Frysk forward to the future!

(1)

Frysk forward to the future!

An investigation into the familiarity, use and needs for digital language tools for Frisian

MA Thesis, Multilingualism

Departments of Applied Linguistics and Frisian Language and Culture Faculty of Arts

University of Groningen

Student: Anna Fardau Schukking Student number: S3037355

Date: June 2017

Supervisor: Dr. E. Juarros-Daussà Second reader: Prof. Dr. G.T. Jensma Word count heart: 14996

(2)

Abstract

The province of Fryslân wants to make it easy to choose Frisian in communication with others, in conversations, on paper, but as well via the computer, tablet or smartphone. Therefore, the province decided to push its boundaries into the field of digital language tools for Frisian. These tools can support Frisian speakers to improve their writing proficiency in the language and non-Frisian speakers to learn to speak it.

In this study, it has been investigated what chances digital language tools can offer for Frisian and which factors predict a general use of those tools within society. An insight into this field makes it possible to adapt future policies on these outcomes.

Based on a literature study enriched with views of experts on this topic it has been investigated which digital language tools for Frisian exist. Besides that, it has been studied to what extend potential users are familiar with them, if language attitudes have an influence on the extent to which tools are used and if there is a need for new digital language tools for Frisian. This has been investigated by distributing two questionnaires, one for the general public, the second, as addition to the first questionnaire, within the field of education.

(3)

Gearfetting

De provinsje Fryslân wol it maklik meitsje foar de Friezen om Frysk te kiezen wannear’t dat past yn de kommunikaasje mei oaren. Yn petearen, op papier, mar ek fia de kompjûter, tablet of tûke telefoan. Dêrom rjochtet de provinsje Fryslân har ek op de ûntwikkeling fan digitale taalhelpmiddels foar it Frysk. Dizze helpmiddels kinne Frysktaligen helpe it Frysk better te skriuwen en helpe net-Frysktaligen om it Frysk better te sprekken.

Yn dit ûndersyk is útsocht hokker kânsen digitale taalhelpmiddels it Frysk bringe kinne en hokker faktoaren it algemien gebrûk fan dizze helpmiddels foarspelle yn de Fryske mienskip. Mear ynsjoch yn dit ûnderwerp makket it mooglik takomstich belied hjirop oan te passen.

Basearre op in literatuerstúdzje en ynterviews mei eksperts op dit mêd is útsocht hokker digitale taalhelpmiddels foar it Frysk besteane. Dêrneist is ûndersocht yn hokker mjitte potinsjele brûkers bekend binne mei dizze helpmiddels, oft taalhâlding it gebrûk fan dizze taalhelpmiddels beynfloedet en oft der ferlet is fan nije digitale taalhelpmiddels. Dit is ûndersocht troch it útsetten fan twa enkêten, ien foar it algemiene publyk, in twadde, as oanfolling op de earste, foar it ûnderwiisfjild.

(4)

List of content

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1 Motivation ... 1

1.2 Research question ... 2

1.3 Methods and overview ... 2

2. Literature review ... 3

2.1 The digitalization of minority languages ... 3

2.2 Fryslân and Frisian ... 3

2.3 Legal status Frisian ... 4

2.4 Vitality and use of Frisian ... 5

2.5 Attitudes towards Frisian ... 7

2.6 The digitalization of Frisian ... 7

2.7 The use of Frisian on social media ... 8

3. Methodology ... 10

3.1 Experts ... 10

3.1.1 Motivation ... 10

3.1.2 Subjects ... 10

3.1.3 Procedures and materials ... 11

3.1.4 Design and analysis ... 11

3.2 Questionnaire l: general public ... 11

3.2.2 Distribution ... 12

3.2.3 Subjects ... 13

3.3 Questionnaire ll: education ... 17

3.3.2 Subjects ... 18

4. Results ... 20

4.1 Existing digital language tools for Frisian ... 20

4.1.1 In commission of the province of Fryslân... 20

4.1.2 By independent companies ... 20

4.1.3 On a voluntary base ... 20

(5)

4.3 Language proficiency ... 23 4.3.1 Understanding ... 23 4.3.2 Speaking ... 23 4.3.3 Reading ... 23 4.3.4 Writing ... 23 4.3.5 Statements proficiency ... 23 4.4 Language use ... 26

4.5 Attitudes towards Frisian ... 27

4.6 Attitudes towards digital language tools ... 27

4.7 Association proficiency and expected use of Frisian ... 28

4.8 Need for new digital language tools... 31

4.9 Suggestions new digital language tools... 32

4.10 Results questionnaire ll: education ... 32

4.10.1 Familiarity digital language tools ... 33

4.10.2 Need digital language tools ... 33

4.10.3 Comments and suggestions ... 34

5. Discussion ... 35

5.1 Familiarity digital language tools for Frisian ... 35

5.2 Attitudes towards Frisian and digital tools... 35

5.3 Need for new digital language tools... 36

5.4 Questionnaire ll: education ... 36

5.4.1 Familiarity digital language tools ... 36

5.4.2 Need for new digital language tools... 37

6. Conclusions ... 38

7. Recommendations ... 39

List of tables and figures... 40

Appendix l: Questionnaire l: general public ... 41

Appendix ll: Questionnaire ll: education ... 50

Appendix lll: Existing digital language tools for Frisian ... 56

Appendix IV: Interview questions ... 70

Appendix V: Interviews expert’s digital language tools for Frisian ... 71

Appendix Vl: Interview Mr. G. Morlais ... 75

Appendix VII: Suggestions new digital language tools ... 79

Appendix Vlll: Graphs and figures ... 81

(6)

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Motivation

According to the ‘UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger’ many (minority) communities across the world are struggling for the maintenance of their language (Moseley, 2010). Scholars state, that amongst other factors, the ongoing digitalization of our world might create threats but as well opportunities for those languages. Kornaí (2013) is one of those scholars and believes that the digitalization of (minority) languages can save them from language death. He says that ‘’if it is not on the web, it does not exist’’ (p. 1.).

The Frisian language, spoken in the province of Fryslân in the Netherlands, is classified as ‘vulnerable’ according to UNESCO (Moseley, 2010). An investigation by the local government showed that three quarters of the population is able to speak the language and more than 90 percent can understand it, but have difficulties reading and writing it (Provinsje Fryslân, 2015).

The province of Fryslân is the most responsible government for the maintenance of the Frisian language. Based on European, national and provincial legislation the province tries to guarantee the position of Frisian within the different domains of society, such as education or media. In the past, language policies primarily focused on language maintenance within traditional domains. Currently, the province of Fryslân is targeting on developing a brought and diverse spectrum of digital language tools as well (Provinsje Fryslân, 2016b). Those digital language tools should make it easy to choose Frisian for communication with others, in conversations, on paper, but as well via the computer, tablet or smartphone.

