)=14.148,
p=0.0. The participants that had Frisian as native language (M=24.46, SD=4.24) held a more
positive attitude towards learning Frisian than the participants who had Dutch as mother
tongue (M=19.25, SD=4.26). The attitudes of participants that had both Frisian and Dutch
(M=23, SD=3.74) or a dialect (M=27, SD=4.24) as native language towards learning Frisian
did not significantly differ from the other groups.
Home languages did affect the attitudes towards learning Frisian as well, F(149)=20.698,
p=0.0. Participants who spoke only Frisian at home (M=24.95, SD=3.91) had a more positive
attitude towards learning Frisian than participants who spoke only Dutch (M=18.77,
SD=4.58) or both Dutch and Frisian at home (M=22.88, SD=4.5). Both last groups also
differed significantly from each other.
60
Furthermore, there is a significant positive correlation between the participants’ level of
Frisian and their attitude towards learning Frisian, r=.625 p=0.0. The higher the level of
Frisian, the more positive the attitude. This correlation is illustrated in the figure below.
Fig. 21: The correlation between level of Frisian and the attitudes towards learning Frisian.
On average, the people who were born outside Friesland (M=19.95, SD=4.48) had a more
negative attitude towards Frisian than people who were born in Friesland (M=23.71,
SD=4.61). This difference was significant (t(148)= -3.482; p<0.01). This is the same for the
place where the participants were raised. Participants who were raised outside Friesland
(M=20.17, SD=5.06) had a more negative attitude towards Frisian than people who were
raised in Friesland (M=23.45, SD=4.66) (t(148)= -2.326; p<0.05).
To conclude, it can be said that the same background variables which affect the attitude
towards learning Frisian are nearly the same as the ones that were significant for the indirectly
held attitudes towards the Frisian language measured through the Matched Guise Technique:
age, L1, home languages, level of Frisian and place of birth. In addition, the place where the
participants were raised also affects someone’s attitude towards learning Frisian. This was not
the case for the indirect attitudes towards the Frisian language. In contrast to the indirect
attitudes towards Frisian, the present residence of the participants did not affect the attitude
61
towards learning Frisian. In relationship to the attitude towards learning Frisian, it does not
matter if someone lives in a town or a village.
4.3 Job Positions8
In order to further examine the attitudes towards the Frisian languages on the level of status,
the results concerning the job positions will be discussed in this chapter. There were three
categories: low, medium and high job positions. Each category consisted of four job positions.
The participants had to indicate for each job position if they thought that someone with those
job positions would speak Frisian or Dutch. If the participants associated the job position with
Dutch, the position got one point, for Frisian the position got zero points. That way, a
category could get a maximum score of 4 points. The higher the score, the more often a job
position was associated with Dutch.
The results reveal that in general the higher job positions (M=3.35, SD=0.96) are more
often connected to the Dutch language than lower job positions (M=1.09, SD=1.15). The
medium job positions (M=2.51, SD=1.24) take a position between the lower and higher jobs,
but are more often associated with Dutch than with Frisian. The higher positions require
further examination, because two of the four jobs that were qualified as ‘high’ usually play an
important role in a village: a general practitioner (GP) and a minister. It is possible that people
living in a village speak Frisian with their GP and minister more often than with a manager or
professor (the other two jobs that were included in the category of higher job positions),
which are not as likely to be encountered by villagers in everyday live. Since 69 out of the
114 participants who mentioned their present residence lived in a village, this is an important
possibility to consider. The results show that the two higher jobs (M=1.399, SD=1.61) that
play an important role in a village indeed score lower than the other two high jobs (M=1.78,
SD=1.92), although the difference is relatively small. This means that a GP and a minister are
more often linked to Frisian than the other two high job positions (a professor and a doctor).
Nevertheless the higher jobs are still most often associated with Dutch.
Firstly, the job position scores were linked to the status of the participants’ own jobs and
the sector they worked in.10 An ANOVA showed that this last background variable does not
lead to significant results. However, social status has a significant effect on the scores of the
8
For more information about the job categories ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’, cf. section 3.1.2 Direct
Questionnaire.
9
Because these categories each consist of two job positions, the maximum score is 2.
10
This was mentioned by only 89 out of the 150 participants, cf. section 3.5 Sample.
62
medium and higher job positions. Participants with a low job position (M=3.46, SD=0.66)
associated the higher jobs more often with Dutch than participants with a high job position
(M=1.86, SD=1.46), F(88)=9.633, p=0.0. The participants who had a medium job position
(M=3.45, SD=0.8) did not differ significantly from the other two groups. In addition,
participants who had a higher job position (M=0.57, SD=0.79) associated medium job
positions more often with Frisian, than participants with a medium (M=2.57, SD=1.21) or a
lower job (M=2.85, SD=1.07), F(88)=10.221, p=0.0. The participants with a medium or lower
job did not differ significantly from each other.
Furthermore, an ANOVA revealed that L1 affects the scores of the lower job positions
significantly, F(149)=3.261, p<0.05. Participants with Frisian as first language (M=0.96,
SD=1.11) linked lower job positions more often to Frisian than participants that speak Dutch
as mother tongue (M=1.55, SD=1.18). Participants who had both Dutch and Frisian (M=0.83,
SD=0.98) or a dialect (M=0, SD=0) as native language did not differ significantly from the
other two groups.
Home languages have a significant effect on the scores of the medium and higher job
positions. Participants who spoke only Dutch at home (M=3.65, SD=0.56) associated higher
job positions more often with Dutch than participants who only spoke Frisian at home
(M=3.15, SD=1.13), F(149)=3.696, p<0.05. Participants who spoke both Dutch and Frisian at
home (M=3.5, SD=0.76) do not differ significantly from the other two groups. Concerning the
scores of the medium job positions, we can say that participants who spoke only Dutch at
home (M=2.96, SD=1) associated medium job positions more often with Dutch than
participants who speak only Frisian at home (M=2.16, SD=1.26), F(149)=6.276, p<0.01.
Again, participants who spoke both languages at home (M=2.78, SD=1.18) do not differ
significantly from the other two groups.
Moreover, the participants’ level of Frisian also affected their associations in relationship
to job positions. Firstly, participants who had an excellent level of Frisian (M=0.72, SD=0.98)
associated the lower job position more often with Frisian than people with an average level of
Frisian (M=1.22, SD=1.19), F(149)=3.173, p<0.05. Participants who had a low level of
Frisian (M=1.27, SD=1.15) did not differ significantly from the other two groups. Secondly,
participants who had a low level of Frisian (M=3.12, SD=1) linked medium job positions
more often to Dutch than participants who had an excellent level of Frisian (M=2.12,
SD=1.28), F(149)=5.635, p<0.01. Participants who had an average level of Frisian (M=2.52,
SD=1.22) do not differ significantly from the other two groups.
63
Finally, a t-test reveals that the present residence of the participants affected the scores of
the lower job positions as well. Participants that lived in a village associated lower job
positions more often with Frisian than participants that lived in a town. This difference was
significant (t(112)= -2.752; p<0.01).
A number of statistical tests showed that the scores of the job positions did not differ
significant in relationship to the following background variables: gender, age, level of
education, place of birth, raised, 3/1-lingual.
To summarize we can say the following: once again, the background variables that affect
the associations of jobs with the Dutch or Frisian language are nearly the same as the
background variables that affected the attitudes in relationship to the MGT-fragments and the
direct statements. L1, home languages, level of Frisian and the present residence of the
participants were the background variables that influenced the job position scores. It is
striking that the social status of the participants did not play a role in the evaluation of the
MGT-fragments and the direct statements, but is important for the association of job positions
with Frisian or Dutch.
4.4 Situations of Conversation
The sections below report on the results of the situations of conversation – which are
supposed to cover the conative side of the language attitudes towards Frisian of the
participants. The conative side of a language attitude indicates how someone would wish to
behave in certain language situations.
4.4.1 Answering a Dutch Question in Frisian
A Chi-Square analysis revealed that the association between the reactions to someone that
answers a Dutch question in Frisian and gender, age, level of education, social status, raised,
town/village and 3/1-lingual was not significant. However, the association between the
reactions and L1 was significant, χ (6) = 19.487, p<0.01. Most of the participants who speak
only Frisian and all of the participants that spoke both Dutch and Frisian or a dialect at home
were not bothered by someone who answers a Dutch question in Frisian. On the contrary, a
relative large number of participants who spoke only Dutch at home would feel irritated when
someone answers a Dutch question in Frisian. About half of them would say something about
it, the other half claimed that they would say nothing (cf. table 10).
64
L1 * Question Crosstabulation
Question
0
L1
Frisian
Frisian+Dutch
Count
1
106
% within L1
96,2%
2,8%
,9%
100,0%
% within Question
75,0%
33,3%
20,0%
70,7%
6
0
0
6
100,0%
,0%
,0%
100,0%
4,4%
,0%
,0%
4,0%
26
6
4
36
% within L1
72,2%
16,7%
11,1%
100,0%
% within Question
19,1%
66,7%
80,0%
24,0%
2
0
0
2
100,0%
,0%
,0%
100,0%
1,5%
,0%
,0%
1,3%
136
9
5
150
90,7%
6,0%
3,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Count
% within L1
% within Question
Total
Total
3
% within Question
Dialect
2
102
% within L1
Dutch
1
Count
% within L1
% within Question
Table 10: The association between L1 and reactions to someone who answers a Dutch question in Frisian.
