Master of Arts Thesis
Multilingualism
December 2018
Best practices in
minority monitoring
A comparative research into European
language policies application
Submitted by:
Frans Arnoud Ozinga, BA Student number: s1870408 Contact details: f.a.ozinga@gmail.com
Supervisor:
Prof. dr. G.T. Jensma
Second reader:
Dr. J. Da Silveira Duarte
MA Programme Multilingualism Declaration
I, Frans Ozinga, hereby declare that this thesis, entitled ‘‘Best practices in minority monitoring: A comparative research into European language policies application’’, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Multilingualism, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the requirements pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Multilingualism and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Multilingualism.
Signed Frans Arnoud Ozinga Date December 20, 2018
Abstract
Multilingualism is an important corner stone of the European Union. In order to preserve the linguistic diversity, policies to promote and protect regional and minority languages were developed in a European context. One of the most important policies is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. However, the ECRML is a non-binding policy, since regional and minority languages fall within the sphere of competence of the nation state and therefore there is no sanction system. Despite the nonbinding nature of the Charter, there is a monitoring system in which, on a periodic basis, reports and recommendations are issued. Therefore, the present thesis studies the effectiveness of the monitoring process of the ECRML. By means of a comparative case study between three minority languages, this thesis examines to what extent the recommendations of the Council of Europe are being implemented by the Netherlands, Germany and Spain regarding respectively the Frisian, North Frisian and Basque language. Furthermore, since France has not ratified the ECRML, the Breton language in France is subject to a fourth case study which examines if ratification of the ECRML and thus the existence of a monitoring process is indispensable for an adequate protection and promotion of a minority language. Initially, the models concerned with the language policy making for the Frisian, North Frisian and Basque language are examined. Hereafter, the implementation of the recommendations is analysed. Secondly, the model of policy making with regard to the Breton language is assessed. After comparing the first three case studies, it is clear that the monitoring process of the ECRML certainly has positive effects, but that there is room for improvement, especially since there are impasses between states and the Council of Europe. The Breton case study shows that ratification does not hamper the development of language policies, however better results could be achieved when the French state would ratify the ECRML.
Keywords: Minority languages, European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages, Council of Europe, monitoring, Frisian, Breton, North Frisian, language policies.
Table of contents
List of tables 6
List of figures 7
List of acronyms 8
Chapter 1. Introduction 10
Chapter 2. Contextual and theoretical framework 12
2.1. Multilingualism in the European Union 12
2.2. Ideas about language policy 13
2.3. Language policies in the European Union 14
2.4. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 15
2.4.1. The genesis of the Charter 15
2.4.2. The content and objectives of the Charter 16
2.4.3. The legal force of the Charter 17
2.5. The monitoring process of the ECRML 18
Chapter 3. General Background and methodology 21
3.1. General background 21
3.2. Methodological framework 22
Chapter 4. Case study 1: The Netherlands and Frisian 25
4.1. The model of language policy making 27
4.1.1. The Province of Fryslân 27
4.1.2. The Dutch State and other organizations 28
4.2. Recommendations and implementation 31
Chapter 5: Case study 2: Germany and North-Frisian 38
5.1. The model of language policy making 39
5.1.1. The federal state of Schleswig-Holstein 39
5.1.2. The German State 41
5.2. Recommendations and implementation 42
Chapter 6: Case study 3: Spain and Basque 50
6.1. The model of language policy making 51
6.1.1. The Basque Autonomous Country 51
6.1.2. The Spanish State 52
Chapter 7: Case study 4: France and Breton 59
7.1. National policies and organizations 60 7.2. Regional policies and organizations 61 7.3. Future of the Breton language 63 7.3. Future of the Breton language 65
Chapter 8: Comparison of the case studies 69
8.1. Comparison of the models of language policy making 69 8.2. Comparison of the implementation of the recommendations 72 8.3. The Breton language in France 75
Chapter 9: Discussion and conclusion 76
Bibliography 81
Appendix 1 – The European Charter for Regional or Minority Language. Appendix 2 – Interview with Harmen Akerboom, language policy maker of
the Province of Fryslân.
Appendix 3 – Interview with Bahne Bahnsen, chairman of the Friisk Foriining
Appendix 4 – Questionnaire answered by Miren Dobaran, vice minister of Language Policy in the Basque government.
Appendix 4 – Questionnaire answered by Ronan Le Louarn, Chef du service des langues de Bretagne of the Region of Brittany.
6
List of tables
Table 1 Overview of the development of Frisian language policy on the
national and regional level in the Netherlands
26
Table 2 Overview of the development of North Frisian language policy
on the national and regional level in Germany
39
Table 3 Overview of the development of Basque language policy on the
national and regional level in Spain 51
Table 4 Overview of the development of Breton language policy on the
7
List of figures
Figure 1 The cycle of the European monitoring process 24
Figure 2 The Province of Friesland in the Netherlands 27
Figure 3 Organization chart of Frisian organizations and policies 30
Figure 4 Recommendations of the CoE, 2001 32
Figure 5 Recommendations of the CoE, 2004 33
Figure 6 Recommendations of the CoE, 2008 34
Figure 7 Recommendations of the CoE, 2012 35
Figure 8 Recommendations of the CoE, 2016 36
Figure 9 Distribution of the Frisian languages in Europe 38
Figure 10 Organization chart of North Frisian organizations and policies 42
Figure 11 Recommendations of the CoE, 2002 44
Figure 12 Recommendations of the CoE, 2006 46
Figure 13 Recommendations of the CoE, 2008 47
Figure 14 Recommendations of the CoE, 2011 48
Figure 15 Recommendations of the CoE, 2014 49
Figure 16 The Basque Autonomous Country in Spain 50
Figure 17 Organization chart of Basque organizations and policies 53
Figure 18 Recommendations of the CoE, 2005 55
Figure 19 Recommendations of the CoE, 2008 56
Figure 20 Recommendations of the CoE, 2012 56
Figure 21 Recommendations of the CoE, 2016 57
8
Figure 23 Organization chart of Breton organizations and policies 65
Figure 24 Development of the number of students following bilingual
education 68
9
List of acronyms
Afûk Algemiene Fryske Ûnderrjocht Kommisje (General Frisian Education Committee
BFTK Bestjoersôfspraak Fryske Taal en Kultuer (Covenant on Frisian Language and Culture)
CEDIN Centrum voor Educatieve Dienstverlening in Noord-Nederland
CoE Council of Europe
COFT Consultatief Orgaan Friese taal (Consultative Organ Frisian language)
ECRML European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages EU European Union
EBLT Europeesk Buro foar Lytse Talen (European Bureau for Small Languages)
FCNM Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
NHL Noordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden
NPLD Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity
RUG Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (University of Groningen)
10
Chapter 1. Introduction
The year of 2017 was an important milestone for the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML). 25 years ago, the Council of Europe adopted this document that is unique in its sort. The ECRML is the first treaty which main purpose is the protection of regional or minority languages. This in contrast with other treaties that were adopted in the recent past such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), which primarily focusses on the protection of minorities rather than their languages (Grin, 2003, 58). Since 1992, a majority of the member states of the Council of Europe signed the charter and 25 member states ratified it, which means that they commit their selves to take measures to actively protect and promote their regional or minority languages.
