Straattaal and Change over the Years
An Investigation into the Current State of Straattaal in Almere
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language and Linguistics
Faculty of Humanities Leiden University
Regina Vorswijk s1497863
Supervisor: Prof. dr. M.G. Kossmann Second Reader: Dr. D. Smakman
Abstract
This thesis studies the lexical items in youth language, henceforth Straattaal, currently used by Dutch youths in the city of Almere, in order to identify possible developments in Straattaal lexicon 20 years after Appel’s (1999) first analysis of Straattaal words, which was conducted in Amsterdam. The investigation is directed at finding out to what extent the lexicon of Straattaal has changed, and what this change may possibly tell us about the dynamics of language. Previous research that has been done on Straattaal has for the most part focused on the perceptions and attitudes towards Straattaal and its social significance. The scope of this thesis is focused on testing students’ knowledge of Straattaal, and comparing the Straattaal words currently used by youngsters aged between 16 and 30 who live in Almere to those collected and analyzed in the studies performed some twenty years ago by Appel (1999), Appel & Schoonen (2005), and Nortier (2001). The aim of this investigation was to find out whether Straattaal is indeed, as Nortier (2001) notes, subject to continuous change. In order to gather data for this study, an online survey was conducted among 150 students, between the ages of 16 and 30, of an intermediate vocational school in the city of Almere. The survey consisted of a list of 50 words, identified as Straattaal words compiled for earlier studies. The survey first addressed the issue of the contemporaneity of Apple’s list of most commonly used Straattaal words from 1999, including the list that was compiled in Appel & Schoonen’s 2005 study and the list compiled by Nortier in 2001. Participants were asked if they could identify the words in the list as being Straattaal words, if they knew their meaning, and if they used the words themselves. The data showed that Straattaal is quite prevalent. 58% of respondents claimed to use Straattaal regularly. With regard to the extent to which Straattaal has evolved over the past 20 years, no considerable changes were found.
Introduction
The language practices of youths in the Netherlands have been extensively studied in the last two decades (Appel, 1999). Young adults deploy language as an inherent tool for social interaction to socialize and to reinforce social bonds with others. One such form of youth language is also known as Straattaal. Straattaal is a form of informal language (Rana, 2015). Appel (1999) introduced the term Straattaal, which he defined as a multiethnic youth language consisting of lexical items from English, Sranan, Turkish, and Moroccan Arabic. Rana (2015) argues that this form of youth language is a sociolect, because it goes beyond ethnic boundaries and is more typical of social groups and systems. Moreover, Rana (2015) states that Straattaal, unlike dialects, is not subject to default and formal linguistic processes, which makes it an intangible form of language. In addition, Straattaal lexicon can vary among groups for different reasons. Furthermore, it is in a state of constant flux, which makes the dynamics of Straattaal very different from the dynamics of formal languages.
In sum, there has not been an agreement yet on what exactly defines Straattaal. Kossmann (2017) made a considerable effort to come to a uniform definition. This definition will be used in the current study. According to Kossmann (2017, p. 5), “The exact makeup of Straattaal [...] one may state that Straattaal is at least characterized by a considerable influx of Sranan Tongo (Surinamese Creole) lexicon.” The following problem occurs when using this definition for language used by a group with a Surinamese background: it becomes difficult to differentiate whether they are using Straattaal or heritage language. Therefore, this definition is only applicable when indigenous Dutch youngsters, or youngsters from other ethnicities, use Sranan lexicon in Straattaal in discourse. Only then can the use of this variety be considered Straattaal.
Early analyses were aimed at labelling the variety of language and mapping out the properties of Straattaal. For example, major studies have examined the linguistic features of Straattaal (Appel & Schoonen, 2005; Nortier, 2001; Van Lier, 2005), the functions and the social significance of Straattaal (Appel, 1999; Nortier, 2001; Vermeij, 2002), the relation between language and group identity (Frijhoff, 2004; Rana, 2015), the processes of selfing and othering that are involved when the variety is used (Cornips & De Rooij, 2013), and the perceptions that various groups of people have of Straattaal (Kossmann, 2017). To date, insufficient research has focused on dynamics of Straattaal over the course of time.
Straattaal is an especially dynamic jargon (Appel, 1999); for example, it may give different definitions for one and the same word, or add new words continuously; or words may disappear. Nortier et al. (2005) compared two studies from 1999 and 2003 and showed that in 2003, a number of words had appeared in the Straattaal lexicon that had not been known up till then, while others had disappeared. For example, para had been replaced by the word noia (Nortier et al., 2005). Furthermore, some words even transfer
into standard Dutch, become conventional, and, as such, can no longer be labelled Straattaal. Indeed, lexical material from Straattaal that become household words are no longer original, and therefore are no longer interesting to use in Straattaal. Subsequently, these words are being replaced by other words, the authors state (Nortier et al. 2005).
Lexical items may also fall out of use because they are considered old-fashioned (Appel & Schoonen, 2004). For example, Appel and Schoonen (2004) claimed that scotten (to humiliate) had become old-fashioned and out of use, although they had not investigated this further. Appel (1999) argued that Straattaal is constantly evolving, and therefore the lexical content of Straattaal changes continuously. This is due to the fact that youngsters are constantly finding out new ways to express concepts; for example, to describe feelings or to denote hope (Appel & Schoonen, 2005).
According to Appel and Schoonen (2005), Straattaal is different depending on who speaks it, and where it is spoken. Variations in language practices are logical, since Straattaal is often used to stress one’s individual identity and to show to which group one belongs (Mensah, 2016). Researchers have found differences in Straattaal between the different regions. For example, Appel and Schoonen (2005) noted that Straattaal differed between four cities, probably depending on the main ethnicities of each area. In addition, Mourigh (2017) found that Straattaal is not accepted and used in Gouda where there is a large Moroccan community. They use a youth variety that does not include Sranan lexical items at all; rather, they use a variety that is known as Moroccan Flavored Dutch (MFD). This term was first introduced by Nortier and Dorleijn (2008). Rather than being a variety of language that distinguishes itself from the standard language on a semantic level, in MFD the accent is most powerful. It is rooted in the pronunciation of Dutch by adolescents from Moroccan backgrounds.
In sum, Straattaal can be regarded a dynamic form of youth language when viewed through its lexicality. However, the user’s ethnicity must also be taken into consideration, for the exact composition of the Straattaal lexicon and the Straattaal user’s ethnic background are inextricably linked. The dynamics of Straattaal can also be found in the fact that the Straattaal lexicon differs depending on the region where it is used. Claims that Straattaal is volatile have been made since early studies (Appel, 1999), and changes in the lexicon have been observed over the years; but should ethnicity and regional differences be regarded as sufficient to demonstrate the dynamics of Straattaal? The dynamics of Straattaal have rarely been studied directly.
Two decades later, the question remains: to what extent has Straattaal changed over the years, and to what degree is there continuity? This study will focus on what changes have occurred in the Dutch Straattaal lexicon 20 years after Appel (1999) first compiled a list of Straattaal words in common usage. It will provide theoretical background, followed by research questions and a general overview of the present study. An outline of the
conducted research will be described in the Method section, chapter 2. Chapter 3 will describe the Results, followed by the Discussion in chapter 4.