The past few years several digital language tools for Frisian have been developed, in commission of the province of Fryslân or by initiative of other parties. Tools vary from online-dictionaries to Frisian language games. Despite the efforts, the provincial government sensed that potential users of these tools are not always reached, which means that the tools currently do not serve their goal. Besides that, the province of Fryslân wants to broaden its scope on this topic and find out what chances digital language tools can offer to Frisian, and which factors predict a general use of those tools. An insight into this field makes it possible to adapt future policies on these outcomes.

Therefore, I was asked to set up a research during my internship for the province of Fryslân. This investigation resulted in my master thesis for the master Multilingualism. In this study had to find out: (1) which digital language tools for Frisian exist (2) to what extend potential users are familiar with them (3) if language attitudes have an influence on the extent to which they are used, and (4) if there is a need for new digital language tools. Potential users of digital language tools are non-Frisian speaker that want to learn to speak the language, and Frisian speakers that that want to improve their writing proficiency in Frisian (Provinsje Fryslân, 2017b).

(7)

2

1.2 Research question

To be able to find out if digital language tools offer chances for Frisian, the following research question is answered:

‘What chance offers digital language tools to Frisian and which factors predict a general use of those tools in society?’

To be able to answer the main question of this paper, the following three sub-questions are answered:

o Which digital language tools for Frisian exist and to what extend is the Frisian population familiar with them?

o How are language tools for Frisian valued and does it correspond with the language attitudes of the respondents?

o Is there a need for new digital language tools and if so, which?

1.3 Methods and overview

To be able to answer the research questions, there is made use of several research methods. A literature study has been enriched with the view on this topic, by experts in the field. To be able to say something about the potential users of digital language tools, two questionnaires were distributed, one for the general public, the second for the field of education.

(8)

3

2. Literature review

2.1 The digitalization of minority languages

Statistics of language use on the internet show that English is by far the most used language on the World Wide Web, followed by Chinese, Spanish and Arabic (Internet World Stats, 2016). Many of the approximately 7000 living languages on earth (Ethnologue, 2017), are underrepresented on the internet. Prado (2012) clarifies it with an example in which he investigated the linguistic variety of worldwide operating internet companies such as Google. Google has currently 103 languages available for translation in Google Translate (Google, 2017a) of which 80 languages are recognized in Google Speech recognition (Google, 2017b). With 296 languages available (Wikipedia, 2017), Wikipedia is ‘’linguistically rich’’ compared to other websites (Prado, 2012, p. 40). Because a handful of larger languages dominate the internet (Young, 2017), some scholars see digitalization as a threat to minority languages. Just as it is the case for traditional media, which is dominated by a few larger languages as well (Cunliffe, 2007).

However, several researchers agree that the internet and the ongoing digitalization of our society must be taken as a major opportunity for language maintenance of minority languages. Crystal (2000) included technology as one of his six postulates against language death. In his postulate, he states that ‘’an endangered language will progress if its speakers can make use of electronic technology’’ (p. 188). The internet creates opportunities since it can be easily accessed and adapted by users of minority languages who have access to this medium (Cunliffe, 2007). It should be considered that most western countries have access to the internet, but in developing countries this is less often the case, which causes a digital divide (PEW Research Center, 2016).

The possibility to expose a minority language on the internet gives those languages a ‘’public profile’’ (Crystal, 2014, p. 189). Cunliff & Herring (2015) argue that these technologies ‘’can provide vital new opportunities for media productions and consumption in minority languages’’ (p. 131). According to Cunliff (2007) the digitalization of minority languages does not only have its influence on language use, but as well on the visibility and status of a language. A language which is not sufficiently represented on the web could be seen as ‘’old-fashioned’’ or ‘’rural.’’ When a language can be associated with ‘’new media’’, its language status will increase (Cunliffe, 2007, p. 134). Low productivity, which means little publications on the web in a specific language, is seen as the main risk for smaller languages. Low productivity will automatically result in a small audience (Prado, 2012). Besides the fact that digitalization can have its effects on language maintenance, it can also influence language learning. Digital tools increasingly become a part of education, and particularly within language education (Salaberry, 2001).

Because our world is rapidly changing, several minority languages already made the shift towards the digitalization of their language. One of those languages is Frisian, which is spoken in the province of Fryslân.

2.2 Fryslân and Frisian

Fryslân is a province located in the northern part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands has about seventeen million inhabitants, of which 646.861 live in Fryslân (CBS, 2017). More than half of the Frisians have the Frisian language as their mothertongue (Provinsje Fryslân, 2015).

(9)

4

(Tamasi & Antieau, 2015). There are several variants of the Frisian language. Besides the West-Frisian language spoken within the Netherlands, there is North-Frisian and Saterfrisian. These variants are spoken in Germany. North-Frisian is spoken in the northern part of the country, close to the Danish border. Saterfrisian is spoken in the Saterland-area in western Germany (Europa-Universität Flensburg, 2017). The three variants of Frisian are not mutually intelligible and the languages spoken in Germany are less vital than the Frisian language spoken in the Netherlands (Moseley, 2010). In this paper, we only focus on Frisian in the province of Fryslân in the Netherlands.

2.3 Legal status Frisian

The Frisian language is protected at European, national and provincial level. On European level, Frisian has been protected based on the ‘European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages’ and ‘the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.’ The Charter and the Framework have led to legal protection of minority languages within Europe (Council of Europe, 2017a).

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is ‘’designed to protect and promote regional and minority languages and to enable speakers to use them both in private and public life’’ (Council of Europe, 2017e). The Charter obligates member states to promote the use of minority languages and to make it possible to use them in all domains of society (Council of Europe, 2017e). The Charter describes precisely which obligations the states have in order to protect their minority languages (Council of Europe, 1992). The Charter was signed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1992 and ratified in 1996, it came into force in 1998 (Government of the Netherlands, 2015). The Netherlands ratified part ll of the Charter for the officially recognized regional languages: Limburgish, Romany, Yiddish and Dutch Low Saxon. Frisian is ratified under part ll and lll of the Charter. Part lll ensures the highest level of protection and includes protection in domains such as education, jurisdiction and media (Council of Europe, 2017c). The implementation of the Charter by the nation states is periodically checked by the Committee of Experts (COE) of the Council of Europe (Council of Europe, 2017b).

With the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Netherlands in 2005, the Kingdom is obliged to ensure the protection of national minorities (Council of Europe, 2017d). Just like the Charter, the Framework Convention describes how States in Europe should protect national minorities in all domains of society. The Framework Convention describes that States should ensure protection of ‘’ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious’’ minorities. Nations should give minorities the right to ‘’express and preserve their identity’’ (Council of Europe, 1995, p. 2).

Since the ratification of the Charter and the Framework Convention, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is obliged to protect the Frisian language. From 1970 onwards the Dutch government and the province of Fryslân recognize their shared responsibility for the protection of Frisian. From then on Frisian is an official language within the province of Fryslân besides Dutch, and the second national language within the Kingdom (Government of the Netherlands, 2013b, p. 2).