Possible answers: 0= ‘I do not say anything, because I do not think it is wrong’, 1= ‘I think it is wrong, but I do
not say anything about it’ and 2= ‘I say something, because I think it is wrong.’
Another Chi-Square analysis revealed that the association between the reactions to someone
that answers a Dutch question in Frisian and the participants’ home languages was significant,
χ (4) = 13.920, p<0.01. Most people that spoke only Frisian or both Frisian and Dutch at
home did not think it is wrong to answer a Frisian question in Dutch. More participants that
spoke only Dutch at home found someone that answers a Dutch question in Frisian irritating
than participants that spoke both Dutch and Frisian or only Frisian at home. Most of them
would not say anything about it (cf. table 11).
65
HL * Question Crosstabulation
Question
0
HL
Frisian
Frisian+Dutch
Dutch
Total
1
Count
2
Total
72
1
1
74
% within HL
97,3%
1,4%
1,4%
100,0%
% within Question
52,9%
11,1%
20,0%
49,3%
45
3
2
50
% within HL
90,0%
6,0%
4,0%
100,0%
% within Question
33,1%
33,3%
40,0%
33,3%
19
5
2
26
% within HL
73,1%
19,2%
7,7%
100,0%
% within Question
14,0%
55,6%
40,0%
17,3%
136
9
5
150
90,7%
6,0%
3,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Count
% within HL
% within Question
Table 11: The association between home languages and reactions to someone who answers a Dutch question in
Frisian. Possible answers: 0= ‘I do not say anything, because I do not think it is wrong’, 1= ‘I think it is wrong,
but I do not say anything about it’ and 2= ‘I say something, because I think it is wrong.’
Furthermore, the association between the reactions to someone that answers a Dutch question
in Frisian and the participants’ place of birth was significant, χ (2) = 14.055, p<0.01. Most
participants that were born in Friesland did not react negative to a situation in which someone
answers a question in Frisian. Relatively many participants that were born outside Friesland
did find it problematic. Most of them would not say anything about it (cf. table 12).
Pl. of Birth * Question Crosstabulation
Question
0
Pl. of Birth
Outside of Friesland
Inside of Friesland
Total
Count
1
2
Total
15
5
1
21
% within Pl. of Birth
71,4%
23,8%
4,8%
100,0%
% within Question
11,0%
55,6%
20,0%
14,0%
121
4
4
129
93,8%
3,1%
3,1%
100,0%
% within Question
89,0%
44,4%
80,0%
86,0%
136
9
5
150
90,7%
6,0%
3,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
% within Question
Table 12: The association between place of birth and reactions to someone who answers a Dutch question in
66
Finally, the association between the reactions to someone that answers a Dutch question in
Frisian and the participants’ level of Frisian was significant, χ (4) = 18.948, p<0.01. Most
people with an average level of Frisian and all people with an excellent level of Frisian did
not find it problematic if someone answers a Dutch question in Frisian. A relative large
number of participants with a low level of Frisian did find it irritating. About half of them
would say something about it, the other half would not (cf. table 13).
Level of Frisian * Question Crosstabulation
Question
0
Level of Frisian
Low
Average
Excellent
Count
2
Total
18
5
3
26
% within Level of Frisian
69,2%
19,2%
11,5%
100,0%
% within Question
13,2%
55,6%
60,0%
17,3%
75
4
2
81
92,6%
4,9%
2,5%
100,0%
% within Question
55,1%
44,4%
40,0%
54,0%
43
0
0
43
100,0%
,0%
,0%
100,0%
31,6%
,0%
,0%
28,7%
136
9
5
150
90,7%
6,0%
3,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
% within Question
Total
1
Count
% within Question
Table 13: The association between level of Frisian and reactions to someone who answers a Dutch question in
4.4.2 Giving Someone a Ticket to a Football Game
A Chi-Square analysis revealed that the choice of giving a ticket to a football game to a Dutch
or Frisian person and gender, age, level of education, social status, raised, town/village and
3/1-lingual was not significant. The relationship between the choices and L1 was significant,
χ (6) = 18.407, p<0.01. Most participants with Dutch as first language claimed that it would
not matter to them if the Frisian or Dutch person would get the ticket. Relatively many
participants that spoke Frisian as mother tongue would give their ticket to the Frisian person.
It is striking that none of the participants who spoke both Frisian and Dutch or a dialect would
give their ticket to the Dutch person, while 50% would give their ticket to the Frisian person
and to the other 50% it did not matter (cf. table 14).
67
L1 * Football Crosstabulation
Football
0
L1
Frisian
Frisian+Dutch
Count
69
106
% within L1
34,9%
,0%
65,1%
100,0%
% within Football
86,0%
,0%
65,7%
70,7%
3
0
3
6
50,0%
,0%
50,0%
100,0%
7,0%
,0%
2,9%
4,0%
2
2
32
36
% within L1
5,6%
5,6%
88,9%
100,0%
% within Football
4,7%
100,0%
30,5%
24,0%
1
0
1
2
50,0%
,0%
50,0%
100,0%
2,3%
,0%
1,0%
1,3%
43
2
105
150
28,7%
1,3%
70,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Count
% within L1
% within Football
Total
Total
0
% within Football
Dialect
2
37
% within L1
Dutch
1
Count
% within L1
% within Football
Table 14: The association between L1 and the choice to give a ticket to a football game to a Frisian or Dutch
person. Possible answers: 0= ‘I give my ticket to the Frisian person’, 1= ‘I give my ticket to the Dutch person’
and 2= ‘I do not care’.
Secondly, the association between the participants’ home languages and their choices is
significant as well, χ (4) = 10.614, p<0.05. Relatively many participants that spoke only
Frisian at home would give their ticket to the Frisian person. Half of the participants that
spoke only Dutch at home would give their ticket to the Dutch speaking person. This is also
the case for the people that spoke both Dutch and Frisian at home. Half of them would give
their ticket to the Dutch speaking person. Only 30% of them would give their ticket to the
Frisian speaking person.
68
HL * Football Crosstabulation
Football
0
HL
Frisian
Frisian+Dutch
Dutch
Total
1
Count
2
Total
28
0
46
74
% within HL
37,8%
,0%
62,2%
100,0%
% within Football
65,1%
,0%
43,8%
49,3%
13
1
36
50
% within HL
26,0%
2,0%
72,0%
100,0%
% within Football
30,2%
50,0%
34,3%
33,3%
2
1
23
26
% within HL
7,7%
3,8%
88,5%
100,0%
% within Football
4,7%
50,0%
21,9%
17,3%
43
2
105
150
28,7%
1,3%
70,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Count
% within HL
% within Football
Table 15: The association between home languages and the choice to give a ticket to a football game to a
Frisian or Dutch person. Possible answers: 0= ‘I give my ticket to the Frisian person’, 1= ‘I give my ticket to
the Dutch person’ and 2= ‘I do not care’.
Thirdly, the association between the participants’ place of birth and their choices is also
significant, χ (2) = 8.483, p<0.05. Most participants who are born outside Friesland would not
care who got their ticket. Relatively many participants who are born in Friesland would give
their ticket to the Frisian person.
Pl. of Birth * Football Crosstabulation
Football
0
Pl. of Birth
Inside of Friesland
Total
Count
1
2
Total
1
1
19
21
4,8%
4,8%
90,5%
100,0%
% within Football
2,3%
50,0%
18,1%
14,0%
42
1
86
129
32,6%
,8%
66,7%
100,0%
% within Football
97,7%
50,0%
81,9%
86,0%
43
2
105
150
28,7%
1,3%
70,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
% within Football
Table 16: The association between place of birth and the choice to give a ticket to a football game to a Frisian
or Dutch person. Possible answers: 0= ‘I give my ticket to the Frisian person’, 1= ‘I give my ticket to the Dutch
person’ and 2= ‘I do not care’.
69
Finally, the association between level of Frisian and the choices of the participants is
significant, χ(4) = 17.883, p<0.01. To most participants it did not matter who got their ticket,
but relatively many participants with an excellent level of Frisian would give their ticket to
the Frisian speaking person.
Level of Frisian * Football Crosstabulation
Football
0
Level of Frisian
Low
Count
Total
Total
2
21
26
11,5%
7,7%
80,8%
100,0%
7,0%
100,0%
20,0%
17,3%
21
0
60
81
25,9%
,0%
74,1%
100,0%
% within Football
48,8%
,0%
57,1%
54,0%
19
0
24
43
44,2%
,0%
55,8%
100,0%
% within Football
44,2%
,0%
22,9%
28,7%
43
2
105
150
28,7%
1,3%
70,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
% within Football
Excellent
2
3
Average
1
Count
Count
Count
% within Football
Table 17: The association between level of Frisian and the choice to give a ticket to a football game to a Frisian
or Dutch person. Possible answers: 0= ‘I give my ticket to the Frisian person’, 1= ‘I give my ticket to the Dutch
person’ and 2= ‘I do not care’.
4.4.3 A Teacher who speaks Frisian in a Dutch School
A Chi-Square analysis revealed that the reaction to a teacher that speaks Frisian in a Dutch
school and gender, age, level of education, social status, L1, raised, town/village and 3/1lingual was not significant. Nevertheless, the association between the reaction to the teacher
and home languages is significant, χ(4) = 16.777, p<0.01. To most participants that spoke
only Frisian or both Frisian and Dutch at home it would not matter that the teacher spoke
Frisian in a Dutch school, but participants that spoke only Dutch as a first language would
find it irritating. However, most of them would not say anything about it (cf. table 19).