Theoretical Background
Appel (1999) was one of the first to conduct an exploratory study into Straattaal to establish a narrow and distinct definition of what is meant by the term in a multiethnic context. Unlike the name suggests, Straattaal (‘Street language’) should not be considered as a language, but as a register that is characterized by a specific vocabulary and expressions (Appel, 1999; Romaine, 1994). A register is a level of formality in language that varies according to the context in which it is used, the reason why it is used, the subject that is discussed, the content of the message, and the relationship between the speakers (Romaine, 1994). According to Isaac (2014), it is indeed the purpose and the setting that are the two important variables that define the term register, meaning that the choice of using a specific lexicon is based on the aim of communication and the context in which it is communicated. In addition, the term register is more appropriate in the case of Straattaal, as compared to style, because it is used alongside rather than used as a substitute for a standard language (Appel, 1999). In sum, a register is the way in which a speaker uses language differently in different situations. Variations in language are determined by factors such as context, purpose, and audience. In addition, Thomason (2007; Nortier & Dorleijn, 2008) points out that registers are examples of deliberate language manipulation by multilingual individuals in order to create a separate, bi-, or multilingual identity.
Dorleijn and Nortier (2012) regard Straattaal as a style—a set of linguistic variants with specific social meaning. As they state, “a linguistic style and/or variety is part of linguistic practices of speakers of more than two different ethnic and (by consequence) linguistic backgrounds...in use” (p. 1). Social meaning in this sense may include group membership, individual attributes, or beliefs. De Féral (2012) agrees that youngsters distinguish themselves from others in how they speak, and that their speaking practices seemingly have characteristics that apply the same linguistic processes that other youth languages adhere to. The linguistic concepts of register and style have been evaluated by Isaac (2014). In his view, style is flexible and dynamic because it has the ability to be utilized in various manners He argues that there is a relationship between register and style and that although these two concepts differ considerably, they are both responsible for a given sociolinguistic context. He further argues that register and style in relation to context are functional manifestations or varieties of a given language since they usually mark the changes that occur in language as a result of immediate sociolinguistic necessities over and above the traditional dialect and social varieties (Isaac, 2014).
In The Netherlands, Straattaal has become known as a type of mixed youth variety of language (Appel, 1999) with multiethnic influences. According to Bakker and Mous (1994), “mixed languages are languages with a grammatical system from one language and a lexicon from another” (p. 245). In the case of Straattaal in The Netherlands, the
grammatical system of standard Dutch is combined with lexicon derived from Sranan, Moroccan-Arabic, Turkish, Papiamentu, and English (Appel, 1999). As Kossmann (2017) states, Straattaal can be characterized as a style that integrates lexicons from different heritage languages, especially Moroccan and Sranan.
Of the above-mentioned languages, Sranan is the main contributor to the lexicon overall (Appel, 1999; Appel & Schoonen, 2005). However, the extent to which Sranan is the main contributor depends on the composition of the population in a certain area (Mourigh, 2017). In a recent study, Mourigh (2017) showed that in Gouda, where the population mainly consists of Moroccans, the main contributor in the Straattaal variety that is used by indigenous Dutch teenagers is not Sranan, but Moroccan-Arabic. Therefore, the ethnic background of the speakers is an important factor in influencing the various Straattaal lexicons. In other words, the dynamics of Straattaal are determined by group identity, ethnicity, and surroundings, but also by distinguishing ingroup members from outgroup members.
Up until now, researchers have mainly studied Straattaal in a multiethnic context. In this environment, Straattaal has a social function and can be seen as a linking factor between young people with different ethnic backgrounds and the indigenous Dutch group (Rana, 2015). Vermeij (2002) studied the social significance of Straattaal, or “interethnic language,” in The Netherlands, and concluded that the language one uses reflects the groups with which one identifies himself. When youngsters use Straattaal to communicate, they utilize distinctive language elements in order to include or exclude others; for example, difference in accent, difference in grammar, or the usage of specific words (Cornips & De Rooij, 2013). It may be used to show solidarity with interactors using that same variety of language. Conversely, it may distance the ingroup from the outgroup, and it can even be used to mock the outgroup. Cornips and De Rooij (2013) claim that the youngsters are constantly redefining their identities depending on their surroundings. Through processes of selfing and othering using Straattaal the youngsters create uniqueness and a group-identity, a sense of belonging to an ingroup. The Straattaal variety used depends for a large part on the characteristics of the ingroup members, such as ethnicity and surroundings. In other words, when residing in Gouda the chances of Straattaal containing Moroccan-Arabic words will be greater than when residing in Almere, or in Amsterdam. In sum, these are the circumstances under which Straattaal may be inferred, although these circumstances are no explanation for what Straattaal is.
The use of Straattaal is considered inappropriate for girls in the eyes of the social group (Nortier, 2017). This is based on specific gender roles imposed by society. Women are expected to be more sensitive to the use of standard forms and prestige. Nortier (2017) evaluated attitudes towards Moroccan girls who use Straattaal in posts. The study showed that the use of Straattaal by women is considered non-feminine and improper. This could be the reason why some studies find girls to be less frequent users of Straattaal,
as it seems to be less appropriate for their gender role expression (e.g. Androutsopoulos, 2010).
Population composition strongly influences the Straattaal variant that is used and spoken (Mourigh, 2017). Almere, a city founded in 1976, is home to a large proportion of people with a Surinamese background. It became popular in the 1990s among the Surinamese community living in Amsterdam at the time, many of which moved from Amsterdam to live in Almere (Bos, Leveling, Mateman & Renooy, 2005; van Huis, Nicolaas & Croes, 2004). As of 2018, the Surinamese population is still the largest group, as it constitutes 27.4% of the total residents of Almere (allecijfers.nl, 2020), whereas in the early 2000 it was 28.8%. And yet, other population groups are increasing in number and proportion, including the Moroccans, Turks, and others (Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS), 2018; Garssen, 2003).
Almere has been known for its large Surinamese population since the late 1980s and the early 1990s (CBS, 2016). In recent years, other minority groups have settled in Almere; see Table 1.
Table 1
Population in Almere: inhabitants with an immigrant background are divided into Western and non-western based on their country of birth (CBS, 2018; Garssen, 2003).
2003 2018
Migration background Inhabitants Percentage Inhabitants Percentage Surinam 14.900 28.8 23.290 27.4 Western 16.000 30.9 21.412 25.2 Moroccan 4.300 8.3 8.029 9.5 Antillean 3.700 7.2 5.137 6.1 Turkey 2.100 4.1 3.766 4.4 Other 10.800 20.9 23.257 27.4
As a population changes over the decades, the dynamics of a register, such as Straattaal could be influenced in turn. Youngsters with a Surinamese background
currently living in the Netherlands are most probably second or third generation Surinamese people. Research on heritage language maintenance and loss among children of immigrants in the USA has shown that members of the first generation usually still speak the heritage language at home. On the other hand, members of the second generation increasingly speak English at home, thus becoming limited bilinguals. Due to this process, following generations acquire a more and more impoverished version of the heritage language (Nesteruk, 2010). Based on this knowledge, we expect that the current generation of youngsters of Surinamese origin will have a more limited vocabulary compared to previous generations.