(10)

5

the Framework Convention. The agreement follows the structure of the Charter and describes in detail how the Dutch government and the province of Fryslân will cooperate to protect the Frisian language and culture. The first agreement came into force in 1989 and it has been renewed three times after that (Provinsje Fryslân, 2013).

The most recent legislation concerning the protection of the Frisian language is the ‘Wet gebruik Friese taal’ (Use of Frisian Act), which came into force in 2014. This act guarantees the possibility to use Frisian in correspondence with judicial or administrative authorities. The Act guarantees the equality of both Frisian and Dutch within the Netherlands (Government of the Netherlands, 2013c).

Since 1980 Frisian is a compulsory subject within primary education in the province of Fryslân. From then on, it was allowed to use Frisian as a language of instruction. From 1993 onwards, Frisian is a compulsory subject within the first year of secondary education (SLO, 2005). Just as it is the case for other subjects, several key objects were formulated for Frisian. Therefore, the use of Frisian within education has been integrated into national laws and regulations, such as the ‘Wet op het Primair Onderwijs’ (Act on Primary Education) (Government of the Netherlands, 2017a) and the ‘Wet op het Voortgezet Onderwijs’ (Act on Secondary Education) (Government of the Netherlands, 2017b).

The province of Fryslân is responsible for the implementation of language policies, which are based on the European Charter, the Framework Convention and national laws and regulations. All domains described in the European Charter are covered in those provincial policies. Periodical provincial policies and the financial resources for those policies, strongly depend on politics. In a policy paper the province of Fryslân describes how they are going carry out those policies. An example is the policy paper ‘Mei Hert, Holle en Hannen (2017-2020)’ (With heart, Mind and Hands), which describes the provincial policies related to language, culture and sports. The ‘Deltaplan Frysk’ describes how the province of Fryslân will protect and promote the Frisian language until 2020 (Provinsje Fryslân, 2017a).

2.4 Vitality and use of Frisian

According to the COE of the Council of Europe, positive steps have been made by the Dutch state and the province of Fryslân, regarding the Frisian language over the last few years (Council of Europe, 2016b). Even tough, the Frisian language is said to be endangered by UNESCO, which classified Frisian as a vulnerable language on their list of endangered languages (Moseley, 2010).

(11)

6

between 50 and 64 years old valued themselves a bit better when it comes to writing in Frisian: more than 17 percent reported to write it well up to very well (Provinsje Fryslân, 2015).

Table 1 Overview Frisian language proficiency Frisian population, Fryske Taalatlas 20151

Not at all With

difficulty

Reasonable Good Very good

Understanding 1,7 4,6 8,6 18,5 66,6

Speaking 14,3 10,3 8,8 20,4 46,2

Reading 6,7 16,2 25,3 30,1 21,7

Writing 39,7 26,8 18,9 10,4 4,1

Besides investigating the proficiency level of Frisian amongst the population, the study gives an indication of the use of Frisian within the Frisian households. The results show that 45,6 percent of the Frisians speak Frisian with their partner and 47,5 percent speaks it with their kids. The use of Frisian within the household has declined the last few years in comparison to an identical investigation in 2007 by the province of Fryslân (Provinsje Fryslân, 2015). This is a development which has also been detected by Driessen (2016). He predicts that the use of Frisian within the Frisian households will further decline, which is mainly because Dutch has become more prominent in Frisian society and as well within the households. The Dutch language taking a prominent position in Fryslân has as well been referred to as ‘Dutchification’, which is ‘’the ongoing penetration of Dutch in society’’ (Gorter & Ytsma, 1988, p. 59).

One of the main reasons that could explain the current linguistic situation of the language, is the role of Frisian within education (Ytsma, 2007). A critical report was written by the COE of the Council of Europe (2016), in which the application of the Charter was assessed. The report made clear that the role of Frisian within education is not sufficient yet to ensure the protection of the language. The COE of the Council of Europe (2016) states in its report that ‘’the share of Frisian is rather low’’ in education. According to the COE, the fact that Frisian in general is only taught one hour per week, which in most cases stops after the first year of secondary education and ‘’a lack of sufficient teaching of Frisian at primary school level’’, makes it tough to develop ‘’an adequate level of literacy.’’ In some primary schools, there is little time spent on Frisian (Council of Europe, 2016a, p. 20). The Council was critical as well about the share of Frisian within trilingual schools. Trilingual schools in the province of Fryslân should use ‘’Dutch, English and Frisian as languages of instruction during a number of half-days every week’’ (Cedin, 2017). In general, the share of Frisian within trilingual primary and secondary schools is less than half-days every week (Council of Europe, 2016a). The relatively low amount of Frisian in education could be an explanation for the fact that many Frisians have difficulty reading and writing the language. Too little time is spent on Frisian within education and this makes it hard to develop a sufficient level of literacy in the language. More attention and time is given to the education of Dutch, which automatically leads to a higher level of proficiency in that language. According to Ytsma (2007) the lack of ability to write the language is also due to the fact that the capability to write Frisian is of limited importance in daily life.

1

(12)

7

2.5 Attitudes towards Frisian

Another important factor which has its influence on language use and the vitality of a language, is the attitudes speakers and non-speakers hold towards a language. These language attitudes are defined here as the ‘’attitudes which speakers of different languages and of different language varieties have towards each other’s languages or to their own language’’ (Richards & Schmidt, 2013, p. 314). These language attitudes can give an indication of the ‘’status, value and importance of a language’’ (Baker, 1992, p. 10). Bradley (2002, p. 1) indicates that language attitudes ‘’are the key factor in language maintenance. Wurm (2002) agrees on that and believes it is important how speakers value a language and to what extent they identify themselves with a language. Wurm believes that negative attitudes by speakers of dominant languages are a treat for smaller endangered languages (Wurm, 2002)

Ytsma (2007) investigated these attitudes within the province of Fryslân. He concluded that eventhough Frisian has its official status, the ‘’social prestige’’ of the language is lower than Dutch (p. 146). In his investigation an example is given of Frisian primary school children who valued the Frisian language much lower than the Dutch language, especially when children were non-Frisian speakers. The investigation of Hilton & Gooskens (2013) on language attitudes towards Frisian show that most of the Frisian speakers are relatively positive towards Frisian, which is in line with the conclusions of Ytsma (2007), in which Frisian speaking children were more positive towards the language than the non-Frisian speakers. Amongst Frisian speakers ‘’there is a widespreak agreement on the beauty and value of the language’’ (Gorter, Riemersma, & Ytsma, 2001, p. 108). In contrast, non-Frisian speakers tend to hold ‘’neutral or rather negative feelings’’ towards Frisian (Ytsma, 2007, p. 146).