Since regional or minority languages fall under the competence of the nation state, there are no sanctions for not meeting the commitments. The consequence of this is that the States have the freedom to decide to which extent they comply with the recommendations made by the council of Europe (Darquennes, 2011, 551). However, the implementation of the charter is monitored every third year. States are required to write a periodical state report in which they set forth the situation of the regional or minority languages and the policy developments. Thereupon, a committee of experts visits the states, assesses the language policies and taken measurements and ultimately writes a report in which it gives recommendations to a specific state party on what it should do to meet the commitments. After the publication of the report it is up to the state party if and how it responds to these recommendations.
The course of the European part of the cycle of the ECRML, the monitoring part, is similar for all state parties, because it has been laid down in articles 15, 16 and 17 of the charter. However, the national part of the cycle, the implementation and policy making, can totally differ from state to state. For instance, this may be due to different internal organizations of given States, but also to different political realities. In this thesis, three different linguistic
minorities are compared in the way they are being evaluated by the committee of Experts of the Council of Europe on their minority language
11
policies. How effective are these monitoring processes and to what extend can the minorities learn from each other?
In the framework of this thesis, a comparative case study between the languages of three linguistic minorities will be conducted. The Frisians in the Netherlands, the North Frisians in Germany and the Basques in Spain, who speak respectively Frisian, North Frisian and Basque will be subjects of the case studies. These languages are opted for, since they are all spoken in a certain region – province, federal state and autonomous community- and all three languages are protected under Part III of the ECRML, which makes them subject to the monitoring process of the Council of Europe. Not all European countries have ratified the ECRML and their language policies are therefore not monitored by the Council of Europe. One of these countries is France, which has a great number of minority or regional languages on its soil and refuses to ratify the charter for constitutional reasons. The Breton language that is spoken in the region of Brittany will serve as a contrastive case study to assess if ratification
of the ECRML with its monitoring system is indispensable for an adequate protection of minority or regional languages.
The core of the analysis will be two-fold. On the one hand, the nation state’s model of language policy making and implementation. For each minority language, this thesis will map the most important policies and organizations that are concerned with the language. On the other hand, the implementation of the recommendations issued by the Council of Europe. It will be analysed to what extent the recommendations are being implemented by the nation states and which factors hinder or improve the implementation process.
Before the results of the case studies are being discussed, an overview of the genesis, objectives and monitoring process of the ECRML will be given. Thereafter, the methodological framework and the general background will be set forth. In chapter 6, a comparison between the four case studies will be made and finally, chapter 7 will treat the most important conclusions that have been reached. This thesis starts however, with an introduction to Europe’s multilingualism and its language policies. First, chapter 2 will discuss multilingualism in Europe, moreover theories about language policies and the linguistic situation of the European Union.
12
Chapter 2. Contextual and theoretical framework
2.1. Multilingualism in the European Union
The European Union is characterized by a great linguistic diversity. With 28 Member States, 3 alphabets, 24 official languages and 60 other languages that are also part of the unions heritage, the EU can be considered as the modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. However, instead of being a problem, this linguistic diversity is regarded as one of the cornerstones of the European project and as a powerful symbol of the EU’s aspiration to be united in diversity. This positive attitude towards linguistic diversity is also laid down in article 3 of the Treaty of the European Union and in article 22 of the European Charter of Fundamental rights (European Commission, n.d.). Both articles determine that cultural and linguistic diversity have to be respected by the EU. In the light of these two articles it is not surprising that the European Commission attributes an important role to languages. ‘They can serve as a bridge to other people and open access to other countries and cultures, promoting mutual understanding’ (European Commission, n.d.).
De Varennes advances political arguments for the EU’s fundamentally positive attitude towards multilingualism and he states that the EU opts for the preservation of linguistic diversity, because the European integration can only be achieved if this diversity is respected. Because language is a fundamental part of one’s identity, De Varennes argues that ‘the EU’s respect for each Member State’s language and the resulting principle of linguistic equality’ can be regarded as an attempt to avoid linguistic discrimination, capable of undermining the European integration project (2012, p. 157). Skutnabb-Kangas also puts forward some economic arguments for promoting and protecting linguistic diversity. He states that knowledge and ideas are mainly transmitted through languages and that those who have access to these knowledges and ideas will have success. Consequently, countries with a high level of (linguistic) diversity have more access to knowledges, ideas and cosmo-visions than countries with fewer languages and cultures. Moreover, according to Skutnabb-Kangas, multilinguals do better than monolinguals on creativity, divergent thinking and cognitive flexibility (2002, 14-15).
13
The EU endorses this viewpoint of Skutnabb-Kangas. The Commission states that a successful language policy can increase the life chances of the European citizens. It may increase their employability, simplify access to services and rights, and stimulate intercultural dialogue and social cohesion (European Commission, n.d.).