In addition, the proportion of Surinamese people in Almere is slightly decreasing and other ethnicities are increasing. Therefore, we expect that a decrease in use of the heritage language Surinamese has occurred since the Appel (1999) and Appel and Schoonen (2005) studies. Because of the slightly decreasing percentage of Surinamese in Almere, the overall influence of Surinamese could decrease. Thus, a less Sranan-based variety of Straattaal would be used by the youngsters in 2019 compared to the youngsters in the former studies.
The research questions that we pose are: How does knowledge of Straattaal differ between different ethnicities? Does the current Surinamese generation have the same knowledge of Straattaal as earlier generations? Is it possible that the current generation of Surinamese youngsters is less familiar with certain lexical items from the past as a result of the dynamics of their heritage language (Nesteruk, 2010)? What knowledge do non-Surinamese youngsters nowadays have of Straattaal?
Since there has been limited research on factors that determine change in Straattaal, this thesis will investigate these dynamics. It will explore possible factors responsible for change in Straattaal lexicon, by following up on Appel’s previous studies, and by conducting a survey among teens in a multiethnic school for intermediate vocational education. It will seek to answer the following central research question: to what extent has Straattaal evolved over the last two decades?
To summarize, this study aims to examine whether Straattaal is as volatile and dynamic as was claimed by Appel (1999), Appel and Schoonen (2005), and Nortier et al. (2005), amongst others. The scope of the first studies on Straattaal by Appel and Appel and Schoonen will be extended by updating the word lists that were administered in the aforementioned two studies. By adding new words from that same period to the lists of the earlier studies (e.g., Cornips, 2005; Nortier, 2001; Van Kempen, 2000) we intend to compare the two lists and hope to gain more insight into possible changes over the course of time.
We hypothesize that knowledge and familiarity of Straattaal words among the Surinamese youngsters has decreased over the two decades due to the loss of their heritage language. In addition, we hypothesize that the knowledge of Straattaal has also
decreased among the non-Surinamese ethnicities in the city of Almere as compared to the studies of two decades ago. This is because Surinamese peers have a smaller vocabulary of Surinamese, and the relative proportion of Surinamese in Almere has become smaller in recent years (CBS, 2018). However, Almere has a substantial Surinamese community, and therefore we do expect the non-Surinamese youngsters to acquire some level of Straattaal in the year 2019, as the Surinamese community has a large impact on the acquisition of Straattaal jargon spoken in Almere. We expect to find that youngsters use Straattaal to show their solidarity with the ingroup (Kossmann, 2017; Rana, 2015). Furthermore, we hypothesize that certain words are used less often by the youngsters of today because they are now considered to be old-fashioned; for example, the word scotten (Appel & Schoonen, 2004). Finally, we expect that girls do not report using Straattaal as much as boys.
2 Methodology 2.1 Population
Almere has been known for its large Surinamese population since the late 1980s (CBS, 2015). In order to study the dynamics of Straattaal over the past twenty years, we chose to survey a group of youngsters from Almere on their knowledge of Straattaal words based on a list from the past. Almere was chosen as the city of focus because the focal researcher teaches there in an intermediate vocational school. Almere provides a new perspective due to its regional location, as previous research was mainly done in large non-regional cities.
2.2 Participants
Students at intermediate vocational school (MBO), currently taking various courses at different levels, took part in the study during May 2019. The researcher received permission from the school board to conduct the study. This particular school has a few advantages: 1) children were easy to access because the researcher is herself a teacher there, and 2) the student population consisted of students from various
relatively recent migration backgrounds, as well as students with no migration background.
A total of 151 of the 400 students that were approached participated in the investigation. Among these 151 students, 128 respondents completed the survey. The age of the students ranged between 16 and 26 years, with a median age of 16–18 years. There was no difference in age category between the different ethnic groups. The survey was carried out at both, i.e. two, locations of the school. One is in Almere-Buiten, which is located in the northern part of the city, and where students of the lower educational level courses reside. The other location, Almere-Poort, is located in the southern part, and home to students of a higher educational level. One participant indicated HBO was the highest level of education completed; 107 indicated MBO; and 20 indicated high school to be their highest level of education.
2.3 The Survey
In order to assess if changes in the Straattaal lexicon have occurred over the past two decades and to test the pervasiveness of Straattaal in Almere, respondents were presented with an online survey (see attachment A). An online survey was chosen because it is easy to administer and an efficient method for reaching the target group. A further advantage is that the participants were able to fill out the survey on their mobile devices without restrictions of time or place.
The survey consisted of two separate sections. The first section was designed to collect demographic data, such as respondents’ age, gender, and education. The next question concerned the city where their high school was situated, their current residential city, and the languages that their parents speak. This latter question was designed to investigate possible linguistic background influences on the command of Straattaal, and was used to classify the participants into three groups based on ethnicity: [1] Surinamese background, when they indicated that a parent spoke Surinamese
[2] No migration background (‘native Dutch’), if they had only Dutch-speaking parents [3] Various migration background, when parents spoke other languages than Dutch but no Surinamese.
Participants were asked questions regarding their knowledge and use of Straattaal in general. For example, they answered “How often do you speak Straattaal?” on a 3-points Likert scale, varying from “often” (3) to “never” (1). Next, the respondents were asked the reasons why they use Straattaal. The answer choices included: “It is a secret language”; “It is fun”; “It is cool”; “Everybody uses it”; and “Other”, where they could indicate their own individual answer to this question. Participants were furthermore asked to indicate with whom they speak Straattaal, with the following answer choices: friends; classmates; family members; teachers; others. The final question in the first part of the survey concerned the role of social media in Straattaal usage. Participants could indicate if they used Straattaal on social media with one of the options: yes; no; occasionally.
The second part of the questionnaire contained a list of 50 Straattaal words that combined words from the earlier lists compiled by Appel (1999), Nortier (2001), Appel and Schoonen (2005), and Cornips (2005), as well as two other sources: “De taal van de straat verklaard | Straatwoordenboek” (n.d.); and Van Kempen (2000), see Table 2.
Table 2
List of 50 Straattaal words used in the study.
word definition A 1999 AS 2005 N 2001 C 2005 other Source language
doekoe money x x x x Sranan
chickie girl x x English
osso house/home x x x Sranan
loesoe away x x Sranan
afoe a piece/a drag (of a cigarette) x x Sranan
faya bad/dirty/fire x x x Sranan
fittie fight x x Sranan
kill boy x Sranan
fatoe joke x Sranan
scotten to disrespect x Sranan
master very good/terrific x English
skitta shit x Sranan
boeng good x Sranan
mokro Moroccan (boy or girl) x Sranan
fa waka How are you? x Sranan
kaolo asshole x Sranan
jonko joint x x Sranan
sma girl x Sranan
agga The Hague x Sranan
scorro school x Sranan
boeler gay x Sranan
flex cool x English
lauw very good/ terrific x Sranan
brada brother x Sranan
tranga great/ fantastic x Sranan
waggie car x Sranan
fissa party x Sranan
torie story x Sranan
Continue Table 2.
anoe hand x Sranan
aftjappen to prevent x Sranan
matie friend x Sranan
trobie fight x Sranan
monnie money x Sranan
gruwelijk cool x Dutch
sannie thing x Sranan
floos money x Moroccan-Arabic
baksen to hit x Sranan
dieken to meddle x Sranan
spang funny/nice/ humorous Sranan
tatta Dutchman/ woman x x Sranan
gila guilder x x Sranan
standaard very good/terrific/ sure x x Dutch
bakra Dutchman/ woman x x Sranan
pipa pistol x x Sranan
barkie 100 guilders x Sranan
das away x x ?
donnie ten guilders x x Sranan
para crazy x Sranan
patas shoe x x Sranan
Note: A 1999 = Appel (1999); AS 2005 = Appel & Schoonen (2005); N 2001 = Nortier (2001); C 2005 = Cornips (2005); others = other sources, for example, “De taal van de straat verklaard | Straatwoordenboek” (n.d.), Van Kempen (2000).