2.6 The digitalization of Frisian

The province of Fryslân, in line with European and national policies and legislations (see paragraph 2.2), is responsible for the position and the maintenance of Frisian within Frisian society. Until a few years ago, language policies were mainly focused on language maintenance within the traditional domains such as education and literature. Because our world and society is rapidly changing due to digitalization, the province of Fryslân decided to push its boundaries into the field of digital media and language tools (Provinsje Fryslân, 2016a). Because of that, the province described their implementation plan on the digitalization of Frisian in a document called ‘Digitale taalhelpmiddelen foar it Frysk’ (Digital language tools for Frisian). In this document, the province of Fryslân has defined how they ideally see the process of the developments of the digital tools going. The document gives an overview of the goals that have been achieved, but it gives as well an explanation of what the province wants to accomplish the coming years.

The document describes why the province of Fryslân wants to invest in digital language tools. One of the reasons is because the province believes that digitalization, which is of great influence on our daily lives, can offer chances for the maintenance of the Frisian language. Besides that, the province wants to meet the needs of the Frisian community. Because we increasingly use digital tools for our communication with others, it is important that this can easily be done in Frisian. Therefore, the province of Fryslân wants to make it as simple as possible to use Frisian on mobile devices or computers.

(13)

8

or understand Frisian. An example is an autocorrection which corrects while writing Frisian on a mobile device. The third kind are tools which are lexicographic, such as an online dictionary. Digital language tools can be used as an app, computer program or on a website.

The tools should stimulate the use of Frisian in daily life and increase the visibility of the language in different domains such as at work, at home, in schools or on the internet. The province believes that it will strengthen the position of Frisian when it is sufficiently represented on the internet. This is of importance to be able to compete with bigger languages, which are often strongly represented on the internet, such as Dutch (Provinsje Fryslân, 2017b).

The province aims at creating a diverse and complete spectrum of digital language tools by the year 2020. This should be done in cooperation with local partners, such as Afûk or the Fryske Akademy. In addition, it is a goal to cooperate with worldwide operating companies such as Google or Microsoft for the development of digital tools in Frisian (Provinsje Fryslân, 2016a). An example of a successful cooperation between the province and a worldwide operating company was the introduction of Frisian on Google Translate. The province of Fryslân organized a translation week in which Frisians could translate English words and sentences into Frisian. This resulted in a corpus of almost one million words which were integrated in Google Translate (Fryske Akademy, 2016).

The target groups that the province of Fryslân wants to supply with the digital language tools are the Frisians who use the language in their daily lives within the province or elsewhere. Next to that they want to support language learners of Frisian and the healthcare sector.

To be able to supply those targets groups, the Provincial Council decided that digital language tools should be a structural part of their language policies (Provinsje Fryslân, 2014). When partners or potential partners request for a subsidy, they need to describe how they will include those digital aspects into their products. Besides that, they need to account for the maintenance costs and the promotion of a tool. The request to include promotion into product plans, is because the province of Fryslân thinks that still many Frisians are unfamiliar with existing digital language tools.

To develop and improve digital tools the province of Fryslân is aiming to start an advisory group which can give an estimation of the needs of the target groups and can contribute to the promotion of the tools. It is desired to include a diverse group of advisors with different background, such as ICT-experts, linguists or communication advisors. The subsidized partners, such as Afûk and the Fryske Akademy, will be represented as well.

The province wants to enlarge the digital corpus of Frisian for the development of digital language tools the coming years. For the continuous development of the tools, it is necessary to enlarge the lexicographic data and data about the use of Frisian in daily life.

Besides that, the province of Fryslân wants keep an eye on the developments with regard to digitalization of other minority languages. They find it important to learn from good and best practices in other countries. This could create new opportunities for the development of the tools for Frisian or probably result in cooperation between different minority language areas (Provinsje Fryslân, 2017b).

2.7 The use of Frisian on social media

(14)

9

comes to the use of Frisian for informal written communication on social media, Frisians tend to use the language most often on WhatsApp and lesser for ‘status updates’ on Twitter or Facebook. Someone’s language proficiency of writing in Frisian, seems to have its influence on the extent to which the language is used. Most of the respondents have a higher proficiency in Dutch and therefore they prefer to use Dutch, even though they have Frisian as their mother tongue. Most of the younger respondents tend to write Frisian phonetical.

In addition to that, the investigation shows that language attitudes also have their influence on the extent to which Frisian is used on social media. The more positive attitudes someone has towards Frisian, the more often they use the language. It is also of importance what attitudes the respondents have towards Dutch. When respondents have negative language attitudes towards Dutch, they tend to use Frisian more often on social media. The number of Frisian friends on those platforms does also determine to what extent the language is used. People want their friends to be able to understand their messages (Jongbloed-Faber, 2015).

(15)

10

3. Methodology

To answer the main and sub questions several methods has been used, which are described in this chapter. First experts in the field of digital language tools for Frisian were consulted to get a sense of the developments which are going on in the field (paragraph 3.1). Based on these interviews and the desk-research that has been conducted, the main questionnaire was developed (paragraph 3.2). In addition, a more specific questionnaire was developed for Frisian language teachers and language coordinators (paragraph 3.3).

3.1 Experts

3.1.1 Motivation

Desk-research was conducted to be able to say something about digital language tools for Frisian. Besides that, interviews were held with experts in the field of digital language tools. This was done to get an overview of the existing digital language tools for Frisian and the current developments in this field. This was necessary because it was not totally clear which digital language tools for Frisian exist and if there are initiatives for new digital language tools. The information obtained from these interviews (see appendix V) was integrated into the questionnaire.

In total four interviews were held with people which work for different organization on the digitalization of Frisian. Besides that, an interview was conducted with an expert which works on the digitalization of Welsh (see appendix Vl).

3.1.2 Subjects

The conducted experts are dr. J. Dijkstra, MA. L. Jongbloed-Faber, dr. E. Klinkenberg, Mr. S. Wijngaarden, Mr. J. Douwes and Mr. G. Morlais. Permission has been granted to identify the interviewees in this document.

Dr. Dijkstra is a specialist within the field of child language and bilingualism and is currently working on her post-doc at the Fryske Akademy. For her post doc dr. Dijkstra is working on the project ‘FAME!’ (Frisian Audio Mining Enterprise), which develops a speech recognition tool for Frisian. Within this project dr. Dijkstra is investigating the use of code switching. Dr. Dijkstra was interviewed to provide some information on the project FAME! and other developments in the field of digital language tools for Frisian.

The second interview was held with Mr. Wijngaarden and Mr. Douwes, both working at the Afûk. Afûk is a language institute, it develops educational materials and is a publishing house. Besides that, Frisian language courses are thought there, and Afûk is responsible for language promotion (Afûk, 2017). Mr. Wijngaarden works on the ‘Praat mar Frysk’ campaign and is amongst others responsible for the updates on social media and the Praat mar Frysk app. Mr. Douwes is amongst others working on the development of digital language tools for Frisian within education. Mr. Wijngaarden and Mr. Douwes were interviewed to get an insight into the development of digital tools for Frisian. Besides that, Mr. Douwes could give an insight into the digitalization developments within education.

