ELL: Flemish vs. French in Brussels

[Gerd Jendraschek]

I benefit from the presence of specialists for Flemish to ask a question
nobody could answer me convincingly so far (thanks for reacting to my
earlier postings). 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)? How do
you explain the fact that French-speaking Brussels is surrounded by
Flemish-speaking suburbs? 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?

Gerd JENDRASCHEK

Equipe de Recherche en Syntaxe et Semantique
Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail
France




----- Original Message -----
From: "Niels Wijnen" <niels at koekoek.cjb.net>
To: <endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: ELL: Re: Flemish


> Gerd Jendraschek:
> > The difference between the varieties is always the same, because the
> > speakers' impression regarding them is located between two poles:
> >
> > b) When a speaker of variety A hears a speaker of variety B, he almost
> > immediately recognizes that he speaks a different variety, that they
> > don't speak the same way. The differences between A and B may cause
> > misunderstandings --> different languages.
>
> Yes, in the bussiness world there are often misunderstandings because of
this.
> It is often more difficult to negotiate with a partner that doesn't speak
> Dutch, then between a Flemish and a Dutch companie. They think they speak
the
> same language, but they forget that the value of some words are different
in
> the both parts of the Dutch language area. And this creates
misunderstandings.
>
> > Moreover, the sociolinguistic situation of both varieties is not the
> > same.
> ...
> > and this is why it is mentioned among the positive cases of language
> > revitalization: from an unofficial, stigmatized, fragmented dialect
group to
> > an official, modernized, standardized language.
>
> Flemish was until the beginning of the 20th centurie just a collection of
> dialects. 'The Flemish people' didn't exist at all. In Belgium the
official
> language was French, although more then 50% of the inhabitants spoke a
Dutch
> dialect. Then they standarized the Dutch language also in Flanders by
> connecting it with the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. From that point
> the 'Flemish nationality' start to grow (again). And now, since about 50
years,
> you can really speak (again) of the Flemish people (altough Flanders is
now
> bigger then it was in the Middleages). 50 years ago the most people
thought the
> (official) Dutch language was the only Dutch. Flemish didn't exist.
Nowdays
> Flanders is a economical and cultural wealthy region, part of the FEDERAL
state
> Belgium. The Flemish people really exist! And now there are more and more
> people who see Flemish as a real language, different than standard Dutch.
>
> Of course the scientific discussion is much more complicated, and goes
beyond
> the 'feelings' that one has about the status of the language he/she
speaks.
>
>
> William J Poser:
> > If I'm not mistaken there is a disparity between the official standard
> > for Flemish and the actual standard. That is, the position of the
Belgian
> > government, at least in the past 15 or 20 years, has been that Flemish
> > is the same thing as Dutch. They even re-named it - the language is
supposed
> > to be called "nederlands", not "vlaams". So, as I understand it, in
theory
> > written standard Flemish should be the same as written standard Dutch.
>
> This was before the national country Beglium was transformed into a
Federal
> state Belgium (in 1993). The Belgian Federal government doesn't says
anything
> anymore about the status of the Flemish/Dutch, it isn't their bussiness
anymore.
> But yes, in theory it should be the same. In theory.
>
> > However, in practice, there are some differences between Flemish and
Dutch
> > that are always maintained, even by educated "standard" speakers. For
example,
> > I don't think that any Flemish speaker would consider it proper to say
> > "mannetje" for "boy" rather than "mannika", even though standard Dutch
> > uses -tje for the diminutive rather than -ka. Is this not so?
>
> It is 'manneke'. And indeed, in Flanders 'manneke' is prefered
> above 'mannetje'. But I think that in Flanders the people would use
'ventje',
> which you certainly don't use in the Netherlands.
>
> > As a little aside on language attitudes, at one point the admissions
> > tickets for the Plantin Museum (the famous old print shop) said in
> > French "Ministry of Education and National Culture" but in Flemish
> > "Ministry of Education and Dutch Culture".
>
> Before the federalization of Belgium. Now it will be "the Flemish Ministry
of
> Culture", or "the Ministry of Culture of the Flemish Community".
>
>
> 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
----