Most of the Straattaal words on the list originate from Sranan. However, four words are based in English, two are Dutch, one is Moroccan-Arabic, and one word’s origin is unknown.
Participants’ knowledge of the 50 Straattaal lexical items was measured by using six variables relevant to the respondents’ knowledge. Respondents were asked to state for each word in the word list: if they use the word, and know its meaning [“1”]; if they use the word, but do not know its meaning [“2”]; if they know the word, but do not use it [“3”]; if they recognize the word but do not know its meaning [“4”]; if they do not recognize the word [“5”]; and if they find the word old-fashioned [“6”].
The following definitions were extracted from the answers:
Percentage of Knowledge and Familiarity: Percentage was calculated as the total number of words that a student indicated as familiar and used, divided by 50. This was done for comparison with the percentages that were mentioned by Appel and Schoonen (2005). This included the response options: 1, 3, and 6.
Number of Unknown words: a count of the words that the student indicated that they did not know or recognize (count of the answer categories 2, 4, and 5).
Number of Known words without use: a count of the words that the student indicated that they recognized and understood, but did not use (count of option 3).
Number of Old-fashioned words: a count of the words that the student indicated that they regarded as old-fashioned (count of option 6).
2.4 Procedure
The researcher requested permission from the school to send out an online survey to about 400 students. An anonymous survey was used whereby the identity of the respondent remained private even after they had answered all the questions in the survey. This was done by means of The Anonymous Responses collector option in the survey program, which disables the possibility to track or to store identifiable
information about the respondent. The study was carried out in accordance with the leading principles at the school, which meant that the survey did not contain any sexually tinted words.
In order to recruit as many respondents as possible, an email was sent to all groups of students studying at two locations of the selected school for vocational education in Almere. The students were approached to fill out the survey individually. Participation was done on a voluntary basis. The email contained an introductory text to explain the aim of the survey, and the time required to fill out the survey. Students were prompted to participate in the survey by clicking on a link which was included in the email. Additionally, the introductory text made it clear that any information given by the participants would be processed anonymously without a possible trace back to any individual. Data collection and analysis methods did not include tools that would allow individuals to be identified. No further information was asked than was required for the research.
2.5 Statistical Analyses
The survey answers are exported and read into SPSS v25. First an overview is given on the sample demographic distribution. Secondly, chi-square tests are conducted to test the relationship among these variables. Thirdly, descriptives are given for the parameters collected on the list of words, and compared with the results from Appel and Schoonen
(2005) study. Finally, results will be presented on differences between the three ethnolinguistic groups (student level), and on the use of the words from the list (word level).
3 Results
This chapter presents the results of the survey. First, an overview of the study participants will be given. Thereafter, the dynamics and knowledge of Straattaal of the participants will be examined. Finally, the differences between the groups will be presented.
3.1 Pre-analyses
A group of 128 students completed the survey; this was 84.8% of the total group that started the survey. Sixty-nine were men (53.9%) and 59 women (46.1%). The group was divided into three groups based on ethnic background: 30 participants had a Surinamese background (23.4%); 53 a native Dutch background (41.4%); and 45 another background than Surinamese and sole Dutch (35.2%). This latter group consisted of 6 Antillean youngsters (13.3%), 11 Moroccan (24.4%), 5 Turkish (11.1%), and 23 youngsters indicated to have a different ethnic background (51.1%), such as Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, French, et cetera.
The respondents indicated that they used Straattaal most frequently with their friends (94.5%), followed by classmates (64.8%), family (27.3%), others (20.3%), and finally teachers (7.0%).
On the question whether they use Straattaal on social media, 30 respondents responded with “yes” (23.4%), 51 with “sometimes” (39.8%), and 47 with “no” (36.7%).
When inquiring after the participants’ use of Straattaal, 18 participants indicated that they never use Straattaal (14.1%), 50 students said that they seldom used it (39.1%) and 60 students (46.9%) used Straattaal often in their conversations; see Table 3.
Table 3
Frequency distribution of students’ use of Straattaal over the three ethnic groups by sex.
never seldom often
male female male female male female
Surinamese 3 1 0 9 9 8
native Dutch 7 0 12 10 17 7
other 4 3 4 15 13 6
Further inspection of the 18 participants that indicated never to use Straattaal revealed four participants with a Surinamese background. Inspection of the answers of these four participants showed that they do use words from the list in their speech, but they do not consider these words to be Straattaal. In their view, these words are part of their heritage language. As one participant stated, “Most of the words are Surinamese, so I just speak my own language”. We tested whether or not the use of Straattaal was distributed differently over the three ethnic groups with a chi-square test. The result was statistically not significant, χ2 (4) = 1.79, p = .78. The use of Straattaal was therefore reported in an equal way by the three ethnic groups. There was no statistical difference between the three ethnic groups in the frequency of use of Straattaal.
In addition, we tested whether the sex groups report a different frequency of use of Straattaal. According to the chi-square test there was a significant difference between the genders in frequency of use χ2 (2) = 16.76, p < .001; see Table 2. The majority of men (56.5%) indicated that they use Straattaal often. Conversely, the majority of women (57.6%) indicated that they seldom use it. When looking specifically at the group that indicated never to use Straattaal, 20.3 % (N = 14) of the male respondents said they never use it, and 6.8 % (N = 4) of the female respondents.
To test if the two genders were distributed equally over the three ethnic groups, we conducted a chi-square test. The test was statistically significant, χ2 (2) = 7.48, p < .05, with a higher proportion of males in the native Dutch group compared to the other two ethnic groups. Within the Surinamese group there was a relatively high proportion of women compared to the other two ethnic groups; see Table 4. This should be taken into consideration when significant differences are found during analyses between the ethnolinguistic groups.
Table 4
Frequency distribution of students (%) over the three ethnic groups by sex.
men women total current total
Appel & Schoonen (2005) Surinamese 12 (40.0) 18 (60.0) 30 (23.4) (6.7)
native Dutch 36 (67.9) 17 (32.1) 53 (41.4) (54.7)
other 21 (46.7) 24 (53.3) 45 (35.2) (38.6)
Note: percentages within parentheses.
As the study of Appel and Schoonen (2005) is used hereafter as a reference, we compared the proportions of the three ethnic groups in the current study to the ones of the study by Appel and Schoonen. As can been from Table 4, the proportion of Surinamese in the current study is much greater than in the former study, whereas the proportion of Dutch natives was greater in the other study.
3.2 Knowledge of Straattaal
In the following section we will investigate knowledge and familiarity, the number of unknown words, known words that are not used anymore, and perception of old-fashioned words in the dynamics of Straattaal.
Table 5 shows an overview of the results of each response option given by the respondents regarding their knowledge of each of the 50 words.