(16)

11

Mr. Morlais is a specialist in Welsh language technology and digital media, working for the Government of Wales. As a policymaker he is working on the digitalization of the Welsh language. This interview was conducted to get insight in the development in another minority language area. Welsh is generally known as a good practice. Mr. Morlais explained how the Welsh Government is implementing digital language tools in Wales. This interview gave the opportunity to broaden the scope on digital language tools.

3.1.3 Procedures and materials

The interviewees who are working on the digitalization of Frisian, were approached by e-mail, in which they were asked if they wanted to share their knowledge about digital language tools for Frisian. All reacted very positive. As a follow-up, a date for the interview was set. A few questions (see appendix IV) were prepared in advance, even though it was not meant to be a strict interview. The questions were meant to start the conversation. It was found important that the interviewees could talk freely about digital language tools for Frisian, which allows them to come up with new ideas or topics. The interviewees were asked similar questions to get an idea of the existing digital language tools for Frisian and the developments in the field. All interviewees were asked if they thought there is a need for new digital language tools, and if so which. The interviews were recorded. The same holds for the interview with Mr. Morlais. The Government of Wales was approached by an e-mail and asked if they could provide some information on the digitalization of Welsh. Mr. Morlais proposed to do this in a telephone call. Some questions were prepared in advance to start the conversation, but it was intended to let the interviewee talk freely about the digitalization process in Wales.

3.1.4 Design and analysis

The interviews with the interviewees working on the digitalization of Frisian, formed the basis for the questionnaires. Since the interviews were not held to answer one of the research questions, the interviews were not transcribed. The interview with Mr. Morlais was neither transcribed since the interview was held to broaden the scope on digital language tools.

The most important parts of the interviews have been summarized (see appendix V and appendix Vl).

3.2 Questionnaire l: general public

3.2.1 Motivation

The province of Fryslân believes there is a growing need for digital language tools for Frisian (Provinsje Fryslân, 2016b). Still many Frisian speakers choose to use Dutch instead of Frisian, because they have difficulties writing the language (Jongbloed-Faber, 2015). As well, the province wants to facilitate non-Frisian speakers with easy accessible language learning tools. An increased use of the language contributes to language maintenance and language visibility (see chapter 2).

(17)

12

3.2.1.1 Target group

With the realization of digital language tools the province of Fryslân is mainly aiming at two target groups. The first group are Frisian speakers who use the language in their daily lives within the province or elsewhere. The second group are non-Frisian speakers wanting to learn to speak the language (Provinsje Fryslân, 2017b). To reach the target group, questionnaire l was distributed via the social media channels and the in-house network of the province of Fryslân. Besides that, Praat mar Frysk distributed the questionnaire in their online network.

Praat mar Frysk is a promotion campaign set up by Afûk, which is subsidized by the province of Fryslân. The campaign promotes the use of Frisian amongst Frisian speakers and non-Frisian speakers. Praat mar Frysk tries to reach its target groups by its website and social media channels, such as for example via Facebook or Twitter. Besides that, every week a small item about language is broadcasted via the local radio station ‘Omrop Fryslân’. Praat mar Frysk has its own application called ‘Praat mar Frysk’, which provides users with language support.

Praat mar Frysk has a social media network containing Frisian speakers and non-Frisian speakers, which are interested in the Frisian language. Therefore ‘Praat mar Frysk’ seemed to be a suitable medium for the distribution of questionnaire l. The campaign has currently over 22.000 followers on Facebook (Praat mar Frysk, 2017a) and almost 11.000 followers on Twitter (Praat mar Frysk, 2017b). It has been considered that most of the followers are people which have interest in the Frisian language and those people will be probably most likely to use the digital language tools for Frisian. There are twice as much female followers than male followers within the Praat mar Frysk network (Jongbloed-Faber, 2015).

3.2.1.2 Type of questioning

Questionnaire l was made in ‘Google Forms’ (see appendix l). There is opted for Google Forms since it is an easy tool to create and to distribute questionnaires online. An online survey was chosen because it is less time consuming for both participants and researcher. Most questions were closed-ended multiple-choice questions, since this is easier to analyse and it results in uniformity of answers. In case it was not possible to use a multiple-choice question, there was made use of an open question. The questionnaire was available in Frisian and Dutch. The Frisian version was filled in by most of the participants.

3.2.2 Distribution

(18)

13

The announcements on the social media channels of Praat mar Frysk and the province of Fryslân were shared several times, which causes a so-called snowball effect, which means that the message reaches as well people outside of both social media pages.

On the 30th of March 2017, an announcement about the questionnaire was broadcasted by the local Frisian radio station ‘Omrop Fryslân’ yn the ‘Taalpraatsje’ (language talk) by Praat mar Frysk employee Mirjam Vellinga. In the item an explanation on the survey was given and listeners were asked to fill in the questionnaire.

3.2.3 Subjects

In total 308 people responded, of which 303 responses were valid. Of the 303 respondents, 205 were female and 96 males. Two participants classified themselves as ‘other.’ More than 30 percent of the respondents were between 21 and 30 years old. Least represented were the participants who were 71 years or older (see figure 2). Figure 3 shows that most participants are higher educated: a majority of more than 55 percent completed a bachelor or master at HBO or university level.

Almost half of the respondents reports to only speak Frisian at home. About 16 percent reports to only speak Dutch and about 13 percent speaks a combination of both languages at home, but most frequently Frisian. A small share reports to speak a regional Frisian language (e.g. Bildts, Stellingwerfs) at home, or in combination with Frisian or Dutch. Almost 3 percent reports to speak another language than Frisian, Dutch or a Frisian regional language at home (see figure 4).

About 80 percent of the respondents live in the province of Fryslân. The other participants reported to live outside the province or abroad, such as for example in Kosovo or Australia. Most of

(19)

14

the respondents within the province were living in Northeast-Fryslân, the smallest share was living in Southeast-Fryslân (see appendix Vlll, figure 5).

The respondents were educated or working in a range of sectors. Almost 21 percent was working or educated in the field of healthcare. Another major part of the respondents reported to be working or studying within the educational sector. Furthermore, respondents working within administrations and the technical sector were well represented (see appendix Vlll, figure 6).

