ELL: Re: Re: Flemish vs. French in Brussels

Gerd Jendraschek jendraschek at HOTMAIL.COM
Tue Apr 2 19:17:33 UTC 2002


I begin to understand the particular linguistic history of Belgium, thanks
for your information. Let me sum up as I understood it and correct me if I
got sth wrong:

1. In former times, in what is now Belgium, there was just a northern area
where Germanic dialects where spoken and a southern area with Romance
dialects. Brussels was part of the northern area, i.e. Germanic-speaking.

2. During nation building, the Romance dialects where "connected" to
Standard French, which was declared to be the only official language.

3. Brussels became the political centre of Belgium. During the 19th century
(I guess), French-speaking people from the south "took over" the control of
Brussels, and the formerly Germanic upper and middle classes adopted and
transmitted French as a language of higher prestige. This process lead to a
language shift in Brussels, but was slower in other Flemish cities.

4. When the Germanic dialects where connected to Dutch and officialized as
such, Brussels was already French-speaking. The process of "Romanization"
was considered irreversible in Brussels, but not in other Flemish cities,
where only a minority spoke French at that time.

5. Nowadays, the northern part can be considered monolingual in Flemish
Dutch, which means that the language shift towards French could be reversed
in the area declared monolingual according to the territory principle.

Thanks again for this Nederlands/Vlaams discussion.

Gerd




----- Original Message -----
From: "Niels Wijnen" <niels at koekoek.cjb.net>
To: <endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: ELL: Re: Flemish vs. French in Brussels


>
>
> This is quite complicated, but I will try to answer.
>
> > How, i.e. under what circumstances and when, Brussels became
French-speaking
> > (as far as I know, the presence of Flemish is quite reduced there in
spite of
> > official bilingualism, please correct me)?
>
> This is certainly true, but there no statistics for this, because in
Belgium
> subnationalities are strict forbidden. (that means that on your
identitycard
> everything is in 2 languages, and for example that you can't have a
seperate
> ticket-window for Flemish- or French-speaking people in bilingual
Brussels).
>
> > How do you explain the fact that French-speaking Brussels is surrounded
by
> > Flemish-speaking suburbs?
>
> Because Brussels is geograffically situated ín Flanders. There is a small
area
> of Flanders between the southern border of Brussels and the nothern border
of
> Walloon. Brussels used to be a Flemish city.
>
> > Are the Bruxellois "francicized" Flemish (I don't know if the ethnic
> > classification makes sense in the Belgian case, what about patronyms)?
If
> > Brussels became a French-speaking city when and because
> > French had more prestige, why could French disappear from the major
> > Flemish cities (after Flemish was officialized) but maintain its
domination in
> > Brussels?
>
> In Flanders there is one official language: Dutch. And in the French
community
> (not the same as Walloon) there's also just one language: French. Only
Brussels
> is bilingual. But of course didn't the transformation of Flanders into a
> monolingual area go very smoothly. The French speaking people in Flanders
> didn't want to give up their language like that. In 1968, for example,
there
> were some major problems in Leuven (in the province of Flemish Brabant).
The
> famous Catholic University of Leuven was bilingual and because Leuven is
not
> far from Brussels, the Flemish students were afraid that the (Flemish)
area
> between Brussel and Leuven would become French. And when some
French-speaking
> professors of the university came out with the idea to make that area
> bilingual, there were huge demonstrations of the Flemish students. And
after
> some time, the government decided to found a new city southern of Brussels
and
> to put there the French part of the University of Leuven. Louvain-la-Neuve
> (French for "the new Leuven") was born.
>
> This problem (the extention of the French language in Flanders out of
Brussels)
> is called the oilspot.
>
> That oilspot is still a problem. Around the bilingual Brussels area (that
are
> 19 municipalities) there are some Flemish municipalities that have so-
> called 'facilities' for the French speaking people. That means that they
may
> communicate with the municipality in French (they have to ask, it is not
> standard), and they can have some other things also in French (subsidiated
> education, tribunal things, etc). This measure used to be a level crossing
> accommodation, but has become a right. Note that this is only in a few
> municipalities around Brussels and some municipalities near to the
language
> border (also two or three municipalities in Walloon, so with facilities
for the
> Flemish people).
>
> This problem has recently come up again. The Counsel of Europe has, for
the
> second time, send a Swiss investigator (both of them spoke French, but no
> Dutch) with the question if there are minorities in Belgium (now there
aren't
> any, except the German speaking people in Eastern Belgium). The first
report
> (yes, there are minorities in Belgium) was rejected by the counsel (well,
it
> wasn't rejected, but there were some amendments that minimalized the
report).
> The second report is a couple of weeks ago accepted by the commission, and
will
> be discussed in the counsel later this year (I will post the result then).
This
> report says that there are NO minorities in Belgium, BUT that the French
> speaking people are a minority in Flanders. To me this looks a little bit
> ridiculous because the minority treaty (which is not YET accepted in
Belgium,
> but it should become because of some agreements between the both language
> groups) doesn't recognise regional minorities. And íf Belgium (Flanders
> actually) should implement what the report says (recognise the French
minority
> with all the consequences), then all the Belgium compromises that are
build the
> last 50 years will be trown away. And this will certainly lead 'till the
> indepence of Flanders. No wonder that the Federal ministers, and also the
big
> political parties in Walloon, minimalize the consequences of the report
(all
> the Flemish political parties rejected immediatly the report). They say
that it
> certainly can't destroy the language laws that are accepted by 2/3th of
the
> Belgium parlementaries ánd by a majority in the both language groups.
>
>
> I hope it is a little bit more clear now. Otherwise you just ask.
>
> Niels,
>
>
> ----
> Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
> Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> ----
>
----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
----



More information about the Endangered-languages-l mailing list