Multi-level Policymaking on Two European Minority Languages

(1)

Master of Arts Thesis

Euroculture

University of Groningen (Home)

University of Deusto (Host)

July 2015

Multi-level Policymaking on Two

European Minority Languages

A comparative case study of Frisian and Basque in

secondary education

Submitted by:

Mirjam Terlaak Poot Student number home university: S2021587 Student number host university: 99909382 Contact details: mirjamterlaakpoot@hotmail.com

Supervised by:

(2)

i MA Programme Euroculture

Declaration

I, Mirjam Terlaak Poot, hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Multi-level Policymaking on Two European Minority Languages: A comparative case study of Frisian and Basque in secondary education”, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other 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 regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.

(3)

ii

Abstract

The European Union seeks to further the situation of minority languages by means of the European Commission’s Multilingualism policy and the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe. These policies however are forms of non-binding regulations as minority languages fall within the sphere of competence of the nation state. The literature shows that national governments are considered the main agents in the implementation of European language policies. Nevertheless, the concept of multi-level policymaking implies that the supranational, national and local level are interrelated in the decision-making processes and cannot be regarded independently of each other. Therefore, the present thesis studies regional influences in the analysis of the implementation of European language policies. The research theme is secondary education. By means of a comparative case study between two minority language areas, this thesis examines to what extent the EU’s Multilingualism policy and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages are reflected, on the one hand, in the national and regional policies regarding minority languages in secondary education in the Basque Autonomous Community (Spain) and the Province of Fryslân (the Netherlands) and, on the other hand, in the practical implementation on a school level. First of all, a qualitative content analysis is conducted of policies of national and regional organizations concerned with the Frisian and Basque language. Hereafter, by making use of questionnaires completed by Frisian and Basque secondary school teachers, the implementation of the European language policies on a local level is researched. Firstly, the comparison of both cases shows that the Basque Autonomous Community complies more often with the recommendations of the EU and the Council of Europe than the Province of Fryslân. Secondly, the conclusion can be drawn that national and regional language policies hardly make reference to the EU’s Multilingualism policy and only to some extent to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Nevertheless, language policies on the three territorial levels are cohesive and share the same objectives. Thirdly, the region proves to be an important actor in the implementation of European language policies and even might have influenced the idea about language policies on a European level.

(4)

iii

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Prof. dr. G. T. Jensma for his inspiration, encouragement and assistance during the writing process of my thesis, especially with respect to the Frisian case study. My sincere thanks go also to my second thesis supervisor Dr. M. L. Suárez Castiñeira, who supported me from a distance and was particularly helpful for the Basque case study.

Moreover, I would like to thank all the secondary teachers from the Province of Fryslân and from the Basque Autonomous Community who were willing to help me by completing the questionnaire, although they did not know me in person. Some of them even added a personal remark in which they expressed their admiration and appreciation for my research. I greatly enjoyed their words of encouragement.

(5)

1

List of tables

Table 1 Overview of the development of language policy on a European level ... 23 Table 2 Overview of the development of Frisian language policy on the national

level in the Netherlands ... 30 Table 3 References to the EU's multilingualism policies in national policies

concerning Frisian ... 37 Table 4 Overview of developments and occurrences of regional organizations in

Fryslân ... 39 Table 5 References to the EU's multilingualism policies in regional policies

concerning Frisian ... 48 Table 6 Frisian participants of the questionnaire ... 49 Table 7 Overview of the development of Basque language policy on the national

and regional level ... 57 Table 8 Overview of developments of regional organizations and policies in the

BAC ... 61 Table 9 Reference to the EU's multilingualism policies in regional policies

concerning Basque ... 72 Table 10 Basque participants of the questionnaire ... 73 Table 11 Number of minority language teachers and number of secondary schools

in Fryslân and the BAC ... 83 Table 12 Application of recommendations with regard to minority languages by

(8)

4

List of figures

Figure 1 Location of the Province of Fryslân in the Netherlands... 29

Figure 2 Organization chart of Frisian institutions and policies ... 31

Figure 3 Type of teaching material drawn on by Frisian teachers ... 50

Figure 4 Language of instruction when the Frisian history and culture and its position as a minority language within the EU is taught ... 51

Figure 5 The use of Frisian as a language of instruction and as a medium of communication among pupils in class according to Frisian teachers ... 52

Figure 6 Activities organized by schools for the promotion of the Frisian language ... 52

Figure 7 Frisian schools receiving financial support from national or provincial government... 53

Figure 8 Grades in which Frisian is an obligatory subject ... 54

Figure 9 Number of Frisian teachers with or without qualification ... 55

Figure 10 Position of the Basque Autonomous Community in Spain ... 56

Figure 11 The three regions where Basque is spoken ... 56

Figure 12 Organization chart of Basque institutions and policies ... 59

Figure 13 Publishers of teaching material drawn on by Basque teachers ... 74

Figure 14 Language of instruction when the Basque history and culture and the position of Basque as a minority language within the EU is taught ... 75

Figure 15 The use of Basque as a language of instruction and as a medium of communication among pupils in class according to Basque teachers ... 76

Figure 16 Activities organized by school for the promotion of the Basque language... 77

Figure 17 The use of teaching material which is financially supported by the local government... 84

Figure 18 Type of examinations used in secondary education according to Basque and Frisian teachers ... 85

Figure 19 Language of instruction when teaching the history and culture of the minority language ... 86

(9)

5 Figure 21 The use of the minority language as a medium of instruction in class ... 87 Figure 22 Distribution of activities organized by secondary schools for the

(10)

6

List of acronyms

Afûk Algemiene Fryske Ûnderrjocht Kommisje (General Frisian Education Committee)

BAC Basque Autonomous Community

BFTK Bestjoersôfspraak Fryske Taal en Kultuer (Covenant on Frisian Language and Culture)

CEDIN Centrum voor Educatieve Dienstverlening in Noord-Nederland (School Advisory Centre in the north of the Netherlands)