70
HL * Teacher Crosstabulation
Teacher
0
HL
Frisian
Count
Frisian+Dutch
Dutch
2
Total
72
0
2
74
% within HL
97,3%
,0%
2,7%
100,0%
% within Teacher
51,8%
,0%
25,0%
49,3%
46
0
4
50
% within HL
92,0%
,0%
8,0%
100,0%
% within Teacher
33,1%
,0%
50,0%
33,3%
21
3
2
26
% within HL
80,8%
11,5%
7,7%
100,0%
% within Teacher
15,1%
100,0%
25,0%
17,3%
139
3
8
150
92,7%
2,0%
5,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Total
1
Count
% within HL
% within Teacher
Table 18: The association between home languages and reactions to a Frisian speaking Teacher in a Dutch
school. Possible answers: 0= ‘I do not say anything, because I do not think it is wrong’, 1= ‘I think it is wrong,
The association between level of Frisian and the reaction to the teacher was significant as
well, χ(4) = 22.926, p=0.0.
Level of Frisian * Teacher Crosstabulation
Teacher
0
Level of Frisian
Low
Average
Excellent
Count
2
Total
19
3
4
26
73,1%
11,5%
15,4%
100,0%
% within Teacher
13,7%
100,0%
50,0%
17,3%
77
0
4
81
95,1%
,0%
4,9%
100,0%
% within Teacher
55,4%
,0%
50,0%
54,0%
43
0
0
43
100,0%
,0%
,0%
100,0%
30,9%
,0%
,0%
28,7%
139
3
8
150
92,7%
2,0%
5,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
% within Teacher
Total
1
Count
% within Teacher
Table 19: The association between level of Frisian and reactions to a Frisian speaking Teacher in a Dutch
school. Possible answers: 0= ‘I do not say anything, because I do not think it is wrong’, 1= ‘I think it is wrong,
71
Table 19 shows that all participants with an excellent level of Frisian and most participants
with an average level of Frisian claimed it would not matter to them if the teacher spoke
Frisian in a Dutch school. To relatively many participants with a low level of Frisian it would
matter. About half of them would say something about it, the other half would not say
anything to the teacher (cf. table 19).
4.4.4 Going to the Hairdresser
First of all, the association between going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser and gender, age,
level of education, social status, town/village and 3/1-lingual was not significant. Secondly,
the association between L1 and going to the hairdresser was significant, χ(6) = 18.328,
p<0.01. None of the participants that spoke only Dutch or a dialect as native language would
go to the Frisian hair dresser. Most participants who spoke only Dutch did not care, but 11%
would go to the Dutch hairdresser. Relatively many participants who spoke only Frisian or
both Dutch and Frisian as mother tongue would go to the Frisian hairdresser (cf. table 20).
L1 * Hairdresser Crosstabulation
Hairdresser
0
L1
Frisian
Frisian+Dutch
Count
Total
Total
1
80
106
% within L1
23,6%
,9%
75,5%
100,0%
% within Hairdresser
96,2%
20,0%
67,2%
70,7%
1
0
5
6
16,7%
,0%
83,3%
100,0%
3,8%
,0%
4,2%
4,0%
0
4
32
36
% within L1
,0%
11,1%
88,9%
100,0%
,0%
80,0%
26,9%
24,0%
0
0
2
2
% within L1
,0%
,0%
100,0%
100,0%
,0%
,0%
1,7%
1,3%
26
5
119
150
17,3%
3,3%
79,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Dialect
2
25
% within L1
Dutch
1
Count
Count
Count
% within L1
Table 20: The association between L1 and going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser. Possible answers: 0= ‘I
would go to the Frisian hairdresser’, 1= ‘I would go to the Dutch hairdresser and 2= ‘I do not care’.
72
Thirdly, the association between home languages and going to the hairdresser was significant
as well, χ(4) = 16.825, p<0.01. Most participants did not care which language the hair dresser
spoke, but relatively many participants that spoke only Frisian or both Dutch and Frisian at
home would go to the Frisian hairdresser and relatively many participants that spoke only
Dutch at home would go to the Dutch hairdresser (cf. table 21).
HL * Hairdresser Crosstabulation
Hairdresser
0
HL
Frisian
Frisian+Dutch
Dutch
Total
Count
1
2
Total
20
0
54
74
% within HL
27,0%
,0%
73,0%
100,0%
76,9%
,0%
45,4%
49,3%
5
2
43
50
% within HL
10,0%
4,0%
86,0%
100,0%
19,2%
40,0%
36,1%
33,3%
1
3
22
26
% within HL
3,8%
11,5%
84,6%
100,0%
3,8%
60,0%
18,5%
17,3%
26
5
119
150
17,3%
3,3%
79,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Count
% within HL
Table 21: The association between home languages and going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser. Possible
answers: 0= ‘I would go to the Frisian hairdresser’, 1= ‘I would go to the Dutch hairdresser and 2= ‘I do not
care’.
Furthermore, the association between level of Frisian and going to the hairdresser was also
significant, χ(4) = 28.175, p=0.0. Relatively many participants with an excellent level of
Frisian claimed they would go to the Frisian hairdresser (cf. table 22). Most participants with
a low level of Frisian would go to the Dutch hairdresser. More than half of the people with an
average level of Frisian claimed it did not matter to them if the hairdresser spoke Dutch or
Frisian.
73
Level of Frisian * Hairdresser Crosstabulation
Hairdresser
0
Level of Frisian
Low
Average
Excellent
Total
1
Count
2
Total
0
4
22
26
,0%
15,4%
84,6%
100,0%
,0%
80,0%
18,5%
17,3%
11
1
69
81
13,6%
1,2%
85,2%
100,0%
42,3%
20,0%
58,0%
54,0%
15
0
28
43
34,9%
,0%
65,1%
100,0%
57,7%
,0%
23,5%
28,7%
26
5
119
150
17,3%
3,3%
79,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Count
Table 22: The association between level of Frisian and going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser. Possible
answers: 0= ‘I would go to the Frisian hairdresser’, 1= ‘I would go to the Dutch hairdresser and 2= ‘I do not
care’.
Moreover, the association between place of birth and going to the hairdresser was significant,
χ(2) = 11.022, p<0.01. To most participants it would not matter which language the
hairdresser spoke, but relatively many participants that were born in Friesland would go to the
Frisian hairdresser and relatively many participants that were born outside Friesland would go
to the Dutch hairdresser (cf. table 23).
Pl. of Birth * Hairdresser Crosstabulation
Hairdresser
0
Pl. of Birth
Inside of Friesland
Total
Count
1
2
Total
1
3
17
21
4,8%
14,3%
81,0%
100,0%
3,8%
60,0%
14,3%
14,0%
25
2
102
129
19,4%
1,6%
79,1%
100,0%
96,2%
40,0%
85,7%
86,0%
26
5
119
150
17,3%
3,3%
79,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Count
Table 23: The association between place of birth and going to a Frisian or Dutch hairdresser. Possible answers:
0= ‘I would go to the Frisian hairdresser’, 1= ‘I would go to the Dutch hairdresser and 2= ‘I do not care’.
74
Finally, the association between place of birth and going to the hairdresser is significant, χ(2)
= 9.244, p<0.01. Most participants did not care which language the hairdresser spoke, but
relatively many participants that were raised in Friesland would go to the Frisian hairdresser
and relatively many participants that were raised outside Friesland would go to the Dutch
hairdresser (cf. table 24).
Raised * Hairdresser Crosstabulation
Hairdresser
0
Raised
Inside of Friesland
Count
2
Total
0
2
10
12
% within Raised
,0%
16,7%
83,3%
100,0%
,0%
40,0%
8,4%
8,0%
26
3
109
138
18,8%
2,2%
79,0%
100,0%
100,0%
60,0%
91,6%
92,0%
26
5
119
150
17,3%
3,3%
79,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
% within Raised
Total
1
Count
% within Raised
Table 24: The association between the place where the participants were raised and going to a Frisian or Dutch
hairdresser. Possible answers: 0= ‘I would go to the Frisian hairdresser’, 1= ‘I would go to the Dutch
hairdresser and 2= ‘I do not care’.
4.4.5 Summary
Table 25 summarizes which background variables lead to significant results about the
conative component of someone’s attitude towards the Frisian language. In the second
column, we can see that most of the background variables that play a role for the MGTfragments, the statements and the job positions are important for the situations of conversation
as well. Only the present residence and age are absent.
The third column of the table shows if the background variables cause significant
differences in favour of Frisian or Dutch. The situations of conversation can be split up into
two categories. The situations of the first category (which includes the football ticket and
hairdresser conversation) can be classified as situations in which someone gives something to
someone else who speaks a certain language. The situations of the second category are
situations in which someone does speak another language than is more or less ‘prescribed’ in
such a situation. It strikes that the significant differences in relationship to the background
variables found for the situations of the first category are to a large extend in favour of
Frisian. This means that most participants do not care who gets the ticket to the football game
75
or which language the hair dresser speaks, but that relatively many participants who can be
considered as Frisian (speak Frisian, were born in Friesland, etc.) would give their football
ticket to a Frisian speaking person or would go to a Frisian hairdresser, which means that, in
general, the attitudes are in favour of Frisian. In case of the hairdresser, the differences are a
in favour of Dutch as well, at least on some occasions. This means that most participants do
not care, but that a relatively large number of the Dutch participants would go to the Dutch
hairdresser and that relatively many Frisian participants would go to the Frisian hairdresser.