2.2. Ideas about language policies
In order to understand what language policy means, it is important to have knowledge about some theories about language policies. The renowned sociolinguist Bernard Spolsky distinguishes three components of language policy. The first component consists of the language practices of the members of a speech community. The second are the values that by members of the speech community assign to the different varieties of the language and the importance they attach to these values. The last component are the efforts made by a certain group of members of the speech community who think they have the authority to modify the language practices of the other members of the speech community. Overall, he states that language policy may refer to all the language practices, beliefs and management decisions of a community or polity (Spolsky, 2004, 5- 9). Jernudd and Nekvapil have a view on language policy which corresponds with the last component discerned by Spolsky. According to them, ‘a state or authorized agency acts in accordance with a language policy which means determining which language variety or varieties shall be encouraged for use in which domains, and give rise to the development of these variety or varieties in those domains’ (Jernudd and Nekvapil, 2012, 16). Ammon describes language policy as ‘any attempt at regulating or influencing choice of language, but not attempts at influencing people’s actions or attitudes through language (2012, 570).
The views on language policy presented above all contain a certain degree of language planning. Spolsky however, prefers the term ‘language management’ instead of ‘language planning’, as the results should be seen as ‘strategies’ and not as ‘plans’. Spolsky considers strategies as ’approaches that set values and direction but admit the continual need for modification to fit specific and changing situations’ (2012, 5).
14
The term language management implies the formulation and announcement of clear plans or policies concerning language use. However, these do not necessarily need to be laid down in formal written documents, because the existence of such documents does not guarantee that the plans and policies will be implemented, nor does the implementation guarantee success (Spolsky, 2004, 11).
2.3. Language policies in the European Union
With 28 Member States, 24 official languages and 60 minority and regional languages it is safe to say that the linguistic composition of the EU is rather complicated. In order to deal with this complexity, the European Parliament adopted a full multilingual language policy, in which is laid down that all EU languages are equally important. A result of this policy is that the Members of the European Parliament are free to choose in which language they want to address the Parliament.
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which will be discussed later, and the Multilingualism policy of the EU are both non-binding policies. This implies that Member States are not required to implement them. Because of this autonomous position of nation states, de Swaan considers them as the most important actors in the field of language policy within the EU. He also states that, historically speaking, it is not surprising that nation states play this important role, considering that national languages have a very strong position in almost every society in the European Union and that since the 19th
century, the national governments are responsible for language policies regarding the national languages. In de Swaans opinion the European state system ‘continues to shape the dynamics of the European language constellation’ (2001, 146). Notwithstanding the fact that both policies are non-binding, the EU wants them to be successful. In this pursuit of a successful minority language policy they frequently find regional governments on their side. In most cases, regional governments are responsible for the making and implementation of language policies with the aim of strengthening the position of the regional or minority language. In this model minority and regional languages fall within the area of tension between the top-down approach of the European Union and the
15
bottom-up approach of the regional governments. The EU and regional governments are advocating and promoting the use and development of regional or minority languages, whilst national governments, the level of government between the first two, are more concerned with the position of the national languages.
2.4. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
2.4.1. The genesis of the CharterAfter the World War II, the attitude towards minorities and their languages and cultures was far from friendly. The idea that people had of minorities was predominantly negative, because Hitler used the presence of German minorities in neighboring countries to invade them, for instance the Anschluss of Sudetenland. There was also the idea that malcontented minorities collaborated with the Nazis and that, in order to maintain a stable and safe Europe, these minorities should be kept under control. Only after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948 and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Council of Europe in 1950, this image started slightly to change. Both documents contain an article that determines that language cannot be used as a basis for denying the fundamental rights to any person (Grin, 2003, 55-56).
Until 1981 the situation for minorities and their languages and cultures did not improve. In the same year the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE adopted Recommendation 928. With this document, that nowadays can be seen as the precursor of the ECRML, the Member States pronounced that ‘respect for all the European cultures and linguistic identities in particular, is very important to the development of Europe and the European idea’. And the Assembly recommends the Committee of Ministers to ‘respect and official support the local use of standardized minority languages, and their current use in higher education and by local mass media’ (Parliamentary Assembly, 2014). In the same year, the European Parliament adopted the also famed ‘Arfé Resolution’. In this resolution, the Parliament asks for a community charter for the regional languages and cultures (Coulmas, 1991, 16). In 1987, the Arfé Resolution was
16
followed by the ‘Kuijpers Resolution’. This resolution asks member states to actively promote minority languages in education, local administration and the mass media. It is said that these two resolutions paved the way for the future ECRML (Skutnabb-Kangas, Phillipson & Rannut, 1995, 90).
The initiative which would lead to the eventual Charter was taken by the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities, another body of the CoE. It organized a public hearing with the title ‘Towards a Charter of European
regional and minority languages’. It was in 1988 that the Parliament Assembly of
the Coe adopted the draft text, but only in 1992, after a lot of adjustments and revisions, the text of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was adopted by the Committee of Ministers. The Charter was now open for signature, which was a historic moment: the ECRML was the first ever international legal instrument for the protection of lesser used languages (Grin, 2003, 57-58).
2.4.2. The content and objectives of the Charter
The Charter contains 5 parts, of which the second, third and fourth can be considered as the most important, as it is in these parts that the objectives, measures and application of the Charter can be found. Nevertheless, it is in the preamble of the document that the context can be found in which the Charter should be placed. This section starts with the general aim of the Council of Europe which is ‘to achieve a greater unity between its members, particularly for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage’. It also states that ‘regional or minority languages contribute to the maintenance and development of Europe’s cultural wealth and traditions’ (Council of Europe, 1992a). This indicates that another objective of the ECRML, next to protecting and promoting regional or minority languages, is to contribute to the unity of Europe, an idea that was already expressed in the Recommendation 928 in 1981.