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CITO Centraal Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling (National Institute for Educational Assessment)

CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning

CoE Council of Europe

CRAMPLAP Celtic, Regional and Minority Languages Abroad Project

CvTE College voor Toetsen en Examens (Examinations and Assessment Board)

EBLT Europeesk Buro foar Lytse Talen (European Bureau for Small Languages)

ECRML European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

EGA Euskararen Gaitasunagiria Certificate (Certificate of Competency in Basque)

EIMA Euskal Ikasmaterialgintza (Basque School Material)

ESO Educación secundaria obligatoria (compulsory secondary education)

EU European Union

FCNM Framework Convention Regarding the Protection of National Minorities

HAVO Hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (general secondary education) IRALE Irakasleak Alfabetatu eta Euskalduntzea (Teacher Training and

Second Language Learning)

KNAW Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)

(11)

7 LOE Ley Orgánica de Educación (Organic Law on Education)

LOMCE Ley Orgánica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa (Organic Law on the Improvement of the Quality of Education)

MVO Meertalig Voortgezet Onderwijs (Multilingual Secondary Education) NPLD Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity

RUG Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (University of Groningen)

UCF University Campus Fryslân

VMBO Voorbereidend middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (pre-vocational secondary education)

(12)

8

Chapter 1. Introduction

One of the core values of the European Union (EU) is the notion of ´unity in diversity´.1 It does not only refer to different traditions, beliefs and habits, but also includes the wide variety of languages that is spoken in all the different EU Member States.2 Hence, linguistic variety is highly appreciated by the EU and the European Council meeting in Barcelona in 2002 can be considered as the first step towards an EU Multilingualism policy. There, the ‘Barcelona objective’ was set of teaching young children at least two foreign languages besides the mother tongue.3 This view is also favored by the EU citizens. The Eurobarometer on Europeans and Their Languages of 2012 demonstrates that 98% of the EU citizens regard it useful for the future of their offspring that they master certain languages in addition to the mother tongue.4

On 1 January 2007, in the Barroso Commission, Multilingualism became a separate portfolio of the European Commissioner dealing with Education and Culture, who from then on would be the Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth. Nevertheless, in the recent Juncker Commission of 2014-2019, the field of Multilingualism has not been included anymore in the portfolio of the Commission of Education and Culture. It therefore seems that the new Commission shows less concern about multilingualism. The EU defines multilingualism as “both a person’s ability to use several languages and the co-existence of different language communities in one geographical area”.5

The Council of Europe (CoE), on the other hand, distinguishes between ‘plurilingualism’ and ‘multilingualism’. The former refers to an individuals’ linguistic capability of speaking more than one language in addition to the mother tongue, whereas the latter entails the existence of more varieties within an area.6 In the

1_{European Commission, A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, COM(2005) 596 final.} 2_{For general literature, see Bernard Spolsky, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy} (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Gabrielle Hogan-Brun and Stefan Wolff, eds.,

Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects (Basingstoke: Macmillan/Palgrave, 2003).

3_{European Council, Presidency Conclusions Barcelona European Council 15 and 16 March 2002} (Barcelona: European Council, 2002), accessed 29 May 2015,

http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/barcelona_european_council.pdf.

4_{European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages (Brussels: TNS} Opinion & Social, Summer 2012), accessed 29 May 2015,

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf.

5_{European Commission, A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism.} 6

(13)

9 present thesis, multilingualism will be understood according to the interpretation of the EU.

One of the necessities of the existence of a Multilingualism policy is related to the involvement of smaller language groups, namely, the minority languages. Besides the 24 official languages, the EU contains more than 60 minority and regional languages with an estimated 40 million of speakers.7 To promote and protect those minority languages within the EU, top-down policies, such as the Multilingualism policy and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) of the CoE, have been adopted by the EU. The ECRML prescribes that the states that have ratified the ECRML are committed to the protection and promotion of the use of the regional or minority language in several domains of public life, such as judicial authorities, education and public services. However, its deficiency is that although certain Member States committed themselves to comply with the provisions of the ECRML, the CoE does not impose sanctions on a partaking country when criteria of the ECRML are not met. The Member States are therefore free in their interpretation with regard to the urgency of the situation of each minority or regional language.8 Likewise, the EU cannot inflict penalties upon its Member States if they do not observe the recommendations of the Commission’s Multilingualism policy, since language policies do not fall within the EU’s sphere of competence. In that respect, the top-down policies that are implemented by the CoE and the EU are not fully effective, although they should be important means with the objective of furthering the situation of the minority languages within Europe.9

The Multilingualism policy and the ECRML are intertwined in the sense that both are manifestations of the same idea, namely, the protection and support of linguistic diversity within the EU. Special attention is paid to minority languages, since these tend to be in more alarming conditions than majority languages, both concerning the amount of speakers and regarding their representation in the existing policies. Nevertheless, the support of minority languages as well as education are not in the EU´s sphere of

7

European Commission, “Regional and minority languages,” accessed 30 May 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/linguistic-diversity/regional-minority-languages_en.htm.

8_{Jeroen Darquennes, “Minorities, language politics and language planning in Europe,” in The Languages}

and Linguistics of Europe A Comprehensive Guide (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), 551; Máiréad Nic

Craith, “Facilitating or Generating Linguistic Diversity,” in Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks,

Status, Prospects, ed. Gabrielle Hogan-Brun and Stefan Wolff (Basingstoke: Macmillan/Palgrave, 2003),

59.

(14)

10 competence. Due to the lack of sanctions and assessment of compliance with the ECRML or with the Multilingualism policy, it is therefore interesting to examine to what extent this notion of multilingualism is resonated in policies concerning minority languages that are designed on lower levels, such as the nation state and the region, as well as the practical implementation on a local level.

Multi-level policymaking entails the involvement of lower level entities in the decision-making processes on higher levels in the absence of hierarchical limitations.10 Scholars such as De Swaan and Ammon conceive national governments as the main agents in the decision-making process and implementation of European language policies.11 However, they do not consider regional governments as actors on a lower level that could influence this process. Therefore, this study includes the analysis of both national and regional policies when examining the reference to EU’s multilingualism policies.