On the contrary, the differences of the second category’s situations are all in favour of
Dutch. This means that relatively many Dutch participants are irritated by someone who
answers a Dutch question in Frisian or a teacher that speaks Frisian in a Dutch school. The
attitudes people have in the situations of the second category can be divided into active or
passive: Someone who cares about the fact that a person does not speak the usual language in
a certain situation can correct that person (active attitude) or can be irritated in silence. The
fourth column shows the results in relationship to the passive or active attitudes. We can
observe that the participants that are irritated by someone who does not speak the usual
language in a certain situation mainly have a passive attitude: they are irritated, but mostly do
not say something about it.
Table 25: Summary of the significant background variables of the situations of conversation.
76
5. Discussion
5.1 Language Attitudes in Friesland – Overall Results Discussed
The present study investigated the language attitudes of adults living in Friesland towards
Frisian. In 1970, Frisian gained the status of second official language of the Netherlands. At
the moment, the Dutch government is planning to determine the status of the Frisian language
in the Dutch constitution as well. Because the rights and status of Frisian are more and more
protected legally, the Province of Friesland has been rather concerned with promoting the use
of Frisian for the past few years. Earlier research into attitudes towards minority languages
(cf. Woolard and Gahng 1990) points out that the status of a minority language can grow after
positive changes in language policies have taken place. The main research question of the
present study therefore was which language attitudes the inhabitants of Friesland hold after a
period of being encouraged by the Province of Friesland to use the Frisian language more
often. In order to address this first research question two methodologies were used: An
indirect method in the form of a Matched Guise Test, in which the participants had to rate
speakers of a number of Frisian and Dutch fragments on status, integrity and attractiveness
traits, and a direct method in the form of a questionnaire.
Earlier studies showed that people attributed a higher status to the Dutch language than to
the Frisian language. Jonkman (1990), for example, investigated the language attitudes of
inhabitants of the Frisian capital Leeuwarden towards the Frisian and Dutch language. For his
investigation Jonkman used ‘conceptual guises’, i.e. the participants had to imagine someone
who spoke Dutch and someone who spoke Frisian and rate these concepts on a number of
personality traits. The outcomes of Jonkman’s investigation pointed out that the Dutch
conceptual guises scored higher on status traits and that the Frisian conceptual guises scored
higher on the solidarity traits (cf. Jonkman 1990: 16ff.). The study of Ytsma, in which 5th and
8th graders of primary schools in the country side were tested, also showed that Frisian was
rated higher on solidarity traits and that Dutch was rated higher on status traits (cf. Ytsma
1990: 174f.). Therefore, one of the hypotheses (hypothesis v) of the present study was that
Dutch would be rated higher on status traits and that Frisian would be rated higher on
solidarity and attractiveness traits. However, during the present investigation no general
differences in the ratings of Frisian and Dutch on status traits were found. Frisian was still
rated higher on attractiveness and solidarity traits. This means that the attitudes of Frisian
have slightly changed over the years. Frisian is still rated higher on integrity traits, but no
77
differences could be found in the ratings of Dutch and Frisian on status traits. Therefore,
hypothesis v – Dutch will be rated higher on status traits and Frisian will be rated higher on
solidarity and attractiveness traits – has to be partially rejected.
Since the Province of Friesland has promoted the use and learning of Frisian, secondly,
the attitudes towards learning Frisian were examined in this study. The participants had to
indicate in how far they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements about learning
Frisian. Although there are no differences found in the status that people attribute to Dutch
and Frisian in this study, the results show that participants who are not born in Friesland, do
not speak Frisian as a first language or as home language, have a lower level of Frisian and
younger people hold very negative attitudes towards learning Frisian. Apparently, these
groups are still not aware of the possible advantages of using Frisian and learning Frisian.
This could be due to the fact that people who do not speak Frisian as a native language are not
concerned by the promoting of the use of Frisian by the Province of Friesland. The Praat mar
Frysk (‘Just talk Frisian’) campaign, for example, which is supposed to promote the use of
Frisian through providing t-shirts, posters and other objects with Frisian slogans and that was
started by the Frisian Movement, primarily focuses on Frisians who already speak Frisian.
The campaign is presented as ‘an effort to make Frisians conscious of their bilingualism and
to let them be proud of it’11 (Frisian Movement 2011). It is understandable that Frisians who
only speak Dutch are not appealed by such a campaign. For the future it would be interesting
to investigate how inhabitants of Friesland who only speak Dutch could be stimulated to learn
Frisian and how they could be made aware of the advantages of bilingualism. Since it is
mainly this group that holds negative attitudes towards (the learning of) the Frisian language,
the Province of Friesland should focus more on them to revitalize the Frisian language.
5.2 The Difference Between Parents with Children Attending Trilingual Schools and
Parents with Children Attending Monolingual Schools
The Province of Friesland has tried to make parents more aware of the advantages of raising
their children bilingually. Moreover, the number of trilingual schools in which Frisian plays
an important role as language of education is growing rapidly (Province of Friesland 2011a:
40). The benefits of trilingual education are already showing. Bangma (2009), for instance,
11
This was a free translations of the author. The original quotation is the following: “in kampanje mei it doel
Friezen bewust te meitsjen fan harren twataligens en harren dęr grutsk op te meitsjen”.
78
tested 9-13-year-old pupils of mono- and trilingual Frisian primary schools. She found that
pupils of trilingual schools hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than pupils that attend
monolingual schools (cf. Bangma 2009: 27ff.). The influence of trilingual education on the
parents of the children that attend trilingual school has not been investigated until now. This is
probably due to the fact that trilingual education is a relatively new idea in Friesland. The first
trilingual school was founded in 1997 and in the school year of 2005-2006 only eight schools
were certified as trilingual schools. Since 2006, the number of trilingual schools is expanding
rapidly. Today (2011), 41 schools participate in the network of trilingual schools (cf. CEDIN
2011). Following from that, the number of trilingual schools has expanded rapidly over the
past few years. Therefore, the second research question of this investigation was if the
attitudes of parents of children attending trilingual schools differ from the attitudes of parents
of children that attend monolingual schools. Based on Bangma’s conclusions, one of the
hypotheses that were made in the present study was that parents of children attending
trilingual schools would hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than parents of children
who attend monolingual schools (hypothesis iii).
50 parents of primary school children participated in the present study. They filled out the
same questionnaire as the other participants and were therefore indirectly tested through the
Matched Guise Test and directly through the list with direct questions. With statistical tests it
was examined for every question type, if the parents of children that attend trilingual schools
and the parents of children attending monolingual schools rated Frisian differently.
The results show no differences. This is striking, since, as Bangma (2009) showed, the
children that attend trilingual schools themselves do hold more positive attitudes towards
Frisian than children attending monolingual schools. Based on the results of the present study
hypothesis iii – Parents of children attending trilingual schools hold more positive attitudes
towards Frisian than parents of children who attend monolingual schools – has to be rejected.
The fact that parents of children attending trilingual schools do not hold more positive
attitudes towards Frisian than parents of children that attend monolinguals schools could be
due to the small amount of schools that can usually be found in an average Frisian village. In
Frisian villages there are mostly two schools, or even only one school. Many parents therefore
do not really have a choice to let their children attend a tri- or monolingual school. They find
it more important to send their kids to the closest school or to a religious school, if they are
religious. Sometimes, the closest or only religious school in the village coincidentally happens
to be a trilingual school, but the choice between a tri- or monolingual school is mostly not
79
made consciously by parents. For further research it would be interesting to investigate to
what extent parents know the benefits of trilingual education and how this can be improved.
5.3 Differences Between Overt and Covert Attitudes
The last question of the present study was whether different measurements lead to different
results. This question was linked to the fact that people can hold different kinds of attitudes
towards a language. A study of LaPiere (2010) is a prominent example of this. In 1934, he
visited a number of hotels and restaurants with two Chinese friends. In almost all
establishments they were served without any problems. A few months later, LaPiere sent
representatives of the establishments questionnaires in which he asked if Chinese people were
welcome in their restaurant or hotel. About 92% of the representatives stated that they would
not welcome Chinese people in their establishments (cf. LaPiere 2010: 8ff). The managers of
the restaurants and hotels clearly acted different than they claimed they would in a situation in
which Chinese people visited their establishments. This can be related to the different kinds of
attitudes people can hold towards a language. On the one hand people can hold overt
attitudes, of which they are conscious of having them. On the other hand they can hold covert
attitudes, of which they are not conscious of having them.
To be able to measure subconsciously held attitudes Lambert (1972) developed the
Matched Guise Technique. In this technique a number of fragments are recorded in two
languages by the same bilingual speaker. Nevertheless, the people who take the test are told
that they are hearing two different speakers and are asked to rate these speakers on certain
personality traits. Because the participants do not know the only difference between the two
fragments is the language, their covertly held attitudes towards both languages can be
measured (cf. Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner and Fillenbaum 1972: 86ff.).
The indirect attitudes of adults living in Friesland towards Frisian have so far not been
investigated through the Matched Guise Technique on a large scale. Jonkman investigated the
attitudes of a small number of students towards the Frisian language through a Matched Guise
Test in 1982 and 1985. He found a number of social group effects (for example: Frisian
speaking students rated Frisian higher than Dutch speaking students), but did not make
comparisons between direct and indirect measurements (cf. Jonkman 1982: 38ff.; Jonkman
1985: 40ff.). Ytsma (1990) also used the Matched Guise Technique to investigate the
language attitudes towards Frisian. He tested 5th and 8th graders of primary schools in the
Frisian country side. He found a number of social group effects as well. He did make small
80
comparisons between direct and indirect measurements. He found that when someone rated
Frisian lower on solidarity traits and Dutch higher on status traits in a Matched Guise Test, he
held a more negative overt attitude towards Frisian as well. The correlation he found was very
weak though (cf. Ytsma 1990: 179).