Table 5
Frequencies of response options given per ethnic group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 S D O S D O S D O S D O S D O S D O doekoe 13 26 15 0 1 0 11 35 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 chickie 21 32 26 0 1 0 7 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 6 osso 23 35 27 0 0 0 7 17 17 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 loesoe 22 31 27 0 0 1 8 20 16 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 afoe 17 14 12 1 0 0 11 27 18 0 5 6 0 8 6 2 0 5 faya 26 31 28 0 0 0 4 22 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 fittie 14 16 8 1 0 0 13 33 31 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 4 9 kill 29 39 27 0 0 0 1 10 16 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 3
Continue Table 5. fatoe 23 33 30 0 1 0 7 16 14 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 scotten 17 16 18 0 1 0 13 23 20 0 3 2 0 8 3 2 3 4 master 3 8 7 0 0 1 19 20 16 1 6 2 5 18 12 6 2 4 skitta 8 10 9 1 0 2 13 17 14 2 4 5 2 18 9 6 6 6 boeng 13 4 6 0 0 2 16 19 16 0 2 4 0 26 12 4 1 2 mokro 15 19 18 0 0 1 14 30 18 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 fa waka 17 15 12 0 1 1 12 25 23 0 2 2 0 5 2 2 3 7 kaolo 25 29 20 0 1 1 4 19 19 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 jonko 18 26 20 0 0 1 10 24 20 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 sma 12 9 8 0 2 1 17 22 14 0 2 3 0 15 14 5 2 2 agga 13 4 13 0 0 1 16 19 12 0 1 1 0 25 15 1 3 2 scorro 22 29 24 0 0 0 7 22 17 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 boeler 14 11 10 0 0 2 15 31 21 1 3 2 0 6 7 1 1 1
Continue Table 5. flex 16 23 11 0 0 1 13 24 23 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 7 lauw 10 11 10 0 1 1 18 24 24 0 3 2 0 6 2 3 6 9 brada 18 16 16 0 0 1 12 32 21 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 3 3 tranga 8 6 4 0 1 2 21 16 16 0 3 4 0 23 14 1 2 3 waggie 21 33 23 0 0 0 9 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 fissa 26 36 26 0 0 1 4 12 12 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 torie 25 18 20 0 0 1 5 25 13 0 3 3 0 4 3 0 0 2 dissen 8 10 10 0 1 1 18 32 21 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 8 13 anoe 20 14 13 0 1 1 9 18 15 0 3 5 1 14 6 0 0 2 aftjappen 1 3 3 0 0 1 14 13 10 2 2 5 11 28 19 3 1 3 mattie 22 25 19 0 0 1 7 18 16 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 4 trobie 10 3 9 0 0 1 16 18 11 0 5 5 2 21 14 2 0 1 monnie 18 24 17 1 0 1 9 21 19 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 5 gruwelijk 8 20 15 0 0 1 15 25 19 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 3 9 sannie 18 8 14 0 0 1 10 28 18 0 2 2 0 9 6 1 0 0
Continue Table 5. floos 3 5 9 0 0 1 10 14 9 2 3 2 11 25 19 4 1 2 baksen 10 4 3 0 0 1 14 15 13 1 4 3 2 23 20 3 3 3 dieken 20 9 10 0 0 1 8 20 18 0 4 1 0 14 9 2 1 4 spang 23 26 25 0 0 1 6 19 16 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 tatta 19 21 25 0 0 1 9 24 14 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 gila 10 6 9 0 0 2 12 14 12 0 3 3 6 23 13 1 1 3 standaard 15 24 17 1 0 1 10 17 16 0 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 bakra 15 6 8 0 0 2 12 24 17 0 2 3 0 14 8 1 1 4 pipa 6 6 7 0 0 2 17 25 18 0 0 1 2 15 9 4 3 5 barkie 22 25 25 0 0 1 5 18 12 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 das 2 2 3 1 0 1 6 12 11 4 1 1 12 30 19 3 2 6 donnie 21 25 24 0 0 1 6 19 13 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 para 20 24 22 0 0 1 8 22 13 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 patas 20 26 27 0 0 1 7 20 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2
Note: S = Surinamese; D = Native Dutch; O = others; 1 = they use the word and know its meaning; 2 = they use the word, but do not know its meaning; 3 = they know the word, but do not use it; 4 = they recognize the word, but do not know its meaning; 5 = they do not recognize the word; 6 = they find the word old-fashioned.
3.2.1 Percentage of knowledge and familiarity 3.2.1.1 On student level
A count was made of the number of words (maximum 50) which the students indicated to be familiar. The count was made from the following answer categories: if they use the word, and know its meaning [“1”]; if they know the word, but do not use it [“3”]; and if they find the word old-fashioned [“6”]. If at least one of these three options was chosen, then the respondent must, at least to a certain degree, have some knowledge of the word. In order to test the difference between the three ethnic groups regarding the percentage familiar with the 50 Straattaal words in the current study we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis H test. The results indicated that there was a significant difference between the three ethnic groups, χ2(2) = 24.322, p < .001, with a mean rank percentage score of 93.40 for the Surinamese group, 53.28 for the native Dutch, and 58.44 for the Other group. When conducting pairwise comparisons, we discovered that the Surinamese group differed significantly from the native Dutch and the Other group. This means that the Surinamese respondents had a significantly higher knowledge and familiarity of Straattaal words on the list than the other groups in the current study; see Table 6. Table 6
Percentage of Familiarity by the students per ethnic group.
current study Appel & Schoonen (2005)
mean sd min max mean
Surinamese .93 .08 .60 1.00 .69
native Dutch .75 .16 .18 1.00 .80
Other .75 .25 .16 1.00 .69
total .79 .21 .16 1.00 .75
Note: sd, = standard deviation.
Our sample has a greater knowledge and familiarity of the Surinamese Straattaal words than their counterparts about two decades ago, as found by Appel & Schoonen (2005). There is a significant statistical difference of 0.04, (t (127) = 2.21, p <.05) between the current sample and the sample of Appel & Schoonen (2005; see Table 3 p. 96). At that time the percentage was about 0.75.
We also compared each ethnic group separately to the similar ethnic group of the Appel and Schoonen study. The current Surinamese group showed a much greater familiarity with the presented words than Appel and Schoonen (2005); the mean difference between the former results and the current Surinamese group was 0.24, (t (29) = 16.24, p <.001). With regard to the native Dutch group, there was no significant difference between the current study and the former; familiarity with Straattaal words
among the native Dutch in both studies was similar. Finally, we compared the third ethnic group, i.e. all other but native Dutch or Surinamese; these also did not differ significantly from the former study in their familiarity of Straattaal.
3.2.1.2 On word level
A count was done for the 50 words of which the student had indicated that they did know (count of the answer categories: if they use the word, and know its meaning [“1”], if they know the word, but do not use it [“3”], and if they find the word old-fashioned [“6”]).
The count showed that a top three of known words: (1) doekoe and chickie with 100% (n = 128);
(2) osso 98.4% (N = 126);
(3) faya and kill with 97.7% (N = 125) of the respondents stating that they know this word.
3.2.2 Number of unknown words 3.2.2.1 On student level
For the purpose of this study, words from the list of 50 Straattaal words were classified as “unknown” as follows: if the respondent used the word, but did not know its meaning [“2”], if they recognized the word but did not know its meaning [“4”], if they did not recognize the word [“5”]). On average 7.76 (sd = 8.19) words were listed by the participants, with a range between 0 and 41 unknown words; see Table 7.