For the purpose of the present thesis, a comparative case study between two minority language areas will be conducted. The Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) in Spain and the Province of Fryslân in the Netherlands, where respectively Basque and Frisian are spoken, are opted for, since the former represents a minority language that is strongly institutionalized and the latter symbolizes an area where policies regarding the minority language have been less implemented. The focus of analysis will be on the teaching of these minority languages in secondary education, as education plays an important role in achieving the ‘mother tongue plus two’ objective. This is demonstrated by the fact that the EU attempts to enhance the quality of language teaching by implementing a wide variety of activities, many times in collaboration with the CoE.12 Besides considering the reflection of European policies on national and regional policies by means of a qualitative content analysis, the actual execution of these policies on a school level will be analyzed. In order to research what happens with the EU’s multilingualism policies in the process of implementation on a local level, I will make use of questionnaires intended for Basque and Frisian teachers at secondary schools. Hence, it will be examined, to what extent the EU’s Multilingualism policy and

10_{Charles F. Sabel and Jonathan Zeitlin, “Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of} Experimentalist Governance in the EU,” European Law Journal 14, no. 3 (2008): 273. 11

Abraham de Swaan, Words of the world: the global language system (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001), 146; Ulrich Ammon, “Language policy in the European Union (EU),” in The Cambridge

Handbook of Language Policy, ed. Bernard Spolsky (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press,

2012), 570.

(15)

11 the Council of Europe’s ECRML are reflected, on the one hand, in the national and regional policies regarding minority languages in secondary education in the Basque Autonomous Community and the Province of Fryslân, and on the other hand, in the practical implementation on a school level.

(16)

12

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework: Three levels of

policymaking

2.1 The notion of multi-level policymaking

The Member States of the European Union are responsible for the development of language policies. Likewise, national governments create their own education policies. The EU can only encourage and support linguistic diversity and language learning among its Member States by means of its Multilingualism policy and the ECRML of the CoE. However, despite its lack of competences in the domain of language and education, the EU intends to move the language policies of its Member States into a certain direction, namely, towards the building of multilingual communities. Therefore, one cannot consider the national language policy to be an isolated framework. The policies on a European level should be taken into account when discussing language policies on a domestic level and vice versa.

This is where the notion of multi-level policymaking fits in. Multi-level policymaking is embedded in the concept of multi-level governance. Marks initially defined multi-level governance as a system “in which supranational, national, regional and local governments are enmeshed in territorially overarching policy networks”.13

According to Bache and Flinders, this definition entails the horizontal as well as vertical decision-making processes.14 The former refers to governance between the central government and non-state actors, whereas the latter involves governments at different territorial levels.15 A more recent definition by Sabel and Zeitlin interprets multi-level governance as:

(…) it connects national administrations with each other and the EU without establishing a hierarchy between them: the decisions of ‘lower’-level entities can influence the choice of ends and means at ‘superior’ levels.16

In this understanding of multi-level decision-making, the emphasis is laid on the lack of hierarchical relationships between the operating actors. It implies a new mode of

13_{Gary Marks, “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC,” in The State of the European}

Community, Vol 2: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, ed. Alan Cafruny and Glenda Rosenthal

(Boulder: Lynne Riener, 1993), 401-402.

14_{Ian Bache and Matthew V. Flinders, Multi-level Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004),} 3.

15

Ibid., 4.

(17)

13 governance where ‘soft’ types of regulations, which are legally non-binding, are stressed.17 For the purpose of the present thesis, multi-level policymaking will be understood in accordance with the vision of Sabel and Zeitlin. Taken from this perspective, multi-level policymaking therefore adheres to stimuli from local entities as well as the supranational and national level in the decision-making process with an emphasis on non-binding instruments, such as recommendations and guidelines.

2.2 Theories of language policies

The concept of multi-level policymaking will in this thesis be applied to the realization of language policies. According to Ammon, language policy refers to “any attempt at regulating or influencing choice of language, but not attempts at influencing people’s actions or attitudes through language”.18

Hence, language policies can be considered the rules that are established within language planning.

Spolsky discerns between three elements that are involved in language policy.19 The first component is with regard to the language practices that are drawn on within a speech community, such as the choice for a certain variety in a specific context. The second of these are the beliefs and values that the speakers attribute to a particular variant of a language. The third component entails the attempts that are made by the authorities in order to change or regulate the language practices.20 It implies the idea of ‘language planning’. For the purpose of this thesis, I am interested in this last component of language policy, since I will mainly be looking at the European Union’s efforts to shape policies of its Member States with a view to promoting the minority languages.

Yet, Spolsky argues that the term ‘language management’ should rather be used than ‘language planning’, since the results should be regarded strategies instead of plans. In his opinion, language strategies are “approaches that set values and direction

17_{Thomas Conzelmann, “Towards a new concept of multi-level governance?” (paper presented at the} MLG Atelier, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 10 September 2008).

18_{Ammon, “Language policy in the European Union (EU),” 570.}

19_{Other scholars also distinguish between these basic components of language policy, however, each} does so in a slightly different manner. To give an example, Ammon (2012) states that elements of the attempts to regulate language choice consist of rulers, subjects and objectives or contents of regulations. According to him, the rulers are the agents who develop policies, which are intended for subjects. The subjects comprise individuals and collectives that implement policies. Languages and their designated functions form the objectives of regulations.

20

(18)

14 but admit the continual need for modification to fit specific and changing situations”.21

He emphasizes the complexity of the contexts in which language policies are carried out. In addition, Spolsky points out the dynamics and interrelationship of these contexts. If one part of a language policy is adjusted, this will have an impact on other parts.22 This is in line with the idea of multi-level policymaking in which the supranational, national and regional policies cannot be considered on their own. Hence, language policies such as the ones of the Member States of the EU, which are complex and dynamic by themselves, are situated within the complex environment of multi-level policymaking where decision-making processes of different territorial levels are interlinked.