In the first part of the document the general provisions of the Charter are laid down. It is here that the definition of ‘Regional or Minority Languages is given: ‘languages traditionally used within a given territory of a state by nationals
17 population, which are different from the official language(s) or the languages of immigrants’ (Council of Europe, 1992a). The responsibility for deciding which
languages fall under the Charter is attributed to the States Parties. The first part also contains the provision that contracting states must apply all provisions of Part II to all regional or minority languages. These provisions may also be applied to official languages, which do not have a majority position in the State. Good examples of these languages are Frisian and Basque.
In Part II of the Charter the objectives and principles of the ECRML are enunciated. The first paragraph of Article 7 lays down that all contracting states must base their policies, legislation and practice on the nine listed objectives and principles (appendix 1, p. 39). The common denominator of this list is to promote and to protect regional or minority languages.
Part III of the Charter is the most important section, as it is in this section that measures to promote regional or minority languages can be found. In this section, the Charter distinguishes between 7 domains of language use for which a total of 68 concrete undertakings have been enumerated. The domains are 1) Education, 2) Judicial authorities, 3) Administrative authorities and public services, 4) Media, 5) Cultural activities and facilities, 6) Economic and social life and 7) Transfrontier exchanges (see appendix 1, pp. 40-48). Contracting states must chose a minimum of 35 of these undertakings. When a particular measure is chosen, the weaker options in that paragraph become automatically redundant. Because of this system, which resembles an extensive menu, the Charter is oftentimes regarded as a ‘wish list’, used by countries as a ‘manifesto for action’. Nevertheless, this is an incorrect conception of the ECRML, because countries may only select those measures which are already in place. Of course, the Charter could be a helpful guiding document in the process of language planning (Grin, 2003, 62).
2.4.3. The legal force of the Charter
As discussed above, the ECRML does not provide undertakings for a wish list, but concrete legal undertakings. However, the charter does not lay down the rule, but states must take steps to make the undertaking legally possible.
18
This is necessary because the charter has no direct effect on the law of states parties and it does not create rights for the citizens of those states. Only when states decide to actually apply the charter, new rights can be shaped. An exception must be made for states which accept the monist theory. These countries may consider some provisions of international treaties such as the ECRML as directly applicable in the domestic legal order without transformation into national law.
Despite the fact that countries commit their selves to the implementation of the charter by ratifying it and by choosing the undertakings of Part III, the charter remains a non-binding document. Määtä (2005, 173) argues that the charter is composed of principles rather than rules and that therefore the charter is a non-binding document. On the other hand, another obvious reason for the non-binding nature of the charter is because of the fact that the CoE does not sanction partaking parties when the accepted undertakings of the ECRML are not met. One could argue that international criticism is the penalty system of the charter, but as Luciano Caveri (Member of the European Parliament between 2000 and 2003) states, ‘international criticism is a kind of moral penalty, but moral penalties, as we all know very well, pack little punch’ (Council of Europe, 2002, 81). The moral penalties are based on the monitoring reports, because despite the lack of a penalty system, the implementation of the ECRML is still monitored every three years.
2.5. The monitoring process of the ECRML
The application and monitoring of the charter is laid down in part IV of the ECRML. The first step in the monitoring process is the publication of periodical
reports by the state parties. They are obliged to write a report about the
pursued policies regarding the general principles of Part II and the measures taken to meet the undertakings of Part III. These three-yearly periodical reports are sent to the Committee of Experts, an independent body of experts. This committee composes a working group, consisting of a rapporteur, an expert appointed by the concerning state and a third expert (Woehrling, 2005, 251), which will examine the periodical report of the state.
19
First the working group must establish that the measures taken by the party meet the accepted undertakings and second, that the periodical report reflects the actual situation of regional or minority languages in the concerned state. The periodical report forms the basis of the report the Committee of Experts must provide on the implementation of the ECRML. Another source of input are the ‘on-the-spot visits’, during which the experts meet authorities and representative bodies. These visits do not only provide the experts with extra input, but according to Woehrling they also ‘legitimize the entire monitoring process and give it credibility’ (2005, 252). After the Committee of Experts has examined the report, the views and ideas of bodies and other additional information, it writes its own report with its findings and suggestions for recommendations. This report is addressed to the Committee of Ministers which forwards it to the state party. As indicated previously, the recommendations are not accompanied by sanctions or other punitive measures. The Committee of Experts helps states with the implementation of the Charter rather than pointing out every demerit of their policies. Sanctions are not necessary, also states Gwynned Parry, because ‘the Committee’s capacity to persuade, influence and to highlight problems is an important one’ (Parry, 2008, 269). The effectiveness of the monitoring process also lies in the fact that it has a public nature. The effect of this publicity is that it provokes the earlier discussed moral criticism, which ideally makes sure that the state undertakes action to improve its efforts to meet the accepted undertaking entered into under Part III. The main advantage of this systematical monitoring process is the permanent dialogue between the Committee of Experts and the partaking states and it contributes to encourage parties to gradually strengthen the steps they take and to reach a higher level of commitment in accordance with the charter (Grin, 2003, 75). Moreover, not only the dialogue between Committee and states is being reinforced by this system, also the dialogue within the state between the speakers of regional or minority languages and the governmental organizations is being promoted (Woehrling, 2005, 246).
20
Figure 1 The cycle of the monitoring system of the ECRML
State Party
Writes three-yearlyPeriodical Report
Is assessed byCommittee of Experts
WritesReport with Recommendations
Is presented to
Committee of Ministers
Shares recommendations with
National Bodies
May share views with
21
Chapter 3. General background and methodology
3.1. General background
In the previous chapter a statement made by François Grin was quoted. He stated that the systematical monitoring process of the ECRML contributes to encourages parties to gradually strengthen the steps they take and to reach a higher level of commitment in accordance to the charter (Grin, 2003, 75). This statement strongly suggests that Grin considers the monitoring system as an effective instrument to promote and protect the regional and minority languages that fall under the ECRML. An important factor in this effectiveness is the implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in its reports, because these recommendations indicate how language policies can be improved and how a higher commitment in accordance with the charter can be reached. With a view to investigating whether monitoring processes are effective and to what extend minorities can learn from each other, a compare and contrast study on three countries will be conducted. By examining and comparing the models of language policy making and the implementation of the recommendations in the Netherlands, Spain and Germany, success stories can be detected.