Table 7
Mean number of unknown words (max. = 50) for each ethnic group.
N mean sd min max
Surinamese 30 2.43 2.16 0.00 8.00
native Dutch 53 9.68 7.84 0.00 28.00
Other 45 9.04 9.62 0.00 41.00
Total 128 7.76 8.19 0.00 41.00
Note: sd = standard deviation.
To test the difference between the three ethnic groups regarding the number of unknown words we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis H test. The results indicated that there was a significant difference between the three ethnic groups (χ2(2) = 21.066, p < .001) with a mean rank of unknown words of 37.93 for the Surinamese group, 75.79 for the native Dutch, and 68.91 for the Other group. Surinamese respondents reported the least unknown words, followed by the Other group, and the Native Dutch reported the highest number of unknown words. When conducting pairwise comparisons, the Surinamese group reported significantly fewer unknown words from the Straattaal list than the other
groups; see Table 7. The Others and Native group did not differ significantly from each other in the number of unknown words.
3.2.2.2 On word level
Specific words which the students indicated that they did not know or recognize were counted (count of the answer categories: if they used the word but did not know its meaning [“2”], if they recognized the word but did not know its meaning [“4”], if they did not recognize the word [“5”]).
The count showed a top three of unknown words:
(1) das with 53.9% (n = 69);
(2) aftjappen with 51.5% (N = 66);
(3) floos with 47.6% (N = 61) of the respondents stating that they do not know this word.
3.2.3 Number of known words without use 3.2.3.1 On student level
For the purpose of this study, words from the list of 50 Straattaal words were classified as “known but unused” as follows: respondent recognized and knew the meaning but did not use ([“3”]). On average 17.87 (sd = 12.24) known but unused words were listed by the participants, with a range in this sample between 0 and 48; see Table 8.
Table 8
Mean number of known but unused words (max. = 50) for each ethnic group.
N mean sd min max
Surinamese 30 16.93 13.16 0.00 48.00
native Dutch 53 19.49 12.27 0.00 44.00
Other 45 16.58 11.61 0.00 41.00
Total 128 17.87 12.24 0.00 48.00
Note: sd = standard deviation.
To test the difference between the three ethnic groups regarding the number of known but unused words out of the 50 Straattaal words we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis H test. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the three ethnic groups; see Table 8. All three ethnicities indicated a similar rate of words that they know but do not use.
3.2.3.2 On word level
A count was done of words which the students indicated that they recognized and understood, but did not use ([“3”]).
The count showed a top three of known but unused words: (1) fittie with 60.2% (n = 77);
(2) dissen with 55.5% (N = 71); (3) doekoe with 53.9% (N = 69).
There were on average 48.18 (sd = 11.63) respondents that indicated about each of the 50 words that they knew a word but did not use it.
3.2.4 Number of old-fashioned words 3.2.4.1 On student level
For the purpose of this study, words from the list of 50 Straattaal words were classified as “old-fashioned” as follows: the respondent found the word old-fashioned ([“6”]). On average 2.77 (sd = 4.95) old-fashioned words were listed by the participants, with a range in this sample between 0 and 34; see Table 9.
Table 9
Mean number of old-fashioned words (max. = 50) for each ethnic group.
N mean sd min max
Surinamese 30 3.27 3.96 0.00 11.00
native Dutch 53 1.60 3.28 0.00 15.00
Other 45 3.80 6.70 0.00 34.00
Total 128 2.77 4.95 0.00 34.00
Note: N, number of participants; sd = standard deviation.
To test the difference between the three ethnic groups in labelling words from the list as old-fashioned we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis H test. There was a significant difference between the three ethnic groups (χ2(2) = 7.163, p < .05) with a mean rank of old-fashioned words of 73.35 for the Surinamese group, 55.02 for the native Dutch, and 69.77 for the Other group. The native Dutch were least like to label a word old-fashioned, followed by the Other. The Surinamese group labelled a word old-fashioned more often than the other two groups. Pairwise comparisons found no significant differences between the pairs; see Table 9.
3.2.4.2 On word level
A count was done of words which students indicated that they found old-fashioned ([“6”]). The count showed a top three of old-fashioned words:
(1) dissen with 21.1% (n = 27); (2) gruwelijk with 16.4% (N = 21); (3) fittie 14.8% (N = 19).
3.2.4.3 Scotten
Considering that Appel and Schoonen (2005) had pointed out in their investigation that the word scotten had become out of use or old-fashioned, without having given a specific reason for the statement, we have examined the word ‘scotten’ more closely. It has become clear from our sample that only nine respondents considered scotten fashioned; only 7% of the total sample. Scotten was ranked 12th among the 50 old-fashioned words. The sampling showed that the word ‘scotten’ is actually still contemporary among youngsters that use Straattaal, ranking 24th, just between ‘mokro’ and ‘flex’.
4 Discussion
Several researchers have described Straattaal as volatile and dynamic (e.g., Appel, 1999; Appel & Schoonen, 2005; Nortier et al., 2005). Straattaal is believed to change due to the appearance of new words and the disappearance of others. Ethnicity is one factor that is assumed to influence this process. Dutch Straattaal is largely influenced by the heritage language Sranan. However, the level of comprehension and command of Sranan among youngsters nowadays with a Surinamese background is supposedly decreasing, with the course of the second towards the third generation (Nesteruk, 2010). To date, it has not been investigated whether Straattaal is dynamic.
Therefore, we compared the knowledge of Straattaal found in former studies, i.e. Appel (1999) and Appel and Schoonen (2005), to the knowledge of a current sample of youngsters, to clarify possible changes over the two decades. For this purpose, a list of Straattaal words was incorporated in a survey and administered to 128 students at a school for vocational education in the city of Almere with a large Surinamese population. We hypothesized that the knowledge of and familiarity with Straattaal words within the group of investigated youngsters had decreased over the two decades. As the population changes over the decades, the dynamics of Straattaal might in turn be affected.
Young people with Surinamese heritage living in the Netherlands nowadays are most likely second or third generation Surinamese people. Studies on the preservation and loss of heritage language among immigrant children in the U.S. has shown that first generation members mostly speak the language of heritage at home. Second generation members, on the other hand, increasingly speak English at home, thus becoming limited bilinguals. Following generations gradually learn an impoverished variant of the
heritage language as a result of this cycle (Nesteruk, 2010).
Based on the above-mentioned claim by Nesteruk (2010), we expected the current generation of Surinamese-born young people to have a more limited vocabulary as compared to their predecessors and therefore a lower knowledge of Straattaal. However, it has become clear from the results of this current study investigating a second or even third generation Surinamese that this is not the case. Contrary to what we had expected, the results show that the proficiency of Straattaal among the
Surinamese participants under study has increased significantly as compared to the knowledge of their Surinamese peers of the earlier study of Appel and Schoonen (2005). This is remarkable because the Surinamese peers of the earlier study by Appel and Schoonen (2005) should be considered more as a first or second generation sample, and supposedly have a better command of Straattaal. As opposed to our sample Nesteruk (2010) was referring to language development and dynamics in bilingual environments. Our study was more concerned with register or style dynamics. Therefore Nesteruk's research cannot be used as a point of referral. Contrary to the way how a second
language is used in a bilingual environment in Nesteruk's point of view, Straataal in our study seems to be used as an outlet for Surinamese youngsters. They show a
significantly higher level of knowledge of Straattaal vis-à-vis the samples in earlier studies. Given the outcome of our study, it is likely that these Surinamese youngsters use
Straattaal as a sociolect; after all the group indicated that Straattaal is to a large extent used among friends, the in-group phenomenon.