2.3 Multilingualism in the EU

2.3.1 Linguistic diversity as a hallmark

The appreciation of linguistic diversity is one of the hallmarks that characterize the European Union. This is reflected in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 22 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 2000.23 Both determine that cultural, religious and linguistic diversity have to be respected by the EU. The EU can only establish the rules in its own institutions with regard to the use of language. Hence, one should consider why does the EU regard linguistic diversity important? And more specifically, why does the EU make effort to support the minority languages in the educational system? Besides arguments related to the intrinsic value of cultural and linguistic variety, there are economic reasons as well as benefits connected to safeguarding of knowledge. Multilingualism facilitates the learning of additional languages and moreover furthers mother tongue skills. The European Commission states on its website that multilingualism is advantageous for working and studying possibilities abroad which eventually contributes to an individual’s future prospects.24

In addition, it regards multilingualism as a part of one’s identity. Skutnabb-Kangas

21_{Ibid., 5.}

22_{Bernard Spolsky, Language Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 6.}

23_{European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 18 October 2010, 2000/C} 364/01, accessed 5 May 2015, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf;

European Union, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, 9 May 2008, OJC 115, accessed 5 May 2015, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12008M003.

24

European Commission, “Languages in education,” accessed 27 July 2015,

(19)

15 argues that the more multilingual a country is, the more access it has to a variety of knowledge and ideas. Namely, states that are culturally more diverse, contain more various micro-environments that can be observed, examined and ultimately described in lots of languages. The indigenous and minority languages are in particular valuable sources of knowledge, for instance, with regard to the biodiversity of a country.25 In Skutnabb-Kangas’ opinion, multilingualism furthermore increases creativity. On the other hand, De Swaan argues that multilingualism does not have infinite advantages, since the more an exogenous language is learnt, the less the indigenous, domestic language is drawn on. The latter will, according to De Swaan, eventually be abandoned by the speech community.26 He regards languages ‘hypercollective’ goods instead of personal properties.27 Nevertheless, the EU takes a more personal perspective on multilingualism which corresponds with the view of Skutnabb-Kangas. In line with this idea, there are many advantages linked to language skills, which makes it for the EU worthwhile to protect and encourage language learning.

2.3.2 Linguistic composition of the EU

The linguistic situation of the EU is quite complex. Ammon distinguishes seven types of languages within the EU.28 There are the working languages of the institutions of the Union, which are five at most and differ per institution.29 These are used for the internal communication of the EU. Secondly, the EU currently counts 24 official languages that are drawn on in the external communication between EU institutions and the Member States. EU policy documents are made available in these languages and citizens have the right both to address any of the EU institutions and to get response in one of the official languages. Hereafter, there are the languages that are recognized as official languages by the nation states and additionally the languages that have a regional-official status, such as Frisian in Fryslân and Basque in the Basque Autonomous Community which are the languages of analysis for this thesis. Furthermore, Ammon refers to the minority languages within the EU that fall under the auspices of the ECRML and also to the minority languages that do not enjoy this protection. Lastly,

25_{Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Why should linguistic diversity be maintained and supported in Europe? Some}

arguments (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2002), accessed 5 May 2015,

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Skutnabb-KangasEN.pdf. 26_{De Swaan, Words of the world, 58.}

27_{Ibid., 30–31.} 28

Ammon, “Language policy in the European Union (EU),” 575–578.

(20)

16 there is the group of exogenous minority languages, such as languages spoken by migrants. Languages can overlap several of these groups. For instance, Frisian and Basque fit in the type of languages that are officially recognized in a region, but also correspond to the type of languages which are protected by the ECRML.

The EU has only power with regard to the first two types as described above. The reason that the Member States want to keep language policies within their own sphere of competence, can in De Swaan’s opinion be deduced from the fact that the national languages are embedded in all fields of society in the European countries as well as have been under the auspices of the national governments for as much as more than two centuries. He states that “it is the European state system (…) which continues to shape the dynamics of the European language constellation (…)”.30

De Swaan regards the nation states therefore as the most important actors in the field of language policy within the EU. Likewise, Ammon considers “(…) the [national] governments or their institutions as the immediate agents of EU language policy”.31

With regard to the implementation of the European policies concerning languages, namely the Multilingualism policy and the ECRML, the national governments are according to both scholars the main actors. They do not take the regional governments into consideration as actors that could have influence on the decision-making process or on the execution of European language policies. However, referring back to the concept of multi-level policymaking as discussed above, both top-down and bottom-up approaches on the three territorial levels should be taken into account when addressing the implementation of European policies.

Both the ECRML and the Multilingualism policy are forms of non-binding regulations. Nonetheless, the EU intends to contribute to the situation of minority languages by advocating the implementation of the ECRML and the EU’s Multilingualism policy. In addition, governments and institutions on a regional level are actors that are concerned with the position of the minority language situated in their region. Hence, minority languages fall exactly within this tension of bottom-up and top-down approaches within the notion multi-level policymaking. For the purpose of the present thesis, I will therefore take influences from national and regional governments and institutions into account as well as from individuals and entities on a local level.

30

Swaan, Words of the world, 146.

(21)

17

Chapter 3. Methodology and general background

3.1 General background

The present thesis examines language policies that are drawn up at different levels within the EU. It deals with policies on minority languages created by European, national and regional governments and institutions. With a view to investigating whether minority language policies on lower levels reflect the EU’s multilingualism policies, a comparative case study on two European minority languages will be drawn on. Case studies are used for the analysis of a phenomenon while taking into account its contextual conditions, allowing an interpretation of the differences and contrasts between the cases.32 By selecting and comparing the Frisian and Basque minority languages of which the situations are inherently dissimilar, it facilitates the detection of the success stories, in this instance the manifestation of EU’s multilingualism policies in domestic and regional policies.