The research will be conducted on the basis of three minority languages, which are being protected under Part III of the ECRML by the previously mentioned countries and therefore subject to the monitoring process. The first minority language that is opted for as a case study is the Frisian language, which is spoken in the Province of Fryslân in the Netherlands. The Province does not have a lot of autonomy regarding the development of language policies, because most policies, except certain language related topics, are developed at the national level (Mercator, 2010, 7). Furthermore, the Frisian minority language is not strongly institutionalized in the Province of Fryslân.
For the second case study, the North Frisian minority language is selected. The language is spoken in a small part of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany and has a relative small group of speakers. The language is opted for as a case study, because Schleswig-Holstein is rather autonomous in the
22
development of language policies. The language however, is almost not institutionalized.
The third case study is based on the Basque minority language that is spoken in the Basque Autonomous Country (BAC) in Spain. Where Frisian, North Frisian and other European minority languages have a (very) low degree of institutionalization, the Basque language is strongly institutionalized (Trenz, 2005, 17-23). The BAC possesses a lot of autonomy to create its own language policies and a great number of organizations are responsible for the promotion and protection of the language, including a Deputy Ministry for language policy.
Besides the comparison of the three described case studies, a fourth case study will be conducted in this thesis. This will be the examining of the Breton minority language in France. In this country, a great number of minority or regional languages are spoken, however, due to constitutional obstacles the French state only signed, but not ratified the ECRML, so the Breton language is not officially protected under Part III of the charter and the Breton language policy is not being monitored by the Council of Europe. The case study examines the development of national and regional language policies and tries to determine whether ratification and thus being part of the monitoring process of the ECRML is indispensable for the protection and promotion of the Breton minority language.
At the end of November 2018, the Mercator Research Institute presented a report to the Minister of the Interior in which it examines the implementation of the recommendations regarding the Frisian language. The research goes much more into detail than that of this present thesis, however in the concluding chapter the outcomes of Mercator’s research will be briefly discussed and compared with the outcomes of this thesis.
3.2. Methodology
The research questions of this present thesis focus on the implementation of the recommendations issued by the Council of Europe. In order to answer these questions, it is important to have knowledge about the two parts of the cycle of the ECRML: the European and the national part. The European monitoring part of the ECRML is discussed above in chapter two. Hereafter, this thesis will focus
23
on the national part of the cycle of the charter: language policy making and the implementation of the recommendations.
The research of this thesis consists of four case studies. The first three have the same structure and are divided into three parts. The first part gives an overview of the linguistic situation in the region and the major events in the field of language policy. The second part discusses the most important actors in the field of language policy making and implementation of the recommendations on the national and regional level. In the third part of the case studies the recommendations and their implementation are being assessed. The fourth and last case study about the Breton language has a slightly different structure. Like the other case studies, it begins with an overview of the linguistic situation and the major events in the field of language policy and in the second part national policies and organisations are being discussed, before the policies and organisations on the regional level are being explored. In the last part of the case study the effect of the policies is being discussed as well as the future of the Breton minority language.
This thesis primarily attempts to research what occurs with the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in the actual process of policy making. Periodical state reports, evaluation reports of the Committee of Experts as well as questionnaires and interviews are used to conduct this research. Questionnaires were send to policy makers of the Basque Autonomous Country and the Region of Brittany. The questionnaire regarding the Basque language was answered by Miren Dobaran, the vice minister of language policy in the Basque government. These questionnaires and the answers can be found in the separate appendix section. Journeys were made to Leeuwarden in order to interview Harmen Akerboom, a policy maker working for the Province of Fryslân, as well as to Husum, a village in the north of Schleswig-Holstein were an interview was held with Bahne Bahnsen, the chairman of the Friisk Foriining, an organization dedicated to the Danish and North-Frisian minority in Germany. Both interview have been transcribed and can be found in the separate appendix section of this thesis. In this respect, it should be noted that Bahne Bahnsen speaks in the capacity of an activist and Miren Dobaran speaks on behalf of the Basque government and therefore their answers to the questions may have a
24
political undertone. The other interviewees however, are all civil servants and their answers and information may be considered as objective.
The questionnaire for the BAC was written in English, while a French version was send to the Region of Brittany. These questionnaires consisted of four categories of questions: 1) the development of policies in the respective country, 2) the national monitoring of language policies, 3) the European monitoring of language policies and 4) the outcomes of the European monitoring process. In the case of France and the Breton language, the last two categories of questions were replaced by questions about the ECRML.
After the completion of the four case studies, the three first case studies are compared with regard to the way the model of language policy making is organized and to what extent the recommendations of the Council of Europe are implemented. Secondly, a comparison will be made between the first three and the last case study concerning the necessity of ratifying the ECRML. The focus of this comparison will lie on the model of language policy making.
25
Chapter 4. Case study 1: The Netherlands and Frisian
Since the coming into force of the ECRLM in the Netherlands on the first of March 1998 the Frisian language is recognized as a minority language under Part III of the charter. Frisian is the only regional or minority language in the Netherlands that is protected under Part III, as the other recognized languages - the Saxon languages, the Limburger language, Yiddish and the Romanes languages- are only protected under Part II of the ECRML. The Frisian language is primarily spoken in the Province of Fryslân, which lies in the North of the Netherlands and which has almost 650.000
inhabitants (see figure 1). In a four-year interval, the Province records the development of the linguistic skills of the Frisian population. In the latest survey of 2015, 93,7% of the population reported that they had a good understanding of the Frisian language. 46,2% reported speaking the language very good and 20,4% reported speaking it good. 51,8% declared that their reading skills were (very) good, but only 14,5% stated to have (very) good writing skills of Frisian. In comparison with the first survey in 2007, the overall language proficiency of the Frisian population in Frisian has increased, especially the ability to read and write the language (Province of Fryslân, 2015).
