BRIO language barometer 4. Dutch as a home language

1. Background

Despite a decline in the knowledge of Dutch (link met Fiche1 en Fiche2), the percentage of families where Dutch is the home language (as the only language spoken at home or combined with French) has barely decreased, even increasing in absolute terms since 2000. This inevitably leads to the time-honoured question: are there more "Flemings" in Brussels?

2. Importance of the home language

Social and political discussions about Brussels, regardless of the composition of its inhabitants, are dominated by the distinction between 'French-speakers' and 'Flemish/Dutch-speakers'. This is not surprising since the Brussels model is the result of an institutionalisation process based on the two traditional communities, but at the same time there are no membership criteria that determine to which of the two 'imaginary' communities the inhabitants of Brussels belong. Membership is generally ascribed (ascribed identity) on the basis of criteria that may vary according to the position of the person determining this form of identity (for 'Flemings' ranging from 'Brussels citizens for whom Dutch is the only family language' to 'users of institutions in the Flemish Community'; and French speakers as 100% minus the definition used for 'Flemish' ... ). Rarely is there any reference to the avowed identity, whose definition depends on the individuals themselves. However, the home language plays a role in both approaches.

Table 1. Original home language

The percentage of Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking households fell over the period in question but not to any great extent since 2007. The number of Brussels residents from a traditional bilingual family also varies, but in the final analysis the percentage is the same as in 2000. Yet the profile has obviously changed. Although the majority of Brussels residents hail from monolingual Dutch-speaking families in Flanders, and traditional bilinguals are mainly born in Brussels, the first group is significantly younger (from an average of 56 in LB1 to 46 in LB2), and the number of families with children has halved in favour of partners without children and single people. If we link both to their 'avowed identity', the number of Brussels inhabitants who consider themselves Flemish fell from 37.7% in LB2 to 17.7% and the number of 'Dutch speakers' rose from 3.1% to 17.6%. Traditional bilinguals identify hardly at all with both categories. Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking families see themselves primarily, in order of importance, as Belgian, Brussels and European. Where identification as 'Flemish' or 'Dutch-speaking' still plays a role is in the choice of the language of their political representatives. Identification as being 'Flemish' will undoubtedly lead to the choice of a Dutch-speaking list. Those who regard themselves as 'Dutch-speaking' also vote in much larger numbers for a list of Dutch-speaking candidates.

3. Dutch from a 'Brussels' perspective

However, Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking families focus much more than before on Brussels. When asked where they see themselves living within 5 years, with 90% saying 'still in Brussels' they score the highest of all home language groups and significantly higher than in LB3. This attitude is also reflected, for example, in their reactions when addressing local civil servants in Dutch only to be answered in French. In this situation, about 90% switch to French.

Table 2. Reaction of a Dutch-speaking person to a civil servant's response in French

However, Table 2 also illustrates that this response by officials is increasingly common, underlining the problem of bilingualism in the services provided by the Brussels administration. They also use more French in their private lives. The respondents from LB4 scored the highest of all the time points measured as regards the choice of a French-speaking partner (45.2%) and the lowest as regards the choice of a partner from the same home language group (35.6%).

Table 3 summarises the use of language with the partner and with the partner and children.

Table 3. Language shift process for partners of Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking families

Subsequent to a decline (LB1 to LB3), more French is once again being spoken to partners and children but more Dutch than French is spoken to children. Nevertheless, a quarter of these families are losing the Dutch language as a home language. Is there any point in dividing the Brussels population into home language groups? Obviously, but not with the aim of dividing Brussels residents into two traditional language communities but because the home language is preeminent from a socio-linguistic perspective in most linguistic fields. And in this respect, younger Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking families take a different view of the situation in Brussels than was the case in the past. Much more of them support the idea of a bilingual educational curriculum, and emphasise bilingualism as an essential characteristic of the Brussels identity with which they can identify more strongly than with the Flemish one. The question here is also to what extent relocation patterns play a role in these developments. One factor is the gradual disappearance of the older generation of Brussels residents from monolingual Dutch-speaking families, who witnessed the early stages of the Brussels model and the inherent language tensions but an examination also has to be made to see if those ill at ease in the Brussels multilingual environment have felt compelled to move to Flanders. But another attitude does not detract from their presence in any way.