The Frisian minority language, which is spoken in the Province of Fryslân in the Netherlands, is opted for as a case study. Policies with regard to Frisian have been implemented to a lesser extent in the Province of Fryslân. Concerning the field of education, there is a legal framework with respect to teaching Frisian in primary education and the first two grades in secondary education. However, schools can request exemption from this. Besides, the Province of Fryslân is not very autonomous in the shaping of language and education policies.33 Therefore, Frisian is elected as a case study, since it represents a minority language of which language policies are mainly determined by the national government and are not strongly implemented on the regional level.

The Basque minority language of the BAC in Spain is selected as another case for the present study. In contrast with Frisian and minority languages elsewhere in Europe,

32_{Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2009),} 18.

33

Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, Frisian and Basque

Multilingual Education: A Comparison of the Province of Fryslân and the Basque Autonomous Community (Leeuwarden: Mercator, 2010), accessed 10 May 2015,

(22)

18 it is strongly institutionalized.34 Normally, linguistic minorities request for, among other things, the creation of institutional foundations in order to preserve culture and the use of the language in the educational system.35 Regarding the Basque language, similar measures have already been implemented, due to requests from parents, among other things, who wanted to reinforce Basquization.36 The Government of the BAC is more autonomous than the Province of Fryslân in the shaping of language and education policies and it has lots of bodies charged with the promotion of Basque. There is in fact a separate Sub-Ministry of Language Policy. With respect to the domain of education, the Basque Government implemented a completely new teaching system in 1983. Hence, after the end of the dictatorship under Franco, policies on a regional level have been strongly implemented by the Basque Government in order to support the position of the Basque language.

Comparative studies between the minority languages Basque and Frisian have already been carried out several times. The first comparison was conducted by Fishman. He analyzed both languages with regard to the several stages within the process of reversing language shift.37 Gorter and Cenoz wrote an article about multilingual education in both the Basque Country and Friesland.38 They emphasize the actual situation of the minority languages in education. The policies of the BAC and Friesland, however, are hardly discussed. Moreover, the idea of the promotion of minority languages on a European scale, as proposed by the CoE through the ECRML, is not touched upon in the article. In another article, Cenoz and Gorter examine the linguistic landscape of the languages in the provincial capitals of the BAC and Fryslân and relate it to their language policies.39 Moreover, Gorter has made a comparison regarding the development of policies for both minority languages. He points out the differences involving language policies between the BAC and Fryslân. As an example, he typifies

34

Hans-Jörg Trenz, “Language Minorities in Europe: Dying species or forerunner of a transnational civil society?” (Presentation at the ECPR Second Pan-European Conference on EU Politics “Implications of a Wider Europe: Politics, Institutions and Diversity”, Bologna, Italy, 24 June 2004).

35_{Kristin Henrard, “Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection in the Area of Language} Rights,” in Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects, ed. Gabrielle Hogan-Brun and Stefan Wolff (Basingstoke: Macmillan/Palgrave, 2003), 41.

36_{Miren Mateo, “Language policy and planning of the status of Basque, I: the Basque Autonomous} Community (BAC),” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, no. 174 (2005): 13.

37_{Joshua Aaron Fishman, Reversing language shift: theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance}

to threatened languages (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991).

38_{Durk Gorter and Jasone Cenoz, “Multilingual education for European minority languages: The Basque} Country and Friesland,” International Review of Education 57, no. 5/6 (2011): 651–66.

39

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter, “Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages,” International Journal

(23)

19 language policies in Fryslân with the term ‘goodwill’, whereas he characterizes the policies in the BAC as ‘robust’.40

Nevertheless, in that article Gorter particularly focuses upon the role of the researcher with regard to the shaping of language policy. The Mercator Research Center on Multilingualism and Language Learning also published several reports within the FRY-EUS project in which Frisian and Basque are compared concerning education systems.41 These reports describe, among other things, multilingualism and the teaching of English in education in Fryslân and the BAC.

Hence, the situation of the two minority languages is discussed mostly from a regional perspective and not transposed on a wider scale. National policies of Spain and the Netherlands with regard to the Basque and Frisian minority languages and the policies of institutions on a regional level are usually not taken into consideration. Furthermore, the reflection of EU’s multilingualism policies on policies at lower levels and the effect of these European policies on the actual implementation have not been studied. By taking into consideration the notion of multi-level policymaking, I will conduct a qualitative content analysis in this field. My focus will be upon policy documents concerning the Frisian and Basque subject in secondary education. Since education is the starting point for language learning, the EU recommends its Member States to apply its multilingualism policies especially within the domain of education.42 As the teaching of minority languages in primary schools has been subject of analysis more often than in secondary schools, I will draw on policies regarding secondary education.43 The present thesis therefore seeks to examine to what extent the EU’s Multilingualism policy and the Council of Europe’s ECRML are reflected, on the one hand in the national and regional policies regarding minority languages in secondary education in the Basque Autonomous Community and the Province of Fryslân, and on the other hand, in the practical implementation on a school level.

40

Durk Gorter, “Minority language researchers and their role in policy development,” Language, Culture

and Curriculum 25, no. 1 (2012): 95–96.

41_{See http://www.mercator-research.eu/research-projects/fry-eus/ for an overview of the published} reports within the FRY-EUS project.

42

Ammon, “Language policy in the European Union (EU),” 589.

43_{Krine Boelens, Frisian-Dutch Bilingual Primary Schools (The Hague: Ministry of Education and} Science, 1976); Guus Extra, “Ethnic minority languages versus Frisian in Dutch primary schools: A comparative perspective,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10, no. 1 (1 January 1989): 59–72; Geert Driessen and Virgie Withagen, “Language Varieties and Educational Achievement of Indigenous Primary School Pupils,” Language, Culture and Curriculum 12, no. 1 (1 March 1999): 1– 22;Jehannes Ytsma, “Trilingual primary education in Friesland,” in English in Europe: The Acquisition

of a Third Language, ed. Jasone Cenoz and Ulrike Jessner (Frankfurt: Multilingual Matters, 2000), 222–

235; Jehannes Ytsma, “Towards a Typology of Trilingual Primary Education,” International Journal of

(24)

20

3.2 Methodological framework

In order to attempt to answer the research question, it is essential to understand the EU’s multilingualism policies. Therefore, I firstly go into features of the Multilingualism policy and the ECRML. Of particular interest for the present investigation are the parts of these European policies that are dealing with secondary education or with education in general. Moreover, I look at recommendations that are given in a guide developed by the CoE about the development of language education policies.44 Both the provisions of the European policies and the recommendations of the guide are taken into account in the analysis of the case studies.