To be able to make a comparison between direct and indirect measurements the survey
used in the present study consisted of a Matched Guise Test, in which the participants had to
rate speakers of Frisian and Dutch fragments on a number of personality traits, and a number
of statements about Frisian and Dutch speaking people in general, that contained the same
personality traits as the Matched Guise Test. Since it is a common fact that the risk of getting
socially desired answers when using direct types of questioning (cf. Agheyisi and Fishman
1970: 149), the hypothesis (iv) that was linked to the research question whether direct and
indirect measurements lead to different results was the following: Direct measurements will
result in more positive attitudes than indirect measurements, assuming that different
measurements will lead to different results.
The results of both measurements are sketched in table 19.
Table 19: Direct (blue) and Indirect (red) Ratings of Frisian.
We can see in the table that the two different measurements indeed lead to different results.
What is striking, however, is the fact that the direct measurements used in the present study
do not necessarily lead to more positive answers. Hypothesis iv can therefore be partially
accepted; different measurements do lead to different results, but direct measurements do not
always lead to more positive answers.
81
It is strange that there are only very few studies in which clear comparisons between the
outcomes of direct and indirect attitude measurements in relationship to Frisian are made. It is
proven that people hold two kinds of attitudes towards languages, covert and overt attitudes,
and that these two can differ from each other. Language policies should focus on addressing
both kinds of attitudes. Since people are not aware of their covert attitudes, these attitudes
might even be more relevant for language planning purposes. Especially for a minority
language like Frisian it is important to investigate the covert attitudes of the inhabitants of
Friesland. Only if people can be made aware of the attitudes and the prejudices they
subconsciously hold towards Frisian, their attitudes towards Frisian can perhaps be changed.
In further research the discrepancies between covertly and overtly held attitudes should be
taken more into account. It would be interesting to make comparisons between direct and
indirect measurements of other question types on a larger scale.
5.4 Variation in Language Attitudes: Social Group Effects
Previous studies showed that social groups can affect someone’s attitude towards a language.
Examples of this are that:
i.
Frisian speaking people usually hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than
Dutch speaking people (cf. Smith 1979; Van der Plank 1980; Jonkman 1982 Gorter
1985; Ytsma 1990; Spelberg and Postma 1995 and Bangma 2009);
ii.
People with a higher level of education often hold more negative attitudes towards
Frisian than people with a lower level of education (cf. Pietersen 1969; Gorter and
Jonkman 1984 and Gorter and Jonkman 1995);
iii.
People who had more education in Frisian often hold more positive attitudes towards
Frisian than people who had less education in Frisian (cf. Spelberg and Postma 1995
and Bangma 2009);
iv.
People who were born in Friesland usually hold more positive attitudes towards
Frisian than people who moved from other Dutch provinces to Friesland (cf. Pietersen
1969; Gorter and Jonkman 1984 and Gorter and Jonkman 1995)
The present study paid attention to social group effects on language attitudes as well. The two
hypotheses that were linked to the social group effects were i – Participants who speak
Frisian as native language will hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than participants
82
who speak Dutch as first language and ii – People with a higher level of Frisian will be more
positive towards Frisian than participants with a lower level of Frisian.
The survey that was used to measure the attitudes of adults living in Friesland towards
Frisian contained four question types: six fragments that were set up in accordance with the
Matched Guise Technique, in order to examine the indirectly held attitudes towards Frisian, a
number of statements to investigate the directly held attitudes towards the Frisian language
and the attitudes towards learning Frisian, job positions that had to be linked to Dutch- or
Frisian-speaking persons, in order to investigate the status Frisian has among the inhabitants
of Friesland and a number of conversation situations, to examine the conative side of the
attitudes of the adults living in Friesland towards Frisian. During the analysis it was tested if
the results of these question types differed significantly on the level of the following
background variables: gender, age, level of education, social status, place of birth, raised,
town/village, L1, home languages, level of Frisian and 3/1-lingual (see the table in section 3.6
Processing the data for the full names of the background variables).
Figure 22 shows which background variables were significant at which level of language
attitudes. The table shows that someone’s first language, the languages someone speaks at
home and the level of Frisian someone has, are crucial for the attitudes someone living in
Friesland has towards a language. These background variables return on every attitude level.
The question if someone lives in a town or a village is only important for the
cognitive/affective component of the language attitude towards Frisian. It affects only the
status that is attributed to Frisian and the indirect attitudes towards Frisian. People who live in
towns have less positive indirect attitudes towards Frisian and attribute a lower status to
Frisian than people who live in a village. For the attitude towards learning Frisian someone’s
present residence does not play an important role. However, place of birth and age do affect
the indirect attitudes towards Frisian and the attitudes towards learning Frisian. The older
someone is the more positive his indirect attitude towards Frisian is and the more positive his
attitude towards learning Frisian is. Someone’s attitude towards Frisian is also more important
on those levels if he or she is born in Friesland.
83
Fig. 22: The significant background variables on several levels of language attitudes. The background variables
in the green boxes are significant on every level. The background variables in the red boxes are only significant
at a few levels.
What strikes is that the place where someone is raised plays a less significant role for the
attitudes towards Frisian than the place where someone is born. The place where someone is
raised is only significant for the conative component of the attitudes towards Frisian. An
explanation for this could be that these groups were not equally represented in the study.
There were 138 participants that were raised in Friesland, while there were only 12
participants that were raised outside of Friesland. This was the same for the place of birth:
129 participants were born in Friesland, whereas only 21 were born outside of Friesland. The
results in relationship to these background variables are therefore not entirely representative.
It turns out that both hypotheses that were made in relationship to the social group effects
can be accepted:
i.
Language background. It turns out that not only someone’s first language, but also
the languages someone speaks at home positively affect the attitude towards Frisian.
These two background variables are significant at all attitude levels. This hypothesis
can be entirely accepted.
84
ii.
Educational background in Frisian. The results show that someone’s level of
Frisian has positive influence on someone’s attitude towards Frisian as well. This
background variable is significant at every attitude level and therefore, this hypothesis
can also be entirely accepted.
Most of the social group effects found in the present study relate to earlier investigations. The
effects of someone’s first language (Smith 1979; Van der Plank 1980; Jonkman 1982; Ytsma
1990; Spelberg and Postma 1995 and Bangma 2009), the question if someone is born in- or
outside of Friesland (Pietersen 1969; Gorter and Jonkman 1984 and Gorter and Jonkman
1995), someone’s age (Pietersen 1969; Gorter and Jonkman 1984; Ytsma 1990 and Gorter
and Jonkman 1995), someone’s level of Frisian (Spelberg and Postma 1995; Bangma 2009)
and the question if someone lives on the countryside or in a town (Pietersen 1969; Gorter and
Jonkman 1984 and Gorter and Jonkman 1995) were pointed out in those earlier investigations
as well. However, the effect of the languages someone speaks at home is newly discussed in
the present study and did not come forward in the earlier investigations discussed in the
literature review of this thesis.
Since the Province of Friesland is concerned with the promotion of Frisian and the use of
the Frisian language, it is important to focus on the above-mentioned social groups. As
discussed in section 5.1 Language Attitudes in Friesland – Overall Results Discussed some of
the campaigns that were started to promote the use of Frisian primarily focus on Frisians who
already speak Frisian. Since those people who do not speak Frisian as first or home language,
those who moved from other Dutch provinces to Friesland, those who have not had much
education in Frisian and the younger people are the ones who mostly hold negative attitudes
towards Frisian, it is rather important to focus on those groups to improve the image and use
of Frisian.
85
6. Conclusion
This study was concerned with three research questions. The first question was what kind of
attitudes the inhabitants of Friesland hold after a period of promoting the use of Frisian by the
Province of Friesland. The second question was whether parents of children attending
trilingual schools hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than parents of children that
attend monolingual schools. The final question was whether indirect measurements lead to
other results than direct measurements.
Concerning the first question it can be said that the attitudes of adults living in Friesland
have become slightly more positive. Frisian has gained more status as a language among the
inhabitants of Friesland. However, the attitudes towards learning Frisian are relatively
negative. Next to young people, people who are not born in Friesland, do not use Frisian as a
language and have a low level of Frisian are very negative about learning Frisian. Future
efforts of the Province of Friesland to stimulate the use of the Frisian language and to improve
the image of Frisian should therefore focus on these groups.
In relation to the second question we can conclude that the attitudes of parents of children
who attend trilingual schools are not more positive than those of the parents of children
attending monolingual schools. No significant differences between these groups were found.
This is striking, because Bangma (2009) found that children who attend trilingual schools do
hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than children who attend monolingual schools.
This positive effect of trilingual education apparently has not yet reached the parents. Since it
is one of the primary goals of the Province of Friesland to make parents aware of the benefits
of raising their children bilingually, it would be interesting to investigate how parents could
more easily be reached in the future.