The linguistic situation in the Province has been turbulent. Since 1951, the establishment of legal regulations on the use of the Frisian language has taken off. On the 16th of November of that year the memorable Kneppelfreed took place.
This violent encounter between the police and Frisian language activists is by many considered as a breakthrough in the fight for equal rights for the Frisian language. As from 1956, citizens were allowed to speak Frisian in court, even though the language was not even recognized as the second official language within the Province. This only happened in 1970 (Commissie Friese Taalpolitiek, 1970). Figure 2 The Province of Friesland in the Netherlands. Source: Map by Wikipedia, 2011.
26
Ten years later, the first legislation on the position of Frisian in the education system was produced. Since then, the language became an obligatory subject in primary education and in 1993 the subject also became obligatory in the lower grades of secondary education (Krol, 2003, 108). An important step was taken in 1989, when the first covenant on Frisian Language and Culture between the Dutch State and the Province was signed. In this document, the national government in The Hague and the provincial government in Leeuwarden have laid down their responsibilities regarding the position of the Frisian language. In the year of 1998 the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages entered into force in the Netherlands, which made the national and the provincial government revise the Covenant of 1989 which was already renewed in 1993. In 2001, a new version was signed and in 2013 the fourth and most recent Covenant became effective (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, 2012, 3). The latest development regarding Frisian language policy on a national level is the adoption of the Law on Frisian language use in 2014. This law guarantees the legal use of the language in judicial matters within the Province and is the basis for the establishing of the Organ for the Frisian language, called DINGtiid.
Table 1 Overview of the development of Frisian language policy on the national
and regional level in the Netherlands.
Year Occurrence 1951 Kneppelfreed
1956 The use of Frisian in court is allowed
1970 Frisian becomes the second official language of The Netherlands 1980 Frisian becomes an obligatory school subject in primary education 1989 The first ‘Covenant on the Frisian Language and Culture’ is signed 1993 Frisian becomes an obligatory school subject in lower grades of
secondary education
1995 Frisian is allowed in the administration of justice 1998 The ECRML enters into force in The Netherlands 2001 The third Covenant is signed
2013 The fourth Covenant is signed
2014 The Law on Frisian language use enters into force
27
4.1. The model of language policy making
4.1.1 The province of Fryslân
The most important player that is concerned with language policy and the position of the Frisian language and culture is the Province of Fryslân. Since the eighties, the province has the authority to partly conduct an autonomous policy and after the ratification of the ECRLM in 1992, it has taken over a package of legal tasks and responsibilities from the national government. In 2016, after the publishing of an advisory report by the Organ for the Frisian Language Dingtiid, the national and provincial government agreed that more steering was needed in the field of Frisian language policy and that the province would execute this steering role (Taalskipper) in order to facilitate the coordination and implementation of language policy (Provinsje Fryslân, 2018). Because of this steering role, the province nowadays is the pivot and motor in the process of language policy making (Appendix 2).
The Wet Gebruik Friese Taal (Law on the use of the Frisian Language) forms the legal basis of a great number of language policies. This law, which came into force in 2014, not only regulates the use of Frisian in judicial and administrative matters, but it is also the legal basis for the Bestjoersôfspraak
Fryske Taal en Kultuer (Covenant on Frisian Language and Culture,
henceforth: Covenant). In this document, the Dutch State and the province elaborates their shared responsibilities with regard to the Frisian language. The two latest versions, of which the last dates from 2013, were drafted according to the ECRML. Like the charter, the covenant also addresses action items regarding education, judicial authorities, administrative authorities and public services, media, cultural activities and facilities, economic and social life and transfrontier exchanges (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, 2013). Since the tasks and duties of the province are specified in the covenant, this document can be seen as the basis for the language policy that is made by the province. Where the province has the steering and leading role in the development of language policy, the role of the national government in day-to-day practice is less large. Nevertheless, when it comes to the political decision making in the field of language policy, its role is much more important. It holds the most powers and
28
sometimes it can serve as an important lever for the implementation of legislation and policies. The Home Office has a coordinating role regarding the implementation of the covenant and reminds other ministries of their responsibilities when commitments are not met (Appendix 2). Since the province now has a great number of legal tasks and responsibilities, for a lot of domains she is the first responsible to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. The next chapter will elaborate on the process of how these recommendations are being transferred into new (language) policies.
4.1.2. The Dutch state and organizations
Since the implementation of most Frisian language policies is based on the Covenant, a great number of recommendations has to be incorporated in this document. In the process of changing and implementing language polices, the province of Fryslân has a lot of partners of which it receives help and input. The most important partner is the Dutch State. First and foremost, because the province depends to a large extend on the political realities in The Hague, but also, because this partner can constitute an important lever for the implementation or adaption of language policies. An important factor in this cooperation is the attitude of the responsible officials and minister. Since there is no special official or minister for minority languages, the fact that the politicians and officials involved have or do not have a positive attitude towards the Frisian language can mean a world of difference for the process of policy adaptation and implementation. Other factors that have an influence on the position of the Dutch State are the financial aspect of language polices and the other minority groups in the Netherlands. There are no structural meetings of the different minority groups in the Netherlands, which makes the coordination of language policies and a good cooperation between the groups rather difficult. Therefore, the Dutch state may become reluctant to give certain rights or means to a minority language, because other minority groups want the same for their languages (Appendix 2).
29
The province is also being advised and supported by a great number of organisations that are involved in the development and strengthening of the position of the Frisian language. In the field of policy making, perhaps the most important organization is the Fryske Akademy (Frisian Academy). This institute closely follows and studies the Frisian language and performs research on Frisian language, culture, history and society. Besides these academic activities, the academy occasionally is involved in the development and monitoring of language policies and projects concerning the Frisian language (Fryske Akademy, n.d.).