An explanation could be made that our argument was based on knowledge that has been gathered around language and language development up until now. But Straattaal is not a language in the sense of Dutch or English being languages. Straattaal is a variety of language, and thus transcends the traditional concepts of language and language development (Kossmann, 2017; Rana, 2015). If there are any developments to be seen in Straattaal, they seem to have a different effect on the usage of Straattaal. It seems that an impoverished facility with the heritage language among the current generation of
youngsters with a Surinamese background is responsible for a better command of Straattaal, which in turn enables them to identify themselves through language. It is precisely their ill command of the heritage language that has turned Straattaal into a means that is utilized to create a Surinamese identity, and in doing so to distinguish themselves from others (Cornips & de Rooij, 2013). Straattaal is utilized to magnify their social identity, i.e. Surinamese identity. Their first language is Dutch, but Sranan is their heritage language and is used for foregrounding their Surinamese identity (Cornips & de Rooij, 2013).
Because Almere's proportion of Surinamese citizens has decreased over time, the possible impact of the Surinamese ethnicity on Straattaal has also decreased (Vermeij, 2002). Therefore, we believe that since the research of Appel (1999) and Appel and Schoonen (2005) the influence of Sranan on Straattaal has diminished, and non-Surinamese will have a decreased knowledge of Straattaal as compared to the
generation before them. This hypothesis was based on the assumption that the current Surinamese descendants would have a diminished level of Straattaal due to their decreased knowledge of the heritage language.
However, the data did not confirm this. The indigenous Dutch and the Others (non-Surinamese) had a similar knowledge of Straattaal as their peers from the previous generation. Moreover, the knowledge of Straattaal is found to have increased
significantly among youngsters of Surinamese origin in our study contrary to our initial assumptions, which we had based on the 1999 (Appel) and 2005 (Appel & Schoonen) study. The increased knowledge of Straattaal is probably due to the fact that Surinamese youngsters have used Straattaal to replace Sranan Tongo which they do not command well enough to use and therefore the use of Sranan Tongo lexical items has increased significantly among those youngsters. This, in turn, also positively impacts the
knowledge of Straattaal of the non-Surinamese youngsters in our study. One may argue that if the Surinamese youth would have improved their knowledge of Straattaal, the youth with other linguistic backgrounds should also have acquired a better knowledge than those in previous studies. However, this is not the case. The indigenous youngsters in our study as well as the youngsters from ‘other’ backgrounds were found to have an equal knowledge of Straattaal as their peers from the former study. One explanation
could be that the proportion of Surinamese youngsters living in Almere has decreased (CBS, 2018; Garssen, 2003), and consequently their impact on Straattaal among all other youngsters, is diminishing.
Overall, we may conclude that for the total sample, use of Straattaal has not changed (i.e. decreased) over the past two decades. Contrary to our expectations, the current group has a better knowledge of Straattaal words than the previous group from the Appel studies. From the list, 79% of the words were familiar or known to the current group, compared to the Appel and Schoonen group study (2005) in which only 75% of the words were known and familiar. It seems that none of the words from the list have disappeared, i.e., all words are still recognized. On the contrary, the vocabulary, with regard to the words in this list, has increased over the two decades.
The impoverishment of the heritage language was shown to induce the evolution of Straattaal. Our study showed that none of the words on the list were categorized as unknown by all of the 128 participants; instead, all words were still in use by the participants. Moreover, none of the words were identified by the majority as
old-fashioned. The word most regarded as old-fashioned, ‘dissen’, was only selected as such by 21.1 percent of the youngsters. This contrasts with what Appel and Schoonen (2005) had claimed. In their article, they stated that ‘scotten’ is an old-fashioned word;
however, in our results only 7% indicated it as old-fashioned. Appel and Schoonen (2004) assumed that words disappear because they are no longer considered trendy. However, this was not confirmed in our study. Unfortunately, Appel and Schoonen (2004) neither tried to explain nor substantiated this idea further.
Finally, it was suggested by the interviewees in a former study that girls are normally less likely than boys to use Straattaal (Nortier, 2001). However, within our current group there was no significant difference between the sexes in the degree of knowledge and familiarity with Straattaal. Considering that women in our present society are increasingly treated as equal to men, this dynamic may account for equality in
knowledge and familiarity in Straattaal between boys and girls, as opposed to the results found in the earlier studies.
4.1 Conclusion
The current investigation on Straattaal has shown that the knowledge of young Straattaal users with a Surinamese background differs from youngsters with an
indigenous Dutch background and youngsters from other ethnic backgrounds. This is perhaps not surprising since youngsters with a Surinamese background partially consider Straattaal as their heritage language. We expected to find the dynamics in Straattaal to appear in the form of a decrease in knowledge of Straattaal among
youngsters over the past two decades. This was however not the case. On the contrary, we have found that the Surinamese youngsters in our sample had a significantly greater level of knowledge of Straattaal than their peers in the studies of 1999, and 2005. This outcome is explicable when we consider the underlying issues that affect the dynamics
of Straattaal. After all, it is implied (Appel, 1999; Rana, 2015) that the dynamics of Straattaal is dependent on several factors. Factors such as the region where Straattaal is spoken, or the prevailing ethnic group that uses Straattaal, are examples of aspects that should be taken into account where dynamics of Straattaal are concerned. To infer on the effect of dynamics as proposed by Appel and colleagues the investigation should have been conducted in a similar environment and ethnic composition as the former studies. This study has been performed in a region that has never before been examined. Additionally, the sample in our study consisted of a rather large Surinamese population as compared to the sample from the earlier studies. The percentage of participants that were of Surinamese descent in the current study was 23.4% as opposed to 6.7 % in the Appel and Schoonen (2005) study. On this note, we can state that Straattaal is most probably a reflection of group identity. This does not rule out dynamics of Straattaal, but it cannot derive any conclusion with regard to the former studies. In view of this, the information that we gathered from this study is insufficient to ascertain whether or not dynamic processes, as described by Appel (1999) amongst others.
4.2 Limitations/improvements of the Study
The findings in this report are subject to a few limitations. First, in retrospect, the phrasing of the questions and answer categories might have caused some ambiguity for the respondents. The reason for this was that some of the answers were overlapping and were open to different interpretations. This could have biased the results of the current study. By combining the different answer categories in the data analysis we may have overcome this problem. However, for future studies we recommend that questions and answer possibilities should be more clearly formulated and not open for discussion to minimize interpretation possibilities.
Second, it would be advisable to study various cities with varying ethnic
compositions. The sample population in the Appel and Schoonen study (2005) consisted of 6.7% persons of Surinamese heritage as opposed to 23% in the current study.
Because of this significant difference in sample composition, the results of this current study are difficult to compare with the Appel and Schoonen (2005) study. This may have led to a somewhat biased picture. For example, we found that the total current sample had a much better knowledge of Straattaal words than the sample at the time of the previous studies. However, the number of Surinamese people in the current sample has increased by four as compared to the number of Surinamese respondents in the
previous studies. This is the result of the study being conducted in the city of Almere, which has a notably large number of Surinamese residents. This difference may constitute the object of future studies.