0,3 7,6 14,9 19,8 32,7 6,9 15,8 2

Highest completed level of education

Primary school VMBO/MABO/LBO HAVO/VWO (HBS, MMS) MBO (MTS, MEAO) HBO (HTS, HEAO) WO Bachelor WO Master (drs.,ing.) WO PHD (dr.) 5,3 30,4 13,2 18,5 19,1 9,9 3,6 Age distribution < 20 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 70 > 71 [WAARDE] [WAARDE] [WAARDE] [WAARDE] [WAARDE] [WAARDE] [WAARDE] [WAARDE] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Only Dutch Only Frisian Only a Frisian dialect Both a Frisian dialect and Frisian or Dutch Both Dutch and Frisian but mostly Frisian Both Dutch and Frisian but mostly Dutch Frisian and Dutch are used eqally often Another language than Frisian, a Frisian dialect or Dutch

Percentage

Distribution home langauge

Figure 2 Age distribution participants’ questionnaire l Figure 3 Distribution level of education questionnaire l

(20)

15

3.2.4 Procedures and materials

Questionnaire l consisted of 30 questions (see appendix l). The outline of the questionnaire was as followed:

o Introduction: The questionnaire started with an introduction on the digitalization of Frisian. The purpose of the questionnaire was described here. Besides that, it was mentioned that the participants could win one of five gift cards when filling in the questionnaire. This was done to encourage the participants to complete the questionnaire.

o Demographical background: This section contained questions about age, gender, level of education, place of residence and the respondent’s working field or field of education. These questions were included to get a general overview of the respondents that participated in the questionnaire. It enabled to see the age, gender, educational, occupational and geographical distribution of the respondents. The first three questions were closed ended, multiple choice questions. Question four, about the field of the respondent’s education/occupation was open ended, because this can result in a range of different answers, which are hard to classify in multiple choice answers. The same holds for question five, in which respondents were asked in which municipality they were living in. Since there was a possibility that respondents from outside of the province of Fryslân would respond, this was left as an open question.

o The Frisian language: This section consisted of questions about the respondent’s home language, the extend and use of Frisian in different situation, their language proficiency in Frisian and their attitudes towards the language.

In question 6, respondents were asked to report on their home language because this gives an indication to what extent they use the Frisian language. In this question, there was made use of checkboxes. Respondents had the possibility to freely report on their home language if it was anything other than Frisian, Dutch or a Frisian regional language.

The extent to which Frisian is used in conversations and for written communication, in formal and informal settings, can be an indication for the extent to which respondents want to make use of digital language tools for speaking or writing in Frisian. These questions were ordered in a linear six-point scale from always to the option ‘inapplicable to me’, for those who do not speak or write the language at all.

The respondents were asked to self-report on their proficiency of understanding, speaking, reading and writing in Frisian. This question was ordered in a linear five-point scale from ‘not at all’ to ‘very good.’ This question was included in the questionnaire to see if there is a need for the use of digital language tools amongst the respondents. Besides that, the respondents were given four statements in which they were asked to assess their Frisian writing and speaking proficiency (questions 9 to 12). These were closed ended multiple-choice questions going from ‘I totally agree’ to ‘I totally disagree.’ The option ‘not applicable’ was included here for those who are not able to use Frisian.

On a five-point scale respondents were asked to value the Frisian language and the use of the language in different domains of society. This was done to see if the respondents were positive or negative towards the language, because of the potential influence of attitudes on digital language use (questions 13 to 19).

(21)

16

ended question. If the respondents reported to be familiar with a tool and reported to be using it, they were asked if they would recommend the tool to acquaintances. These questions were closed ended multiple choice questions.

o Opinion on digital language tools: In this section respondents had to evaluate the digital language tools for Frisian on usefulness and expected use of the tools. This was done to find out if the respondents are positive or negative towards the digital tools for Frisian and if they have the intention to use them for speaking or writing in Frisian. Besides that, they were asked if they were willing to pay for a descent digital language tool. These questions were multiple choice-and closed ended. If respondents reported to be willing to pay for a digital language tool for Frisian, they were asked which amount of money they would spend on a tool. The average amount could be a guideline for the province of Fryslân for further developments of digital language tools.

o Need for new digital language tools: In the last section respondents were asked if they have the need for new digital language tools for Frisian or the Frisian regional languages based on nine concepts. The respondents could report if they would find these tools useful or not. This was a closed-ended multiple choice question.

o Comments: The participants could freely comment on the questionnaire and come up with suggestions for new digital language tools, therefore there was chosen for an open-ended question. Respondents could decide whether to comment or not.

3.2.5 Design and analysis

After the data has been collected in Google Forms it was transferred into Microsoft Excel. A quick scan of the data showed that there was some inconsistency in the data and therefore it had to be reorganized. Five respondents were deleted from the dataset. This was because some answers were identical and thus expected to be doubles. One of the respondents did not seem to take the questionnaire seriously, so therefore it’s nonsense answers have been deleted.

The question (no. 5) in which respondents were asked in which municipality or country they live in, resulted in a mixture of answers. The inconsistency was caused because some of the Frisian municipalities merged or are going to merge in the near future. Therefore, several respondents used old municipality names that do not exist any longer, others used new names that do not exist yet. Thus, it was decided to categorize the municipalities in five areas within the province of Fryslân.

o Mid-Fryslân: municipality ‘Leeuwarden.’

o Northwest-Fryslân: municipalities ‘Leeuwarderadeel’, ‘Het Bildt’, ‘Menameradiel’, ‘Littenseradiel’, ‘Franekeradeel’ and ‘Harlingen.’

o Northeast-Fryslân: municipalities ‘Ferwerderadiel’, ‘Dongeradeel’, ‘Dantumadeel’, ‘Kollumerland’, ‘Achtkarspelen’ en ‘Tytsjerksteradiel.’

o Southeast-Fryslân: ‘Smallingerland’, ‘Opsterland’, ‘Heerenveen’, ‘Ooststellingwerf’ and ‘Weststellingwerf.’

(22)

17

Question five of questionnaire l, resulted in a variety of answers as well. In this questions respondents were asked to report on their field of work or studies. The answers given by the respondents could be categorized in 16 sectors:

o Agriculture: including those working on a farm or within greenery. o Catering: including those working within the catering sector.

o Communication: including those working/studying in the field of marketing or communication

o Culture: including those working/studying in the field of media, arts, music, music teaching, history or social sciences.

o Economy: including those working within finance, accountancy or as an estate agent.

o Education: including those working/studying in the field of education. Includes retired teachers.

o Government: including employees working for the provincial government, a municipality or within politics.

o Healthcare: including those working/studying in the field of psychology and pedagogics. Those working with disabled people, as a veterinary, fire watch or babysitter.

o ICT: including those working/studying in the field of informatics o Juridical: including those working/studying in the juridical sector

o Language: including those working/studying in the field of linguistics and literature

o Others: including those who reported to be retired, being a housewife or volunteering. Respondents who did not fill in anything were also included here. Some answers were hard to classify, such as ‘office.’ These have been included here as well.

o Retail: includes those who said to be working in a shop, as a florist, cheese man or within the food industry.

o Science: includes those working/studying within the field of research

o Sustainability: includes those who said to be working/studying within sustainability or social geography.

o Technical industry: includes those who said to be working/studying as engineer, within the construction industry, those working with metals or chemicals.

After reorganizing the data, it was transferred into SPSS. To be able to do statistical analysis, the data had to be transferred into numeric data. For all variables the descriptive statistics were analysed.

In addition, a chi-square was done to see if there was an association between the self-reported language proficiency of the respondents and their attitudes towards digital language tools.