Regarding the implementation of language policy, four important actors have to be mentioned, because they implement important parts of the education paragraph of the covenant: the AFUK, the University of Groningen, the NHL and Cedin. The first organization, the Algemiene Fryske Ûnderrjocht Kommisje (General Frisian Education Committee, henceforth Afûk) aims to ‘promote the knowledge and use of the Frisian language as well as promoting the interest in the Province of Fryslân and its culture’. To accomplish this, the Afûk organizes courses and exams, publishes books and education materials and it promotes Frisian in existing and new media (Afûk, n.d.). The University of Groningen and the NHL (University of Applied Sciences Leeuwarden) offer teacher trainings and studied within which the Frisian language is a theme of study. The organisation CEDIN (School Advisory Centre) is worth mentioning, because it helps teacher and schools with the implementation of a multilingual language policy. When new policy is being made, these and many other partner organisations are being asked to deliver input. During the preparation of the latest policy letter of the provincial government, it had several meetings with the organisations in the field to ask for their opinion about the new proposals (Akerboom, 2018). Besides these organizations, the province is also being advised by DINGtiid, the Organ for the Frisian language. This organization may advise the province and the state on the policies to be pursued.
30
Figure 3 Organization chart of Frisian organizations and policies
European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages
European
level
BFTK
Covenant
Law on Frisian language use
Dutch State
National
level
Regional
level
Province of Fryslân
AFÛK Fryske RUG/NHL
Akademy CEDIN
Dingtiid
Organ for the Frisian language
31
4.2. Recommendations and implementation
The European part of the monitoring cycle ends with the report with recommendations which is send to the state party by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This is also where the national part of the cycle starts: from here, the implementation process of the recommendations begins. In the case of the Netherlands and the Frisian language, the minister of the Interior receives the report, because as the representative of the Dutch State - the signatory party – the minister is being regarded as the first responsible to react on it. However, since the province in its role as ‘Taalskipper’ is the real first responsible to implement most recommendations, the report is quickly transferred to the government of the Province of Fryslân. Unfortunately, the province cannot implement all recommendation without consultation with the Dutch State. Before new policies can be developed, new arrangements with the state have to be made. During this process, the recommendations are included in the discussion between the province and the state. At this very moment, these two parties are currently working on a new covenant, in which the latest recommendations will be incorporated.
In the process, but also in the policy making process in general, three factors play an important role. The first factor is the political reality in The Hague. In Fryslân, the Frisian language is an important policy domain which receives daily attention from the responsible officials. However, in The Hague, the Frisian language or minority languages in general is a very small policy area which, compared to other areas, can be considered as one of the lesser important areas in the political reality in The Hague. Therefore, it can be very helpful if the responsible minister and officials have a positive attitude towards the Frisian language and the position of minority languages in general. After a long period of different responsible officials, there is now a fixed contact person with a positive attitude toward Frisian who is responsible for Frisian language policies. Nevertheless, there is no special official for the Frisian language (Appendix 2).
A second factor is the pressure of other minority languages in the Netherlands. The Frisian language is the only minority language in the Netherlands that is protected under Part III of the ECRML. In the past,
32
representative organisations of other minority languages, such as Lower Saxon and Limburgs, have tried to obtain the same status as Frisian, because for these languages no measures falling under Part III are taken. Nevertheless, the Dutch state feels the pressure of these organizations to do more for these languages. Thus, by giving more rights to Frisian, the State faces the risk that the other minority language groups will also ask for more rights. Of course, the State can always refer to the fact that there is a line between Part II and Part III of the charter, but the state has an interest in keeping the other minorities quiet to prevent possible extra costs or regulations (Appendix 2).
Contrary to the believes of many, the third factor is not the absence of sanctions on not meeting the undertakings. According to Harmen Akerboom, the outdated ways of thinking at a large number of ministries and organizations hinder a good implementation of new policies. The ECRML dates from the early 1990’s, however in the meantime, the way of thinking about multilingualism and language policies has changed drastically. The notion that learning a second language hinders the development of the mother tongue is outdated, however still present amongst officials at certain ministries. Besides, the Netherlands does not have a clear language policy (KNAW, 2018, 21-22) which makes it sometimes difficult to develop new policies (Appendix 2).
Nevertheless, in recent decades the Council of Europe sent different reports to the Dutch government in which it recommends changing existing policies or to take new measures. The first report with recommendations appeared in 2001 after the Netherlands handed in their report in 1999. The recommendations were as follows:
Figure 4: Recommendation of the CoE, 2001
1. Take the necessary steps to ensure that a substantial part of pre-school and primary education is available in Frisian. In order to achieve the objectives fixed by the authorities in respect of Frisian, the quality and the continuity of the teaching of Frisian throughout the education process, and in particular in secondary education, should be improved. Further efforts should be made to ensure and improve the necessary basic and further teacher training.
2. Ensure the practical implementation of the existing legal provisions as regards the use of Frisian in relation to the judicial and administrative authorities.
3. Take into account the special needs of broadcasting in Frisian and consider increasing its financial support.
33
In the second periodical state report of 2003 the Netherlands reacted on these recommendations. In 2001, a new covenant between the Dutch state and the province of Fryslân was signed just before the recommendations were adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. In its reaction, the state explained that the covenant implements many of the provisions of the charter and that the implementation would also address the recommendations of figure 4 (Council of Europe, 2003, 27). However, in its report the Committee wrote in 2004 that the signing of the covenant was indeed a very positive step, but that not in all areas progress was achieved. In the field of education, no clear timetable and no quantifiable targets have been defined to achieve the objectives of the 2001 covenant. Also, the project of making Frisian an optional subject in basic secondary education and the language skills of teachers were of concern to the Committee. Regarding recommendation 2, the committee sees that efforts have been made particularly in the field of the judicial authorities, but that regarding central state administration agencies there still remain obstacles to the use of Frisian. Regarding recommendation 3, the experts state that the central government undertook action to ensure sufficient funding for Frisian broadcasting, however further promotion of broadcasting in Frisian still needs attention (Council of Europe, 2004a, 31). The report of 2004 resulted in the following recommendations:
Figure 5: Recommendations of the CoE, 2004.