Answering the third question, we can say that different measurements do lead to different
results. What is striking is the fact that the direct measurements used in this study did not
necessarily lead to more positive answers than the indirect measurements, although that was
expected based on conclusions of Agheyisi and Fishman (1970). However, it is a fact that
people can hold covert and overt attitudes towards a language and that these two kinds of
attitudes can differ from each other. For a minority language such as Frisian, it is important
that the covert attitudes towards the language are investigated, since the covert attitudes are
those that people are mostly unaware of. It is strange that the outcomes of indirect methods
have hardly ever been compared with the outcomes of direct methods in relationship to
Frisian so far. There are certainly studies that use indirect measurements, but in these studies
86
only the outcomes of the indirect measurements are present. Almost no reliable comparisons
with direct measurements have been made in relationship to the Frisian language. For future
research it would be interesting to repeat the experiment of the present study and compare the
outcomes of indirect measurements with the outcomes of direct measurements with other
question types and on a larger scale. Covert attitudes usually represent hidden prejudices
towards a certain language. Therefore, these covert attitudes can provide a lot of useful
information in improving the image of Frisian and stimulating the use of the Frisian language.
Furthermore, the results of the present study revealed that someone’s first language, the
languages that someone speaks at home and the level of Frisian someone has, are important
variables in affecting someone’s language attitude towards Frisian on every attitude level. In
addition, it is important if someone lives in a village, is born in or outside of Friesland and
how old someone is. Most of the effects of the social groups discussed in this study were also
pointed out in earlier investigations (for example Ytsma 1990; Spelberg and Postma 1995;
Gorter and Jonkman 1995 and Bangma 2009), but the effect of the languages someone speaks
at home has not been showed before. It turned out that people who are familiar with both
Dutch and Frisian at home – i.e. who have for example a mother or father who speaks Frisian
– hold more positive attitudes towards Frisian than people who only hear and speak Dutch at
home. As discussed earlier, some of the campaigns that were started to stimulate the use of
Frisian focus on Frisians who already speak Frisian. Since the people who do not speak
Frisian as first or home language, who moved from other Dutch provinces to Friesland, who
have not had much education in Frisian and the younger people usually are the ones to hold
negative attitudes towards Frisian, it is rather important to focus on those groups to improve
the state of the Frisian language.
87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agheyisi, R. and Fishman, J. (1970). Language attitudes: A brief survey of methodological
approaches. Anthropological Linguistics, 12, 137-157.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and languages. Clevedan: Multilingual Matters.
Bangma, I. (2009). Taalattitude van bovenbouwleerlingen van enkel-, twee- en drietalige
basisscholen in Fryslân. Leeuwarden: Internal publication of the Fryske Akademy.
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H. and Tajfel, H. (1973). Language as a determinant of Welsh identity.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(4), 447-460.
CEDIN (2011). http://www.taalsintrum.nl/trijetalige-skoalle.html. August 2011.
Ebertwoski, M. (1978). De relatie tussen taalattitude en taalgedrag. Een sociaalpsychologische benadering. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 4, 38-51.
Edmondson, D. (2005). Likert scales: A history. CHARM, , 127-133.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Frisian Movement (2011). www.praatmarfrysk.nl. August 2011.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An Introduction to
theory and research. Reading: Addison- Wesley.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N. and Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes. Social
meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
88
Gorter, D. (1985). De taalsituaasje yn de gemeente It Hearrenfean. In undersyk nei it hâlden
en dragen foar it Frysk oer fan de befolking. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Gorter, D. (2005). Three languages of instruction in fryslân. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 171, 57-73.
Gorter, D. and Jonkman, R. J. (1984). Taal yn Fryslân: Ûndersyk nei taalgedrach en
taalhâlding yn Fryslân. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Gorter, D. and Jonkman, R. J. (1995). Taal yn Fryslân op 'e nij besjoen. Leeuwarden: Fryske
Akademy.
Gorter, D. and Ytsma, J. (1988). Social factors and language attitudes in Friesland. In U.
Knops (Ed.), Language attitudes in the Dutch language area (pp. 59-71). Providence, RI:
Foris.
Hilton, N. H., Gooskens, C., Schüppert, A., Bezooijen, R. van, Heuven, V. van (2010).
Attitudes towards Frisian – in the Netherlands and Beyond. Presentation at the Dei fan de
Fryske Taalkunde at the Fryske Akademy.
Huguet, A. (2007). Language use and language attitudes in Catalonia. In D. Lasagabaster and
A. Huguet (Eds.), Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts (pp. 17-39). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Huguet, A. and Llurda, E. (2001). Language attitudes of school children in two
Catalan/Spanish bilingual communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 4(4), 267-282.
Jonkman, R. J. (1982). Paadwizers. Een onderzoek naar de sociale beoordeling van
enkele in Friesland gesproken taalvariëteiten m.b.v. de Matched Guise Techniek.
Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
89
Jonkman, R. J. (1985). Skaadwizers. in lykskeakele-opnameûndersyk nei taal- en
taalgedrachshâlding yn Fryslân . Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Jonkman, R. J. (1990). Characterising a minority language: A social psychological
comparison between Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert Vernacular. In D. Gorter, J. F.
Hoekstra, L. G. Jansma and J. Ytsma (Eds.), Fourth international conference on minority
languages. vol. II: Western and eastern European papers (pp. 11-20). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Karwoski, T. F. and Odbert, H. S. (1938). Color-music. Psychological Monographies, 50(2),
21.
Kimple, J. (1968). Language shift and the interpretation of conversations. In J. A. Fishman
and R. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bilingualism in the barrio. The measurement and description of
language dominance in bilinguals. New York: Yeshiva University.
Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
University Press.
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.C. and Fillenbaum, S. (1972). Evaluational
reactions to spoken languages. In S. D. Anwar (Ed.), Language, psychology, and culture
(pp. 80-96). Stanford: University Press.
Lambert, W. E. and Taylor, D. (1972). A social psychology of bilingualism. In S. D. Anwar
(Ed.), Language, psychology, and culture (pp. 212-235). Stanford: University Press.
LaPiere, R. T. (2010) [1934]. Attitudes vs actions. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39,
7-11.
Laugharne, J. (2007). Language use and language attitudes in Wales. In D. Lasagabaster and
A. Huguet (Eds.), Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts (pp. 208-233).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
90
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.
London: Printer.
Osgood, C. E. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Chigaco and London: Univerity
of Illinois Press.
Pietersen, L. (1969). De Friezen en hun taal: Een onderzoek naar de lees- en
spreekgewoonten in Friesland en naar de houding ten aanzien van het Fries.
Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Plank, van der P. (1980). Tussen welzijn en wolwêze. Redsumens, (3), 23-38.
Province of Friesland (2009). Fryslân in sifers. Leeuwarden.
Province of Friesland (2011a). Beleidsplan Friese taal 2008-2011. Van recht naar praktijk.
Fries in Fryslân: Taal tussen mensen.
Province of Friesland (2011b). De Fryske taalatlas 2011. Friese taal in beeld.
Rijksoverheid (2011).http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en publicaties/persberichten
/2010/02/12/nederlandse-taal-wordt-verankerd-in-grondwet%5B2%5D.html.August 2011.
Rosenberg, M. and Hovland, C. (1960). Attitude organisation and change: An analysis of
consistency among attitude components. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ruijven, B. van and Ytsma, J. (2008). Trijetalige skoalle in Fryslan. Leeuwarden: Fryske
Akademy.
Sharp, D. (1973). Attitudes to Welsh and English in the schools of Wales. London: Macmillan
Education LTD.
Smith, J. F. (1978). Language use and language attitudes in a bilingual community: Terherne,
Friesland. Dissertation Abstracts: Section A. Humanities and Social Science. Stanford:
University Press.
91
Smith, J. F. (1979). Taelgebrûk en taelhâlding yn Terherne. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Sommer, B. (2001). A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Spelberg, H. C. L. and Postma, B. (1995). Taalattitudes in een tweetalige situatie. It Beaken:
Tydskrift Fan De Fryske Akademy, 57(1), 30-43.
Stouffer, S. and Thurstone, L.L. (1950). Measurement and prediction. Princeton: University
Press.
Woolard, K. A. and Gahng, T. J. (1990). Changing language policies and attitudes in
autonomous Catalonia. Language in Society, 19(3), 311-330.
Ytsma, J. (1990). Taalattitudes op de basisschool in Friesland. Gramma, 14, 169-182.
Ytsma, J., Viladot, M. A. and Giles, H. (1994). Ethnolinguistic vitality and ethnic identity:
Some Catalan and Frisian data. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,
(108), 63-78.
Zahn, C. and Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation
instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, (4), 113-123.
92
APPENDIX A: Survey for the Parents12
Taal in het basisonderwijs
Introductie
Mijn naam is Femke Swarte. Ik studeer aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Om mijn
opleiding af te ronden doe ik onderzoek naar taalonderwijs op de basisschool. Daarvoor
maak ik gebruik van een nieuwe methode, die onder andere bestaat uit het beoordelen
van een aantal geluidsfragmenten. Het invullen van de enquête duurt ongeveer 15
minuten. Eerst wordt u gevraagd de sprekers van zes geluidsfragmenten te beoordelen,
daarna worden er nog een aantal andere vragen gesteld. Vervolgens wordt u gevraagd
aan te geven in hoeverre u het eens bent met 18 korte stellingen. Tot slot volgen er nog
enkele vragen over uw persoonsgegevens. Het balkje onderin het scherm laat zien
hoeveel procent van de enquête u al voltooid heeft.
Tot slot wil ik benadrukken dat uw deelname aan dit onderzoek volstrekt anoniem zal
worden verwerkt. De door u verstrekte informatie zal op geen enkele manier naar u, uw
kind of de school terug zijn te voeren.
Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.
Uitleg beoordeling sprekers
Het is belangrijk dat u deze uitleg leest!
In dit onderdeel volgen de geluidsfragmenten waarin zes verschillende mensen u de weg
naar de Waag in Leeuwarden wijzen. De fragmenten duren elk ongeveer 30 seconden.
Het is dus belangrijk dat het geluid van uw computer aanstaat. Eerst beluistert u het
fragment, door op de playknop (de middelste van de drie knoppen aan de linker kant) in
de balk bovenin het scherm te klikken. U kunt het fragment zo vaak beluisteren als u
zelf wilt. Na het beluisteren van het geluidsfragment wordt u gevraagd de spreker te
beoordelen op zes eigenschappen. Deze eigenschappen worden gepresenteerd op een
vijfpuntsschaal, zodat u aan kunt geven in hoeverre een bepaalde eigenschap van
toepassing is.
12
Because the survey was web based, the design of the actual survey looked not entirely the same as presented in
this appendix. This appendix is only added to the text in order to give an impression of the questions that were
asked during the survey.
93
Voorbeeld:
Welke indruk maakt deze spreker? Deze spreker klinkt...
12345
Onvriendelijk
00000
Vriendelijk
Vindt u dat de spreker onvriendelijk klinkt, dan klikt u het eerste, meest linkse, rondje
aan:
12345
●0000
Vriendelijk
Onvriendelijk
Vindt u dat de spreker vriendelijk klinkt, dan klikt u het laatste, meest rechtse, rondje
aan:
Onvriendelijk
0000●
Vriendelijk
Vindt u dat de spreker een beetje onvriendelijk of een beetje vriendelijk klinkt, dan
klikt u het tweede (voor "beetje onvriendelijk") of vierde (voor "beetje vriendelijk")
rondje aan:
Onvriendelijk
Onvriendelijk
0●000
000●0
Vriendelijk
Vriendelijk
Als u geen mening heeft, kruist u het middelste rondje aan.
Spreker 1
Druk op de Play-knop om het fragment te beluisteren en vul daarna de tabel in.
Als dit niet werkt klik dan op onderstaande link en klik op "ok". Dan wordt het
fragment alsnog afgespeeld.
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
94
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 2
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 3
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
95
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 4
Als dit niet werkt klink dan op onderstaande link en klik op "ok". Het fragment wordt
dan alsnog afgespeeld.
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 5
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
96
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 6
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Uitleg gesprekssituaties
Er volgen nu vier korte situatieschetsen. De situaties zijn erg extreem en zullen in het
dagelijks leven niet voorkomen. Toch wil ik u vragen of u zich voor wilt stellen hoe het
zou zijn om in zo'n situatie te belanden en hoe u dan zou reageren. Het gaat om uw
eerste gevoel. Geef aan hoe u op de betreffende situaties zou reageren door één van de
meerkeuze mogelijkheden aan te klikken.
Gesprekssituaties
97
) 1. U stelt iemand een vraag in het Nederlands en hij of zij antwoordt in het Fries. Wat
doet u?
( ) Ik zeg er niets van, want ik vind het niet erg.
( ) Ik vind het wel erg, maar ik zeg er niets van.
( ) Ik zeg er iets van, want ik stoor mij eraan.
) 2. U heeft nog een kaartje voor een voetbalwedstijd over. Er zijn twee mensen die het
kaartje graag willen hebben. De één vraagt u in het Fries of hij het kaartje mag hebben,
de ander in het Nederlands. Wie krijgt uw kaartje?
( ) Ik geef mijn kaartje aan degene die Fries spreekt.
( ) Ik geef mijn kaartje aan degene die Nederlands spreekt.
( ) Het maakt mij niet uit.
) 3. Uw kinderen zitten op een basisschool waar normaal geen Fries gesproken wordt.
Maar uw kind vertelt dat zijn of haar juf of meester wel eens Fries spreekt in de klas.
Wat doet u?
( ) Ik ga naar school om er iets van te zeggen, want ik vind het slecht dat de juf of meester
Fries spreekt.
( ) Ik vind het wel slecht, maar ik doe er niets aan.
( ) Ik doe niets, want ik heb er geen moeite mee dat er Fries gesproken wordt op school.
) 4. U moet naar de kapper. In de wijk waar u net bent gaan wonen zijn twee kappers.
De één spreekt Fries, de ander Nederlands. Wat doet u?
( ) Ik ga naar de Nederlandse kapper.
( ) Ik ga naar de Friese kapper.
( ) Het maakt mij niet uit, ik ga naar de kapper die het best knipt.
Uitleg beroepen
Er volgt nu een tabel met een aantal beroepen. Stelt u zich mensen voor die deze
beroepen uitoefenen. Geef aan, of u denkt dat beoefenaars van deze beroepen eerder
Fries of Nederlands spreken. Het gaat om wat u het eerst te binnen schiet. Belangrijk is
daarbij wat u denkt en niet of dat in de werkelijkheid ook klopt.
Beroepen
98
Wie spreekt er volgens u Fries en wie spreekt er volgens u Nederlands?
Fries (0)
Nederlands (1)
Onderwijzer
Buschauffeur
Stratenmaker
Verpleegkundige
Kapper
Huisarts
Professor
Politieagent
Manager
Supermarktmedewerker
Dominee
Makelaar
Uitleg stellingen
Er volgen nu 18 stellingen. Het gaat weer om uw eerste gevoel. Geef aan in hoeverre u
het met deze stellingen eens bent.
Stellingen
Geeft u alstublieft aan in hoeverre u het met deze 18 stellingen eens bent.
) 1. Iedereen in Friesland zou Fries moeten leren spreken.
1 Helemaal mee oneens.
2 Een beetje mee oneens.
3 Niet mee eens en niet mee oneens.
4 Een beetje mee eens.
5 Helemaal mee eens.
) 2. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is onvriendelijk.
99
) 3. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is eerlijk.
) 4. Ik vind het slecht wanneer mijn kind Fries leert spreken op school.
) 5. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is intelligent.
) 6. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is onaantrekkelijk.
) 7. Kennis van de Friese taal helpt mijn kind bij het leren van andere talen.
100
) 8. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is arm.
) 9. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is vriendelijk.
) 10. Een kind dat op school de Friese taal leert, spreekt slechter Nederlands.
) 11. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is rijk.
) 12. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is oneerlijk.
101
) 13. Fries moet op school ook als instructietaal gebruikt worden, bijvoorbeeld tijdens de
reken- of geschiedenisles.
) 14. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is dom.
) 15. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is behulpzaam.
) 16. Een kind dat Fries spreekt, haalt slechtere cijfers dan een kind dat Nederlands
spreekt.
) 17. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is onbehulpzaam.
102
) 18. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is aantrekkelijk.
Persoonsgegevens
Tot slot volgen er nog enkele vragen over uw persoonsgegevens.
Persoonsgegevens
) 1. Leeftijd (in jaren):
____________________________________________
) 2. Geslacht:
( ) Vrouw
( ) Man
) 3. Hoogst genoten opleiding
( ) WO (universiteit)
( ) HBO
( ) MBO
( ) Middelbare school
( ) Basisschool
) 4. Geboorteplaats:
____________________________________________
103
) 5. Waar bent u opgegroeid (plaats)?
____________________________________________
) 6. Wat is uw moedertaal (of dialect)?
____________________________________________
) 7. Welke talen worden er thuis gesproken? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
____________________________________________
8. Geef door de juiste kolom aan te kruisen aan hoe goed uw Fries is op het gebied van
de volgende vier vaardigheden.
) Lezen
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) Schrijven
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) Luisteren
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) Spreken
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) 9. Heeft u kinderen die op dit moment naar de basisschool gaan?
104
( ) Ja
( ) Nee
) 10. Wat is de naam van de basisschool waar uw kind/kinderen op zitten?
____________________________________________
) 11. Waarom heeft u voor die school gekozen? (u mag hier meer hokjes aankruisen)
[ ] Omdat het een christelijke school is.
[ ] Omdat het een openbare school is.
[ ] Omdat het een Trijetalige Skoalle is.
[ ] Omdat het een enkeltalige school is.
[ ] Ik had geen keus, er is hier maar één basisschool.
[ ] Anders
Vergeet u niet op voltooien te klikken?
Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!
105
APPENDIX B: Survey for the ‘Regular’ Adults13
Taal in het basisonderwijs
Introductie
Mijn naam is Femke Swarte. Ik studeer aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Om mijn
opleiding af te ronden doe ik onderzoek naar taalonderwijs op de basisschool. Daarvoor
maak ik gebruik van een nieuwe methode, die onder andere bestaat uit het beoordelen
van een aantal geluidsfragmenten. Het invullen van de enquête duurt ongeveer 15
minuten. Eerst wordt u gevraagd de sprekers van zes geluidsfragmenten te beoordelen,
daarna worden er nog een aantal andere vragen gesteld. Vervolgens wordt u gevraagd
aan te geven in hoeverre u het eens bent met 18 korte stellingen. Tot slot volgen er nog
enkele vragen over uw persoonsgegevens. Het balkje onderin het scherm laat zien
hoeveel procent van de enquête u al voltooid heeft.
Tot slot wil ik benadrukken dat uw deelname aan dit onderzoek volstrekt anoniem zal
worden verwerkt. De door u verstrekte informatie zal op geen enkele manier naar u, uw
kind of de school terug zijn te voeren.
Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.
Uitleg beoordeling sprekers
Het is belangrijk dat u deze uitleg leest!
In dit onderdeel volgen de geluidsfragmenten waarin zes verschillende mensen u de weg
naar de Waag in Leeuwarden wijzen. De fragmenten duren elk ongeveer 30 seconden.
Het is dus belangrijk dat het geluid van uw computer aanstaat. Eerst beluistert u het
fragment, door op de playknop (de middelste van de drie knoppen aan de linker kant) in
de balk bovenin het scherm te klikken. U kunt het fragment zo vaak beluisteren als u
zelf wilt. Na het beluisteren van het geluidsfragment wordt u gevraagd de spreker te
beoordelen op zes eigenschappen. Deze eigenschappen worden gepresenteerd op een
vijfpuntsschaal, zodat u aan kunt geven in hoeverre een bepaalde eigenschap van
toepassing is.
Voorbeeld:
12345
13
Because the survey was web based, the design of the actual survey looked not entirely the same as presented in
this appendix. This appendix is only added to the text in order to give an impression of the questions that were
asked during the survey.
106
Onvriendelijk
00000
Vriendelijk
Vindt u dat de spreker onvriendelijk klinkt, dan klikt u het eerste, meest linkse, rondje
aan:
12345
Onvriendelijk
●0000
Vriendelijk
Vindt u dat de spreker vriendelijk klinkt, dan klikt u het laatste, meest rechtse, rondje
aan:
Onvriendelijk
0000●
Vriendelijk
Vindt u dat de spreker een beetje onvriendelijk of een beetje vriendelijk klinkt, dan
klikt u het tweede (voor "beetje onvriendelijk") of vierde (voor "beetje vriendelijk")
rondje aan:
Onvriendelijk
Onvriendelijk
0●000
000●0
Vriendelijk
Vriendelijk
Als u geen mening heeft, kruist u het middelste rondje aan.
Spreker 1
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
107
Spreker 2
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 3
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
108
Spreker 4
Als dit niet werkt klink dan op onderstaande link en klik op "ok". Het fragment wordt
dan alsnog afgespeeld.
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Spreker 5
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
109
Spreker 6
Link to MP3
Onvriendelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Vriendelijk
Arm
1 2 3 4 5
Rijk
Oneerlijk
1 2 3 4 5
Eerlijk
Onaantrekkelijk
1 2 3 4 5
Aantrekkelijk
Niet intelligent
1 2 3 4 5
Intelligent
Onbehulpzaam
1 2 3 4 5
Behulpzaam
Uitleg gesprekssituaties
Er volgen nu vier korte situatieschetsen. De situaties zijn erg extreem en zullen in het
dagelijks leven niet voorkomen. Toch wil ik u vragen of u zich voor wilt stellen hoe het
zou zijn om in zo'n situatie te belanden en hoe u dan zou reageren. Het gaat om uw
eerste gevoel. Geef aan hoe u op de betreffende situaties zou reageren door één van de
meerkeuze mogelijkheden aan te klikken.
Gesprekssituaties
) 1. U stelt iemand een vraag in het Nederlands en hij of zij antwoordt in het Fries. Wat
doet u?
( ) Ik zeg er niets van, want ik vind het niet erg.
( ) Ik vind het wel erg, maar ik zeg er niets van.
( ) Ik zeg er iets van, want ik stoor mij eraan.
110
) 2. U heeft nog een kaartje voor een voetbalwedstijd over. Er zijn twee mensen die het
kaartje graag willen hebben. De één vraagt u in het Fries of hij het kaartje mag hebben,
de ander in het Nederlands. Wie krijgt uw kaartje?
( ) Ik geef mijn kaartje aan degene die Fries spreekt.
( ) Ik geef mijn kaartje aan degene die Nederlands spreekt.
( ) Het maakt mij niet uit.
) 3. Uw kinderen zitten op een basisschool waar normaal geen Fries gesproken wordt.
Maar uw kind vertelt dat zijn of haar juf of meester wel eens Fries spreekt in de klas.
Wat doet u?
( ) Ik ga naar school om er iets van te zeggen, want ik vind het slecht dat de juf of meester
Fries spreekt.
( ) Ik vind het wel slecht, maar ik doe er niets aan.
( ) Ik doe niets, want ik heb er geen moeite mee dat er Fries gesproken wordt op school.
) 4. U moet naar de kapper. In de wijk waar u net bent gaan wonen zijn twee kappers.
De één spreekt Fries, de ander Nederlands. Wat doet u?
( ) Ik ga naar de Nederlandse kapper.
( ) Ik ga naar de Friese kapper.
( ) Het maakt mij niet uit, ik ga naar de kapper die het best knipt.
Uitleg beroepen
Er volgt nu een tabel met een aantal beroepen. Stelt u zich mensen voor die deze
beroepen uitoefenen. Geef aan, of u denkt dat beoefenaars van deze beroepen eerder
Fries of Nederlands spreken. Het gaat om wat u het eerst te binnen schiet. Belangrijk is
daarbij wat u denkt en niet of dat in de werkelijkheid ook klopt.
Beroepen
Wie spreekt er volgens u Fries en wie spreekt er volgens u Nederlands?
Fries (0)
Nederlands (1)
Onderwijzer
Buschauffeur
Stratenmaker
111
Verpleegkundige
Kapper
Huisarts
Professor
Politieagent
Manager
Supermarktmedewerker
Dominee
Makelaar
Uitleg stellingen
Er volgen nu 18 stellingen. Het gaat weer om uw eerste gevoel. Geef aan in hoeverre u
het met deze stellingen eens bent.
Stellingen
Geeft u alstublieft aan in hoeverre u het met deze 18 stellingen eens bent.
) 1. Iedereen in Friesland zou Fries moeten leren spreken.
) 2. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is onvriendelijk.
112
) 3. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is eerlijk.
) 4. Ik vind het slecht wanneer mijn kind Fries leert spreken op school.
) 5. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is intelligent.
) 6. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is onaantrekkelijk.
) 7. Kennis van de Friese taal helpt mijn kind bij het leren van andere talen.
113
) 8. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is arm.
) 9. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is vriendelijk.
) 10. Een kind dat op school de Friese taal leert, spreekt slechter Nederlands.
) 11. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is rijk.
) 12. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is oneerlijk.
114
) 13. Fries moet op school ook als instructietaal gebruikt worden, bijvoorbeeld tijdens de
reken- of geschiedenisles.
) 14. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is dom.
) 15. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is behulpzaam.
) 16. Een kind dat Fries spreekt, haalt slechtere cijfers dan een kind dat Nederlands
spreekt.
) 17. Iemand die Fries spreekt, is onbehulpzaam.
115
) 18. Iemand die Nederlands spreekt is aantrekkelijk.
Persoonsgegevens
Uw gegevens zullen anoniem verwerkt worden en niet naar u terug te voeren zijn.
) 1. Leeftijd (in jaren):
____________________________________________
) 2. Geslacht:
( ) Vrouw
( ) Man
) 3. Hoogst genoten opleiding
( ) WO (universiteit)
( ) HBO
( ) MBO
( ) Middelbare school
( ) Basisschool
) 4. Bent u student?
( ) Ja
( ) Nee
) 5. Indien u student bent, wat voor opleiding/studie volgt u momenteel?
____________________________________________
) 6. Indien u werkt, wat is uw beroep?
____________________________________________
116
) 7. Wat is uw geboorteplaats?
____________________________________________
) 8. Waar bent u opgegroeid (plaats)?
____________________________________________
) 9. Wat is uw huidige woonplaats?
____________________________________________
) 10. Wat is uw moedertaal (of dialect)?
____________________________________________
) 11. Welke talen worden er thuis gesproken? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
____________________________________________
) 12. Geef door de juiste kolom aan te kruisen aan hoe goed uw Fries is op het gebied van
de volgende vier vaardigheden.
) Lezen
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) Schrijven
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) Luisteren
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
117
) Spreken
( 1) Slecht
( 2) Redelijk
( 3) Goed
( 4) Uitstekend
) 13. Heeft u kinderen die op dit moment naar de basisschool gaan?
( ) Ja
( ) Nee
) 14. Indien u kinderen heeft, wat is de naam van de basisschool waar uw kind/kinderen
op zitten?
____________________________________________
) 15. Waarom heeft u voor die school gekozen? (u mag hier meer hokjes aankruisen)
[ ] Omdat het een christelijke school is.
[ ] Omdat het een openbare school is.
[ ] Omdat het een Trijetalige Skoalle is.
[ ] Omdat het een enkeltalige school is.
[ ] Ik had geen keus, er is hier maar één basisschool.
[ ] Anders
[ ] Niet van toepassing
) 16. Hoe heeft u van deze enquête gehoord?
( ) Via de dorpswebsite
( ) Via Facebook of een ander sociaal medium
( ) Via een kennis of familielid
( ) Anders
Vergeet u niet op voltooien te klikken?
Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!
118

Language Attitudes of Adults Living in Friesland Towards the Frisian

Transcription

Similar documents

frisians in the united states

2560_Elfstedenroutekaart 2008 engels.indd

Company profile Dutch fashion house Oilily has been a hallmark of

MATERIAL WORLD, PRESS OVERVIEW

Inside Out - Shini Europe

cruise the magnificent dutch waterways

dutch festival - Elim Christian Services

Frisian and Basque Multilingual Education

here the pdf file - by

Do You Buy Local?