The first case study treats the Frisian minority language and is divided in three parts, namely, the national, regional and local level. Firstly, policies of institutions on a national level are addressed. I included organizations that are operating on a national level and concerned with the position of Frisian in secondary education, such as advisory organs and the inspectorate for education. The policies that were available on the website of the respective organizations were used. In the cases that there were no online policy documents, I got in touch with the organization to find out whether it had a policy that could be drawn on for the present thesis. In the analysis I examined whether these national policies explicitly mention the EU’s Multilingualism policy or the ECRML. It was furthermore investigated if the policies incorporated some of the provisions of the European policies and the recommendations of the guide of the CoE. Besides policies, national law on the Frisian language and on Frisian in secondary education was included in the analysis in order to examine whether Dutch laws reflect provisions of the ECRML or the Multilingualism policy.

Following the national layer, policies and organizations on the regional level are discussed, starting with the policy of the Province of Fryslân. Policies of all the relevant institutions and organizations within the province that are concerned with the Frisian language are dealt with. As with the national level, I examined whether references to the ECRML and the EU’s Multilingualism policy were made as well as if provisions of the European policies were mentioned.

44_{Jean-Claude Beacco, From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development}

of Language Education Policies in Europe. Main Version (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2007),

(25)

21 Subsequently, I attempted to research what occurs with the EU’s multilingualism policies in the actual process of implementation on a local level. I made use of an online questionnaire. Teachers were elected as participants for the questionnaire as they are important agents in the implementation of education policies. Hence, I sent the questionnaire to all the teachers that are instructing the Frisian subject at secondary schools in the Province of Fryslân. The questionnaire was written in Dutch and developed via ThesisTools (see Annex One for the English version and Annex Two for the Dutch version of the questionnaire).45 The teachers were teaching lower and higher grades of various levels of secondary education, namely, voorbereidend middelbaar

beroepsonderwijs (pre-vocational secondary education, henceforth: VMBO), hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (general secondary education, henceforth HAVO) and voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs (pre-university secondary education,

henceforth VWO).

The online questionnaire consisted of 24 questions and took approximately five until ten minutes to complete. There were five open questions, nine yes-no questions and ten multiple-choice questions. The questions were related to the provisions of the European policies and dealing with, for instance, teaching material, the use of exams, the languages that are spoken in class, language promotion and the amount of hours that the subject is given per week. It was also asked whether Frisian is a compulsory subject and if the teacher obtained a qualification. In the analysis of the local level I examined the results of the questionnaires. I investigated whether the answers of the teachers reflected provisions and recommendations prescribed by the ECRML and the EU’s Multilingualism policy.

The case study on the Basque minority language contains the same structure as the Frisian case study and is also divided in three parts, namely, the national, regional and local level. In Spain there are no institutions operating on the national level which are concerned with the Basque language. Hence, the first part only contains national laws on education.

The second part focuses upon policies and organizations on the regional level. I included policies of entities within the Basque Country that are engaged in the Basque language in secondary education. I took these policies from the websites of the respective organizations and examined whether they explicitly referred to the ECRML

45

(26)

22 or the Multilingualism policy or included some of the provisions of the European policies.

In the third part concerning the local level, I sought to investigate to what extent the ECRML and the Multilingualism policy are implemented on a school level. As with the Frisian case study, I utilized an online questionnaire for secondary school teachers of the subject Basque Language and Literature. Via email I sent the questionnaire to all the educational establishments in the Basque Country. These education centers consisted of schools of educación secundaria obligatoria (compulsory secondary education, henceforth ESO) or the bachillerato (baccalaureate). The participants of the questionnaire were instructing at various grades of the ESO or baccalaureate. The online questionnaire was identical to the one for the Frisian teachers, except for being written in Spanish (see Annex Three for the Spanish version of the questionnaire). I used the results of the questionnaire to examine whether they reflected the provisions and recommendations of the ECRML and the Multilingualism policy.

(27)

23

Chapter 4. Features of the EU´s Multilingualism policy and

the ECRML

Since 2005, the European Union contains its own framework with regard to multilingualism. The European Council Resolution of 1995 mentioned the aim of learning two additional languages besides the mother tongue for the first time. It stated that “pupils should, as a general rule, have the opportunity of learning two languages of the Union other than their mother tongue(s)”.46

The Council Resolution of February 2002 again emphasized the importance of language knowledge.47 Eventually, during the European Council meeting, which took place in March 2002 in Barcelona, the objective was set for a ‘mother tongue plus two’ policy (see Table 1 for an overview of language policy developments within the EU).

Table 1 Overview of the development of language policy on a European level

Year Activity

1992 EU adopts European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

1995 European Council Resolution on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union

2002 European Council Resolution on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning

2002 European Council meeting in Barcelona

2003 European Commission adopts ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: an Action Plan 2004-2006’

2005 European Commission adopts ‘A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism’ 2005 European Commission introduces ‘European Indicator of Language Competence’ 2006 European Parliament and European Council establish ‘Lifelong Learning

Programme 2007-2013’

2007 European Commission adopts ‘Framework for the European survey on language competences’

2008 European Commission adopts ‘Multilingualism: an Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment’

2013 European Parliament and European Council establish ‘Erasmus+ 2014-2020’

46

Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union, OJ C 207, 12.8.1995, p. 1.

