BRIO language barometer 4: Dutch as an official language

1. Background

The fourth language barometer survey shows that over the past 20 years the percentage of Brussels inhabitants who claim to speak good to excellent Dutch has halved (link met Fiche1). In absolute figures, this means that 25% fewer people in Brussels can comfortably hold a conversation in Dutch.

2. Knowledge of Dutch: 'supply' and 'demand'.

Migration undoubtedly plays a role in the knowledge of Dutch. The vast majority of Brussels residents who arrive from abroad do not speak the language. Nevertheless, table 1 illustrates that the declining knowledge of Dutch is primarily attributable to fewer Belgians having any knowledge of Dutch. Brussels residents born in Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia all speak Dutch a lot less fluently than in LB3. Conversely, the knowledge of non-Belgians, most of whom have taken a Dutch course, has increased compared to LB3.

Table 1. Knowledge of the Dutch language by nationality

If people do not speak Dutch at home, they usually learn the language through the education system. Table 2 shows to what extent the respondents, who were between 18 and 30 years old at the time of the survey and attending French-speaking secondary education establishments in Brussels or Wallonia, are proficient in Dutch. Caution should obviously be exercised in the interpretation of these data, as we do not know the context in which these inhabitants of Brussels use Dutch outside the school environment, but the figures are indicative of a negative trend. Not even 10% of young people from Brussels who attended French-speaking schools have a good to excellent command of Dutch.

Table 2. Language knowledge by educational background (18-30 years)

The declining 'supply' is nonetheless offset by an increasing 'demand'. This is reflected, for example, in the demand for bilingual primary education. Although bilingual education is a label that may cover a variety of meanings the figures nevertheless illustrate the frustration with the current education policy. About 90% of all Brussels residents, regardless of their linguistic background, are in favour of this type of education.  The willingness to learn Dutch is based on the rather practical consideration that Dutch is a key asset on the labour market in Brussels. The following table offers an overview of the language profiles of the unemployed people interviewed, irrespective of their other qualifications.  As early as the first survey, 80% of the unemployed people interviewed confessed to not knowing any Dutch, a figure that has now risen to more than 90%. Only 5% of the unemployed speak Dutch and French, and people who can speak three languages are the least likely to be unemployed.

Table 3. Language skills among the unemployed

Finally, 70% of Brussels inhabitants are convinced that bilingualism is the cornerstone of a Brussels identity, 80% believe that it is important to know Dutch and there is even a majority who think that it is more important to know Dutch than English.

3. A new paradox for Brussels?

This raises the question why the demand for Dutch is increasing and why a knowledge of the language has some impact on a person's labour market status, while the knowledge of the language itself is declining. As an instrument, the language barometer is designed to provide an overall picture while not delving into the various components of the language problem, but there are a few factors that can help to explain this situation. Education is clearly a key factor but this is not the only explanation for the downturn. The perception of the language does help to throw some light on the problem. When asked with which category Brussels inhabitants can identify with the least, 68.2% of those who do not come from a family where Dutch is spoken at home language replied 'Dutch-speaking' or 'Flemish'.

The increasingly negative perception of Dutch speakers is particularly striking: from 3.1% in LB2, to 19.4% in LB3 and 30.7% in LB4. Political polarisation can also have an impact, as evidenced by the negative perception Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking families have of 'Walloons'. Whereas 'Walloon' had no negative connotation at all in LB2 (only amongst 0.8% of respondents), this percentage suddenly rose to 24.2% in LB3 and even as high as 43.8% in LB4. The extent to which this mutual perception determines the Dutch self-reporting figures is difficult to determine, but it certainly it plays a role. Not only can negative perceptions have an impact, but the importance of language on the labour market points to the clear need to be less sanguine in assessing one's own linguistic skills.

A third explanation has to do with migration and relocations. Language, although rarely a key factor in determining demographic shifts, does play an indirect part. Some 40% of those who move from Flanders to Brussels currently hail from a monolingual Dutch-speaking family, while the rest mainly originate from a monolingual French-speaking family and to a lesser extent from a traditional bilingual family. Conversely, it may be assumed that someone who knows Dutch will also be more inclined to move to Flanders. The fact that it is mainly middle-class families who move from the urban environment to the outer suburbs and that there is a clear link between a knowledge of Dutch and one's labour market status suggests that the exodus from the city is more of a 'Dutch-speaking' phenomenon than is the influx.

This is also in line with the sociological perception of urban areas being 'emancipation machines' where newcomers often end up in deprived neighbourhoods but gradually rise up the social ladder and in their search for a more suitable living environment and/or a better job end up in the outskirts of the city, thereby making way for other newcomers. A survey of people taking Dutch language courses would help to identify this possible trend.