3.3 Questionnaire ll: education

3.3.1 Motivation

(23)

18

3.3.1.1 Target group

To be able to say something about the field of education and their familiarity with digital language tools for Frisian, language coordinators and Frisian teachers, working in primary and secondary education were approached. Language coordinators guide language classes within primary schools. Most language coordinators combine their function with their job as a teacher.

3.3.1.2 Type of questioning

Questionnaire ll was also made in ‘Google Docs’ since it is an easy tool to create and to distribute questionnaires online (see appendix ll). Most questions were closed-ended multiple-choice questions, since this is easier to analyse. In cases when it was not possible to use a multiple-choice question there was made use of open questions. The questionnaire was available in Frisian and Dutch. Questionnaire ll is shorter compared to questionnaire l, because this is an extra questionnaire to get a sense of the digitalization of Frisian within education.

3.3.2 Subjects

The distribution of questionnaire ll, amongst the language coordinators and Frisian teachers resulted in 8 responses. Of those responses were 6 female and 2 male. Half of the respondents were between 51 and 60 years old, one older, the rest younger. Five of the respondents were working as teachers within primary or secondary education, in combination with their function as language coordinator. Two participants were working as Frisian teachers within secondary education. One participant reported to be headmaster of a primary school. The schools on which the respondents are working were: CBS Het Anker (primary education, Drachten), CBS de Reinbôge (primary education, Tjerkwerd), PCBO de Voorde (primary education, Drachten), CBS de Ark (primary education, Makkum), OBS Op ‘e Dobbe (primary education, Hallum), ABBS Otto Clant skoalle (primary education, Boksum), SWS Twaspan (primary education, Deinum), CSG Liudger (secondary education, Burgum), Bogerman College (secondary education, Wommels/Sneek), Marne College (secondary education, Bolsward), Dockinga College (secondary education, Dokkum/Ferwert).

(24)

19

3.3.3 Procedures and materials

Questionnaire ll consisted of 12 questions and was outlined as followed:

o Introduction: The questionnaire started with an introduction about the digitalization of Frisian and the influence of digitalization on education. The purpose of the questionnaire was described here.

o Demographical background: This section contained questions about age, gender and working field. The respondents had to report if they were working within primary or secondary education and in which school. Besides that, they had to report if they were working as a language coordinator or a Frisian teacher. This was done to get a general overview of the respondents and where they work. This were closed ended multiple choice questions, except for the question in which the respondents were asked on which school(s) they are working.

o Frisian within education: This section contained questions about the use of Frisian within the school. Besides that, they were asked if the school has access to mobile devices to use digital language tools. This is important to get an overview of the extent to which Frisian plays a role in a school and if they have the possibility to make use of digital language tools for Frisian. These questions were closed ended multiple choice questions.

o Familiarity digital language tools: In this section a list of 23 digital language tools for Frisian were displayed to the participants. The respondents were asked if they were familiar with the tools and if they (had) used it in school/class. The questions were multiple-choice and closed ended question. If the respondents reported to be familiar with a tool and reported to be using it, they were asked in which classes they make use of a tool.

o Opinion on digital language tools: In this section respondents had to evaluate the digital language tools for Frisian on the usefulness of the tools within education. This was a five point Likert scale question going from ‘I totally agree’ to ’I totally disagree.’

o Need for new digital language tools: The respondents had to report if there is a need for new digital language tools within education based on seven constructs. The question was a closed ended multiple-choice question.

o Comments: The participants could freely comment on the questionnaire and come up with suggestions for new digital language tools. Therefore, this was an open-ended question. Respondents were free to leave a comment or to skip that.

3.3.4 Design and analysis

(25)

20

4. Results

This chapter displays the results of the questionnaires and the desk-research that has been conducted, focusing on several aspects of language tools, language proficiency and use, attitudes and needs for new digital language tools.

4.1 Existing digital language tools for Frisian

This section gives an answer to the first question of this paper: ‘Which digital language tools for Frisian exist and to what extend is the Frisian population familiar with them?’. Over the last few year a range of digital language tools have been developed (see appendix lll). Those tools have been realized in three different ways, as shown in paragraphs 4.1.1 – 4.1.3.

4.1.1 In commission of the province of Fryslân

Most of the existing digital language tools for Frisian are developed in commission of the province of Fryslân. The provincial government has commissioned several (subsidised) partners, such as the Afûk and the Fryske Akademy, to create digital language tools for Frisian. This resulted in different kinds of tools, such as tools for language learning, tools which support language use and language games.

4.1.2 By independent companies

After the successful cooperation with Google, the province wants to enlarge its cooperation with worldwide operating ICT-companies to implement Frisian into their digital tools. An example of a cooperation between the province and a worldwide operating ICT-company is the implementation of Frisian on Google Translate. Besides that, some small and bigger independent companies have introduced Frisian into their tools without any cooperation with the provincial government. Examples of those tools are English medium language learning tools, which enables English speakers to learn Frisian (see appendix lll, numbers, 23, 24, 25 and 30).

4.1.3 On a voluntary base

Some tools exist because of committed volunteers that wanted to implement Frisian into a tool. This led for example to the translation of the user’s interface of Facebook and Firefox into Frisian. As well, there was a lot of volunteering for Google Translate in the Fryske Google Translate week.

4.2 Results questionnaire l: general public

In the survey, participants were asked if they were familiar with the existing digital language tools for Frisian. The questionnaire only included the digital language tools which were intended for Frisian speakers that wanted to improve their Frisian writing skills and non-Frisian speakers that wanted to learn to speak the language. The first type of tools which were included in the questionnaire are Dutch-Frisian tools, the second type are English medium tools.

The results show that most of the digital language tools for Frisian are unknown amongst the participants. The participants were most familiar with the Google Translate website (see figure 8). About 45 percent of the participants reported to use Google Translate for Frisian. The Google Translate app is a familiar tool as well, but less known compared to the website.

(26)

21

but they did not use the app. More than a quarter of all participants reported to be unfamiliar with the app but wanted to start to use it in the future (see appendix Vlll, figure 9).

The outcomes show that most of the participants were unfamiliar with the possibility of having a Frisian autocorrection on a mobile device, such as the keyboard apps Gboard or SwiftKey. Most of the respondents reported that they were unfamiliar with these tools and that they did not want to make use of them (see figure 10). On the other hand, more than a quarter of the participants reported that they wanted to start using SwiftKey and almost 37 percent wanted to start using Gboard.

The Taalweb plug-in for Microsoft Office and the Fryske Staveringshifker app (spelling checker), which are related lexicographic products of the Fryske Akademy, are relatively unknown (see figure 11). Taalweb is compared to the Fryske Staveringshifker better known and more frequently used. A relative substantial part of the respondents reported that they were not familiar with the tools and did not want to use them. On the contrary, almost 40 percent reported to be willing to start using the Fryske Staveringshifker-app.