(28)

24 As a result of the Barcelona objective, a plan entitled ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: an Action Plan 2004-2006’ was adopted by the European Commission. The plan was composed of three broad areas for which it specified certain objectives and actions that should be undertaken. The area of life-long language learning addressed, among other things, the aim of learning two languages in addition to the mother tongue from an early age as well as continuing to learn languages after primary education. The area of improving language teaching aimed, for instance, at the improvement of training for the language teachers and the third area was intended for creating a language-friendly environment.48 In addition to the plan, the European Commission adopted ‘A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism’ in 2005, which is generally referred to as the EU’s Multilingualism policy. The communication from the European Commission in September 2008 called ‘Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment’ emphasized the ‘mainstreaming’ of multilingualism throughout all the EU’s policies in order to reach the Barcelona objective.49

The EU defines multilingualism as “both a person’s ability to use several languages and the co-existence of different language communities in one geographical area”.50 In the present thesis, multilingualism is understood according to this definition. In its Multilingualism policy, the European Commission suggests actions to be undertaken with a view to furthering multilingualism. Hence, the policy does not exclusively target minority or regional languages, but it seeks to promote multilingualism in general. The objectives of the EU’s Multilingualism policy are threefold. Firstly, it proposes to stimulate language learning as well as to encourage linguistic diversity. The acquisition of pragmatic skills in two foreign languages besides the mother tongue forms part of this first objective. In the second place, the Multilingualism policy seeks to support a healthy multilingual economy. Lastly, it aims at providing citizens access to EU documents, such as legislation and procedures, in their own language. As mentioned above, the Multilingualism policy is legally non-binding. Hence, although the Commission wants to contribute to the realization of these objectives, it emphasizes that

48

European Commission, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: an Action Plan 2004 - 2006, COM(2003)449.

49_{European Commission, Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment, COM(2008)} 566 final.

(29)

25 the final responsibility for further improvements with respect to multilingualism lies with the nation states, either on a national level or on a regional or even local level.51

With respect to the field of education, the Commission states in its Multilingualism policy that national plans should be developed which set up concrete objectives for (minority) language teaching throughout all levels of education. Besides, better teacher training should be offered and language learning should start at an early stage. The policy also calls for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), entailing that a subject is taught in a foreign language. Moreover, it recommends more involvement of higher education in the promotion of multilingualism. Hence, the Commission does not establish per education level very specific or concrete measures which should be implemented. It rather provides broad recommendations.

Despite of the fact that the Multilingualism policy is not necessarily designed for the promotion of minority languages only, the Commission remarks that only learning English is not sufficient to achieve multilingualism. Therefore, other ‘foreign’ languages, be it majority or minority languages, have to be involved in education in order to reach the Barcelona objective. With the intention of attaining this objective, the European Commission introduced a European Indicator of Language Competence for the measurement of foreign language skills in 2005. This indicator is in accordance with the levels as established within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) of the CoE.52 The European Council resolution of 2002 had demanded a similar indicator and eventually a ‘Framework for the European survey on language competences’ was developed in 2007. However, this initiative only directs to the five languages that are most widely taught and does not include minority languages.53 By contrast, the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) initiated by the Commission funded education related activities in the years 2007-2013 and also involved minority languages. This program contributed to linguistic diversity as well as language learning. In succession to the LLP, the program Erasmus+ has been developed for the years 2014-2020. With regard to regional and minority languages, Erasmus+ funds new strategic partnerships that are concerned with both teaching and learning of regional and minority languages. Other projects that are funded by the EU and that support regional and minority languages are the Network to Promote Linguistic

51 _Ibid. 52

(30)

26 Diversity (NPLD) and the Celtic, Regional and Minority Languages Abroad Project (CRAMLAP).54

Besides its Multilingualism policy, the EU had already adopted the ECRML of the CoE in 1992. Only signing the ECRML entails a soft commitment to principles of respect for minority languages. Ratification demands that steps have to be taken by the nation states in order to promote the regional languages.55 In total, 17 Member States of the EU ratified the ECRML until now, including the Netherlands in 1996 and Spain in 2001. The purpose of the ECRML is, according to the website of the CoE, to encourage and protect the regional and minority languages that are spoken in Europe as well as to provide citizens the possibility to draw on these languages in public and private domains.56

The ECRML is composed of five parts. The first part consists of general provisions and defines regional or minority languages as:

i. traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and

ii. different from the official language(s) of that State;

it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants.57

Hence, the ECRML only addresses languages that are indigenous to the nation state and does not relate to languages spoken by migrants, which can be conceived as neglecting the actual multilingual situation of Europe.58 The second part draws up some general objectives and principles that have to be applied to all regional and minority languages that are located in the territory of the countries that ratified the ECRML. Part three only applies to specified languages and provides practical measures divided in several domains of public life, such as education, media and judicial authorities. A minimum of 35 of these measures have to be implemented. In the case of the Netherlands and Spain, only the languages that have an official status in a certain region fall under this part. These measures should therefore be enforced by the Spanish and Dutch government on

54

Information about the programs LLP and Erasmus+ as well as the projects NPLD and CRAMLAP can be found on the website of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European

Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm. 55_{Máiréad Nic Craith, “Facilitating or Generating Linguistic Diversity, 57.}

56_{Council of Europe, “European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,” accessed 27 July 2015,} http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/aboutcharter/default_en.asp.

57_{Council of Europe, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Strasbourg: CoE: 5} November 1992, ETS 148), accessed 14 May 2015,

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/148.htm.

(31)

27 respectively Basque and Frisian. Concerning minority languages in secondary education, the ECRML prescribes obligations concerning secondary education in Article 8.1.c:

i. to make available secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

ii. to make available a substantial part of secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

iii. to provide, within secondary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or iv. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to

those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient.59

The states that ratified the ECRML are therefore formally required to provide education in the minority languages to which part three applies. They should furthermore arrange that the history and culture of the minority languages concerned are taught and that teachers are offered training. In addition, the ECRML prescribes that states are expected to establish an advisory body that supervises the achieved improvements and writes periodical reports. In line with the fourth part of the ECRML, nation states are demanded to draw up periodic reports in which they dilate on the actions that have been implemented in order to meet the provisions listed in the ECRML. The last part of the ECRML elaborates upon some final provisions.