Thirdly, the study was done solely among vocational students. In order to extend the external validity—the general applicability of the findings—of this research, it will be necessary to conduct a study at schools with diverse educational levels.
In addition, the underlying assumptions involving the volatility of Straattaal lexicon may be objectively examined only after a long period of extensive testing, i.e. more than 20 years. Although in twenty years a next generation appears in order to show the gradual transformation in the dynamics of Straattaal one probably needs a much larger sample to show such a change. Therefore, with this current sample size of 128 respondents one will need to investigate the subject of dynamics over a longer investigation period. This problem could be resolved by means of a cross-sectional study.
4.3 Recommendation
Our study does not claim to be exhaustive but provides an in-depth and timely account of the phenomenon of Straattaal dynamics in such a way as to open up new directions of thinking and lines of investigating for this variety of youth language (register or style). In order to establish whether Straattaal is as volatile as was claimed by Appel (1999), amongst others, a more prolonged period of time than the two decades in our investigation should be taken into consideration, more than the two decades that have passed since. However, we have found Straattaal to be dynamic depending on the location or region where it is used. Only after a subsequent investigation in the exact region is done one will be able to establish with reasonable certainty how erratic Straattaal in fact is.
5 References
allecijfers.nl. (2020, 12 februari). Héél véél informatie over Almere (update 2020!). Retrieved from https://allecijfers.nl/gemeente/almere/
Androutsopoulos, J. 2010. Research on Youth-Language/Jugendsprach-Forschung retrieved from https:// jannisandroutsopoulos.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/
hsk-sociolinguistics-research-onyouth-language.pdf. 1496–1505.
Appel, R. (1999) Straattaal: De mengtaal van jongeren in Amsterdam. (1999). Thema’s en trends in de sociolinguïstiek 33. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 62, 39-55. doi:10.1075/ttwia.62.04app
Appel, R., & Schoonen, R. (2004). " Hé sma, warr gha jai?" Straattaal anno 2004. Onze
Taal, 43(6), 148-151.
Appel, R., & Schoonen, R. (2005). Street language: A multilingual youth register in the Netherlands. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development, 26(2), 85-117. Bakker, P., & Mous, M. (1994). Introduction. In: P. Bakker & M. Mous (Eds.), Mixed
languages; 15 case studies in language intertwining (pp. 1-11). Amsterdam:
IFOTT.
Bos, J., Leveling, D., Mateman, S., & Renooy, P. (2005). Concentratie door verdeling: een onderzoek naar effecten van woonruimteverdeling op etnische segregatie.
Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek.
CBS. (2016, 29 december). Jaarrapport Integratie 2014. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2014/47/jaarrapport-integratie-2014.
CBS. (2018). Jaarrapport Integratie 2018. Retrieved from
https://longreads.cbs.nl/integratie-2018/gebruikte-databronnen/
Cornips, L. (2005). Het Surinaams-Nederlands in Nederland. In: Sijs, N. van der. Wereldnederlands. Oude en jonge variëteiten van het Nederlands, p. 131-147. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.
Cornips, L. M., & Rooij, V. A. (2013). Selfing and othering through categories of race, place, and language among minority youths in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity, 129-164. doi:10.1075/hsld.1.07cor
De Féral, C., (2012). "Youth Languages": A useful invention? Langage Et Société, (141), 21-46. doi:103917/ls.141.0021
De taal van de straat verklaard | Straatwoordenboek. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://straatwoordenboek.nl/
Dorleijn, M., & Nortier, J. (2012). Bilingualism and Youth Language. Appeared in C. A. Chapelle (Ed) ‘The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics’. ISBN: 978-1-4051-9473-0.
Frijhoff, W. T. M. (2004). Hoe talig is groepsidentiteit? Reflecties vanuit de geschiedenis. Taal en Tongval, 17, 9-29.
Garssen, J. (2003). Demografie van de jeugd, 2002. Bevolkingstrends. Statistisch
kwartaalblad over de demografie van Nederland, een uitgave van het CBS, 51(1),
11-20.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(14), 63 - 67.
Kossmann, M. (2017). Is Dutch Straattaal a mixed multi-ethnolect? A Moroccan
perspective. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(3), 1 - 23. doi:10.1515/applirev-2017-0050.
Mourigh, K. (2017). A dutch multiethnolect? Metalinguistic commentary from Gouda. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(3), 1-21.
Nesteruk, O. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 31(3), 271-286.
Nortier, J. (2001). Murks & Straattaal; Vriendschap en taalgebruik onder jongeren. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
Nortier, J. (2017). Gender-related online metalinguistic comments on Straattaal and Moroccan flavored Dutch in the Moroccan heritage community in the
Netherlands. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(3), 341-366.
Nortier, J., Conradie, F., Dibbits, H. C., Hoving, I., Dibbits, H., & Schrover, M. (2005). Leuk. De gasten die het Nederlands veranderen, in Isabel Hoving, Hester Dibbits and Marlou Schrover (eds), Veranderingen van het alledaagse 1950-2000. Cultuur en Migratie in Nederland V. Den Haag: Sdu, 59–76.
Nortier, J., & Dorleijn, M. (2008). A Moroccan accent in Dutch: A sociocultural style restricted to the Moroccan community?. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 12(1-2), 125-142.
Rana, J. (2015). Taalcultuur in de superdiverse stad: over straattaal als immaterieel erfgoed. Volkskunde, (3), 343-356.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomason, S. (2007). Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of language
contact, 1(1), 41-62.
Van Huis, M., Nicolaas, H., & Croes, M. (2004). Migration of the four largest cities in the
Netherlands. Statistics Netherlands, Department of Population. The Netherlands.
Van Kempen, Y. (2000). Taal mixen is dope, is basis, is spang: Straattaal van Amsterdamse jongeren. Ons Erfdeel, 43(3), 331–338.
Van Lier, E. (2005). Straattaal. Neerlandica extra muros. Tijdschrift van de Internationale Vereniging voor Neerlandistiek. 43 (1), 12-26.
Vermeij, L. (2002). De sociale betekenis van straattaal-Interetnisch taalgebruik onder scholieren in Nederland. Pedagogiek, 22(3), 260-273.
Appendix A. Survey
Straattaal anno 2019 in Almere Survey (De online-vragenlijst) Wat is je leeftijd? [1] 12 - 18 [2] 19 - 25 [3] > 26 Wat is je geslacht? [1] M [2] V
Wat is je hoogst genoten opleiding? [1] Voorgezet onderwijs [2] mbo
[3] hbo
[4] universiteit
Waar ben je naar de middelbare school gegaan?
In welke stad woon je nu?
Welke taal/talen spreken jouw ouders?
[1] nooit [2] zelden [3] vaak
Waarom gebruik je straattaal? [meerdere antwoorden mogelijk] [1] het is een geheimtaal
[2] het is leuk [3] het is stoer [4] iedereen doet het [5] anders, namelijk: …
Met wie gebruik je straattaal om te communiceren? [meerdere antwoorden mogelijk] [1] vrienden [2] klasgenoten [3] familieleden [4] leraren [5] anderen
Gebruik je straattaal op sociale media? [1] ja
[2] nee [3] soms