This is not the case for the digital language tools which were created by smaller operating ICT-companies and not in commission of the provincial government. These English medium tools offer the possibility to learn Frisian. The uTalk Fries app, the English Frisian Flash Cards app and the English West Frisian dictionary app were not well known amongst the participants. Almost all respondents report that they do not want to use these apps (see figure 12) Almost 75 percent of the participants are unfamiliar with the MOOC Introduction to Frisian, and they are not willing to use it.

EduFrysk is an online learning platform for Frisian and another tool which is highly unfamiliar amongst the respondents. The same holds for the Prisma woordenboek Fries, the OpFrysker app and the ReadSpeaker. In all cases, most of the participants report to be unfamiliar with the tool and that they neither wanted to start using it (see appendix Vlll, figure 13, 14, 15).

45,2 35,6 8,9 10,2 23,1 35 28,7 13,2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

I am familiar with the tool and I use it

I am familiar with the tool but I do not use it

I am not familiar with the tool and I do not want to make use of

it

I am not familiar with the tool but I want to make use of it

P

erc

enta

ge

Google Translate

GoogleTranslate (website) GoogleTranslate (app)

(27)

22 8,3 12,2 53,1 26,4 5,9 9,6 47,9 36,6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

I am not familiar with the tool and I do not want to make use

of it

P

erc

enta

ge

Gboard and SwiftKey

Swiftkey G-board 23,8 15,2 32,7 28,4 9,2 14,5 37 39,3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

of it

P

erc

enta

ge

Taalweb and Fryske Staveringshifker

Taalweb Microsoft Office Fryske Staveringshifker (app)

0,3 5,3 77,2 17,2 0,7 2,6 86,5 10,2 0,7 2 88,4 8,9 0,3 17,2 74,6 7,9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

of it

P

erc

enta

ge

s

English medium tools

English West Frisian Dictionary uTalkFrisian English Frisian Flash Cards MOOC Frisian

Figure 11 Familiarity Taalweb & Fryske Staveringshifker, questionnaire l Figure 10 Familiarity Gboard and SwiftKey, questionnaire l

(28)

23

4.3 Language proficiency

This section answers the second question of this paper: How are language tools for Frisian valued and does this correspond with the language attitudes of the respondents?

The participants were asked to self-report on their proficiency of Frisian. They had to give an indication of their proficiency for understanding, speaking reading and writing. The results of questionnaire l, which was distributed via the Praat mar Frysk network, are compared to the results of the ‘Fryske Taalatlas 2015’ (see figure 16). These results can be compared because both investigations contain self-reported result on language proficiency in Frisian. The results of the Fryske Taalatlas are based a response of 9.915 Frisians, living in the province of Fryslân. Questionnaire l consists of responses of participants living within the province, but as well outside of the province or abroad.

4.3.1 Understanding

The outcomes of questionnaire l and the Fryske Taalatlas show that a majority of the participants in both studies understand the Frisian language well up to very well. A small share of three percent of the respondents of questionnaire l understands Frisian on a reasonable level, with difficulty or not at all. In comparison to almost 15 percent of the respondents of the Fryske Taaltatlas.

4.3.2 Speaking

The same holds for the proficiency in speaking the language: more than 65 percent in both studies speaks Frisian well up to very well. Compared to questionnaire l, there are more respondents of the Fryske Taalatlas who reported to speak Frisian on a reasonable level, with difficulty or not at all.

4.3.3 Reading

Comparing the results on reading proficiency, there is quite a difference between the results of questionnaire l and the Fryske Taalatlas. More than 85 percent of the participants of questionnaire l said to be able to read the language well up to very well, compared to almost 52 percent of the participants of the Fryske Taalatlas. A share of almost 15 percent of the participants of questionnaire l reported to read Frisian on a reasonable level, with difficulty or not at all. Compared to almost 49 percent of the participants of the Fryske Taalatlas who reported to read Frisian on a reasonable level, with difficulty or not at all.

4.3.4 Writing

The outcomes on writing proficiency of both studies do neither show strong similarities. Almost 48 percent of the participants of questionnaire l reported to be able to write in Frisian well up to very well. This in comparison to almost 15 percent of the participants of the Fryske Taalatlas. Another major difference was the number of participants who reported to write no Frisian at all. A share of almost 6 percent of the participants of questionnaire l reported to write no Frisian at all, compared to almost 40 percent of the respondents of the Fryske Taalatlas.

4.3.5 Statements proficiency

(29)

24

their Frisian writing and speaking proficiency. The results show that more than 41 percent reports that they can express themselves equally well in both Frisian and Dutch (see figure 17). Figure 18 displays to what extend the participants wish to improve their Frisian speaking proficiency. A majority reported that their Frisian speaking is already sufficient.

More than 70 percent agrees or totally agrees with the proposition ‘I find it harder to write in Frisian than in Dutch’ (see figure 19). compared to almost 15 percent who (totally) disagreed with this statement. Almost 60 percent of the participants (totally) agreed that they wished to have a higher proficiency in Frisian writing. Almost 24 percent reported to find their Frisian writing proficiency sufficient (see figure 20).

Understandi ng 2017 Understandi ng TA 2015 Speaking 2017 Speaking TA 2015 Reading 2017 Reading TA 2015 Writing 2017 Writing TA 2015 Very well 82,2 66,6 61,4 46,2 50,2 21,7 23,1 4,1 Well 14,9 18,5 25,7 20,4 35,5 30,1 24,4 10,4 Reasonable 3 8,6 5,6 8,8 12,5 25,3 29 18,9 With difficulty 0 4,6 5,3 10,3 2 16,2 17,8 26,8 Not at all 0 1,7 2 14,3 0 6,7 5,6 39,7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P er ce nt ag e

Language proficiency Frisian

Not at all With difficulty Reasonable Well Very well

8,3 10,9 41,6 19,5 19,5 0,3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Totally disagree Disagree I can express myself equally well in Frisian

and Dutch

Agree Totally agree n/a

Perc

en

ta

ge

Statement: 'I can express myself better in Frisian than Dutch'

Figure 16 Language proficiency Frisian, questionnaire l compared to Fryske Taalatlas 2015

(30)

25 18,8 15,2 38 13,9 5,9 8,3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Totally disagree Disagree My Frisian is good enough

Perc

en

ta

ge

Statement: 'I wish it would be easier to start a conversation in Frisian'

6,9 7,9 13,2 48,8 21,8 1,3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Totally disagree Disagree My writing skills in Dutch and Frisian are

the same

Perc

en

ta

ge

Statement: 'find it harder to write in Frisian than in Dutch'

6,6 8,6 23,8 40,9 17,8 2,3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

I totally disagree I disagree My Frisian writing skills are sufficient

I agree I totally agree n/a

Perc

en

ta

ge

Statement: 'I wish I was a better writer in Frisian'

Figure 18 Distribution statement: ‘I wish it would be easier to start a conversation in Frisian, questionnaire l

Figure 19 Distribution statement: ‘I find it harder to write in Frisian than in Dutch’, questionnaire l