In the analysis of the case studies, features of both European policies as described above are taken into account. To give an example, the provision of teacher training is looked at as well as the compliance with offering a substantial part of secondary education in the minority language. In addition, the teaching of the history and culture of the minority language is considered. Apart from that, in a guide composed by the CoE with a view to developing language education policies, the availability of books in the respective minority languages is mentioned to be of importance for the teaching of a minority language as well as the monitoring by the state or region of the pupil’s learning process and of examinations.60 Hence, teaching material is also borne in mind.

According to a report drawn up by the British Council within the project ‘Language Rich Europe’, Fryslân is the only region in Europe where classes in secondary education are usually taught by teachers that solely possess a general qualification for language

59

(32)

28 teaching.61 However, the report makes use of publicly available data and the last report by the Inspectorate of Education in which the number of qualified teachers can be found, dates back to the situation in 2009.62 Consequently, it is tested by means of the developed questionnaires for teachers at secondary schools, if progress has been made regarding this fact in the past six years.

61

Guus Extra and Kutlay Yağmur, eds., Language Rich Europe. Trends in policies and practices for

multilingualism in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 54.

Language Rich Europe was a project funded by the European Commission that ran from November 2010 until March 2013. One of its objectives was to make individuals aware of the recommendations that are given by the European Union and the Council of Europe with respect to the promotion of language learning as well as linguistic diversity.

62_{Inspectie van het Onderwijs, Tussen Wens en Werkelijkheid. De kwaliteit van het vak Fries in het}

basisonderwijs en het voortgezet onderwijs in Fryslân (Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2010),

accessed 16 May 2015,

(33)

29

Chapter 5. Case study I: Frisian

The Province of Fryslân, situated in the northern part of the Netherlands (see Figure 1), has almost 650.000 inhabitants of which 64% claims to be able to speak Frisian good or very good and 11% rather good.63 Speakers of the Frisian language have been involved in a linguistic conflict for several decades. Gradually, several domains in Fryslân have received legal rights concerning the use of Frisian (see Table 2 for an overview of the legal developments). Since 1970, Frisian is the second official language within the Province of Fryslân.64 In 1980, Frisian became an obligatory subject in primary education. As from 1993,

the same applied to the first and second grade of secondary education.65 The first Covenant on Frisian Language and Culture between the State and the Province was signed in 1989. It described the shared responsibilities of the national and the provincial government regarding the preservation and promotion of Frisian. An amendment on the General Act on Administrative Law that addresses how the public administration is organized within the Netherlands, allowed since 1995 that Frisian to a limited extent can be used in the administration of justice in Fryslân.66 In 1998, the ECRML became effective in the Netherlands. In the years 2001 and 2010 new Covenants on Frisian Language and Culture were formulated. Eventually, the Law on Frisian language use guaranteed the legal use of Frisian in judicial matters within the Province since 2014 (see Figure 2 for an organization chart of the policies and organizations on a European, national and provincial level that address Frisian).

63

Province of Fryslân, De Fryske Taalatlas 2011. Fryske taal yn byld (Leeuwarden: Province of Fryslân, 2011), accessed 17 February 2015, http://www.fryslan.frl/taalatlas.

64_{Commissie Friese-Taalpolitiek, Rapport van de Commissie Friese-Taalpolitiek (Rijswijk: Ministerie} van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk, 1970), accessed 23 June 2015,

http://resolver3.kb.nl/resolve?urn=sgd%3Ampeg21%3A19691970%3A0004918. 65

Durk Mindert Benedictus Krol, “The legislative context of the Frisian language in the Netherlands,”

Revista de Llengua i Dret 39 (2013): 108.

66_{Durk Gorter, Alexander Martinus Joris Riemersma, and Jehannes Ytsma, “The Frisian language in the} Netherlands,” in The other languages of Europe, ed. Guus Extra and Durk Gorter (Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2001), 109.

Figure 1 Location of the Province of Fryslân in the Netherlands

(34)

30 Table 2 Overview of the development of Frisian language policy on the national level in the Netherlands

Year Occurrence

1970 Frisian becomes the second official language in the Netherlands 1980 Frisian becomes an obligatory subject in primary education 1989 First ‘Covenant on the Frisian Language and Culture’ is signed 1993 Frisian becomes an obligatory subject in the lowest two grades of

secondary education

Second ‘Covenant on the Frisian Language and Culture’ is drawn up 1995 Frisian is allowed in the administration of justice

1998 ECRML enters into force in the Netherlands 2001 &

2013

Third and fourth ‘Covenants on the Frisian Language and Culture’ are shaped

(35)

31 Figure 2 Organization chart of Frisian institutions and policies

European

level

National

level

Province of

Fryslân

ECRML Multilingualism policy Law on Frisian language use Law on secondary education Inspectorate for Education Examinations and Assessment Board National Institute for

Educational Assessment Province of Fryslân Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning (± 4 FTE) Afûk (21 FTE) Sintrum Mearta-ligens (± 4 FTE) Europeesk Buro foar

Multi-level Policymaking on Two European Minority Languages

Master of Arts Thesis

Euroculture

July 2015

Multi-level Policymaking on Two

European Minority Languages

A comparative case study of Frisian and Basque in

secondary education

Abstract

Acknowledgments

Table of contents

List of tables

List of figures

List of acronyms

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework: Three levels of

policymaking

2.1 The notion of multi-level policymaking

2.2 Theories of language policies

2.3 Multilingualism in the EU

Chapter 3. Methodology and general background

3.1 General background

3.2 Methodological framework

Chapter 4. Features of the EU´s Multilingualism policy and

the ECRML

Chapter 5. Case study I: Frisian

European

level

National

level

Province of

Fryslân