What immediately strikes the eye is that there are only two recommendations left and that the recommendation concerning the media is lapsed. As explained above, the experts saw enough improvements on that terrain as well as on the terrain of the judicial authorities, which are also not mentioned in these recommendations. However, regarding the other two domains, education and administrative authorities, there are still two recommendations left. In reaction, the Dutch state declared in its third periodical report that the implementation of
1. Develop an overall and coherent policy for teaching of and in Frisian at all levels of education and adopt concrete measures for its implementation.
2. Introduce practical measures in order to enable the use of Frisian in central State administration agencies located in the province of Fryslân, as well as in public services directly under the control of the State.
34
the recommendations was carried out and that they were incorporated in the further implementation of the covenant (Council of Europe, 2007a, 100).
In the same year however, the experts came with their third monitoring cycle report in which they reported improvements particularly in the field of education, though these were still insufficient compared to the requirements of the ECRML. Most schools did not develop a coherent policy for the teaching of and in Frisian and in secondary education, the teaching of Frisian remained limited to the first grade. Furthermore, the problem of the lack of qualification of many Frisian-teachers also remained unsolved. The committee also noted some positive developments. Trilingual education had been successfully launched and new teaching materials for the teaching in and of Frisian have been introduced. Regarding the field of the administrative authorities, the experts were brief. The authorities had not adopted the model regulation on the use of Frisian and therefore there was no formal basis for the use of Frisian in their outgoing correspondence (Council of Europe, 2007b, 26). These findings in combination with other observations made in the monitoring cycle report resulted in the following new recommendations:
Figure 6: Recommendations of the CoE, 2008.
Despite the promises of the Dutch state, the same recommendations were adopted in 2008, although with a slightly different wording. These recommendations have led to questions asked to the Minister of Education, Culture and Science by members of the Dutch House of Parliament (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2008). Regarding the second recommendation the minister promised to contact the Province to examine which state administration agencies are located in Fryslân and if and how they implement a language policy. If necessary, steps would be taken to improve the implementation of language policies within these agencies. Regarding the first recommendation, the minister referred to a new implementation covenant that had to be made for the period 2007-2010. Furthermore, she was planning to install a steering group which
1. Strengthen the teaching of and in Frisian at all levels of education.
2. Adopt legal and practical measures in order to ensure the use of Frisian in central state administration agencies located in the province of Fryslân.
35
would examine which task concerning the Frisian language the Dutch State could delegate to the Province of Fryslân. These two initiatives would be the beginning of the implementation of the first recommendation (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2008b).
The implementation covenant was signed in 2009 and also the steering group was installed and presented its report in July 2010. Following the report, education laws were amended in order to give the Province the mandate to modify the primary targets of the school subject Frisian and to enable more tailor-made approaches in the process of granting exemptions to schools by the Province (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2010). The experts did see some positive developments in the field of education. The number of Frisian speaking and bilingual pre-school institutions has increased as well as the number of trilingual primary schools. The Province also started introducing a trilingual program at secondary schools. However, there are still concerns about the qualification of the teachers who teach Frisian as a subject. Moreover, no steps were taken to provide the necessary training for pre-school teachers. Another point of concern was the future of studies in Frisian language and literature at the University of Groningen. Because of these concerns, the Committee of Ministers adopted a new recommendation in 2012 which asks the Dutch government to strengthen the teaching in and of Frisian at all levels (see figure 7).
Regarding the second recommendation of 2008, the experts expect that the Law on the use of Frisian will be an important stimulus towards the use of Frisian by central government bodies in Fryslân. However, no practical measures facilitating this use have been taken yet, though the experts had high expectations of this law and in 2012, no recommendation was made regarding the use of the Frisian language in central state administration agencies (Council of Europe, 2012a, 6).
Figure 7: Recommendations of the CoE, 2012.
1. Establish a structured dialogue with representatives of the regional or minority language speakers about the implementation of the Charter and the recommendations evolving from its monitoring mechanism
36
However, a new recommendation was adopted by the Committee of Ministers. The Netherlands had to establish a structured dialogue with the representatives of the regional or minority language speakers. In its 5th periodical report the
Dutch state stated that there was no structural dialogue on the national level with representatives of the regional or minority language speakers, but that local authorities in the region where the languages are spoken sufficiently conduct a constructive dialogue with the linguistic minorities. In 2016, this statement was confirmed by the experts (Council of Europe, 2016a, 8). Six years later, the first conference on regional languages took place in Deventer, were representatives of all regional or minority language were present. A new symposium has not been announced yet, so it remains uncertain if the dialogue will become structural or incidental (Appendix 2)
Regarding the second recommendation, in 2016 the Committee of Experts saw positive developments in the field of education. The Frisian language attainment targets Act, which was announced in 2010, was adopted in 2014, giving the Province more competences regarding Frisian language teaching. Moreover, the number of bi- and trilingual schools had increased again since 2012. However, the number of qualified teachers and the share dedicated to Frisian in the trilingual system remained an issue. In 2016, the latest recommendations were adopted (see figure 8).
Figure 8: Recommendations of the CoE, 2016.
The Committee has not yet published a new report in which they evaluate how Dutch authorities reacted to the recommendations mentioned above. Nevertheless, the Minister of the Interior gave his reaction in December 2016. Regarding the first recommendation, the Minister stated that the concerns of the committee are due to the planned economy measures of 17 million euros on regional broadcasting. The minister promised to try to spare the programming and the editorial staffs wherever possible.
1. Take measures to ensure that the ongoing changes in the media system do not hamper the offer of programs in regional or minority languages.
2. Continue to strengthen the teaching of and in Frisian at all levels of education in order to improve the level of literacy in the language.
37
Concerning the second recommendation, the Minister talked in rather vague terms about the importance of the education in and of Frisian. The only concrete measure he announced was the start of Taalplan Frysk. With the help of this initiative it should become clear what every school does concerning the education in and of Frisian and for which primary targets exemptions could be granted (Tweede Kamer, 2016).
