Emotion in multivarietal family language policy in Flanders

Abstract

Aims:

This study on Belgian Dutch caregivers aims to complement research on multilingual family language planning with a multivarietal perspective. As transitions between varieties are often more gradual, it is revealing to study which emotions surface in caregivers’ reflection on these varieties. The Belgian Dutch case is selected given its historically highly emotional macro-level language debate, its exoglossic norm and its transition from diglossia to diaglossia.

Methodology:

The aim is pursued through mixed methodology, combining variationist analysis with a bottom-up discourse analytic approach.

Data and analysis:

We juxtapose data from two Belgian Dutch families. For each family, a qualitative analysis identifies the expressions of (the lack of) emotions found in metalinguistic interviews on varieties of Dutch with the caregivers (80’). This information is triangulated with a quantitative analysis of the caregivers’ use of standard and nonstandard pronouns of address in self-recorded dinner table conversations (260’; N = 1004).

Findings:

Results reveal caregivers’ attempts to manage conflicting emotions related to the Flemish language situation, and how they lead to (dis)harmony in the family.

Originality:

This paper contributes to our understanding of emotions in family language policy (FLP) in its focus on a multivarietal context and in its mixed methodology.

Implications:

Our findings resonate with research on multilingual FLP’s, which we tie to caregivers’ diglossic description of the diaglossic Flemish context. The shifting relationship between emotions expressed in the interviews and the language choices made in practice, overall support the value of mixed methods FLP research.

Keywords

Family language policy diaglossia emotions Dutch interaction

Family language policy: multilingual versus multivarietal

Language policy and planning activities grew in the 1950s and 1960s and centered around hierarchies between colonial and local languages in decolonized nations (Ricento, 2000). Later, as terms like bilingualism and diglossia were demonstrated to be more complex than previously thought, and the role of ideology came into consideration more, these initial conceptions of language policy were challenged and expanded upon (Ricento, 2000).

As a natural response to this shift in language policy research from general, explicit macro-level policies to specific phenomena like ideology, some scholars began to focus on the way language policy takes shape in micro-communities like (nuclear) families. Family language policy (FLP) has here been defined as “explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members” (King et al., 2008, p. 907). Initial research illustrated how this FLP is often influenced by the same processes that shape macro-level policies (Spolsky, 2012).

Overall, as Piller (2001) notes, FLP has mainly been studied in multilingual settings. Piller herself has, for instance, examined the strategies caregivers devise to ensure that their children become bi- or multilingual, and how their relative success in that endeavor is influenced by societal ideas about bi- and multilingualism. Likewise, King et al. (2008), Curdt-Christiansen (2009), Van Mensel (2016), Obojska (2018), and del Puy Ciriza (2019) examine strategies for bi- and multilingual FLPs and how community and societal pressures influence FLPs. In their editorial to a special issue on the matter, Curdt-Christiansen and Gao (2021) propose that the family should even be considered a critical site where the negotiation between various levels of language policies are negotiated. Obojska (2018) and del Puy Ciriza (2019), and several chapters in Schalley and Eisenchlas (2020) in particular, additionally pay closer attention to the influence that emotions have on FLP, examining the complex, often contradictory and overlapping ways speakers feel about maintaining heritage languages. Studying emotions in FLP can in this sense help better understand how such policies operate.

This paper aims to seize this opportunity by examining emotions in FLPs in multivarietal contexts in particular. This can complement multilingual FLP as we anticipate multivarietal FLP to be more implicit than multilingual FLPs, given that substandard varieties are not always perceived as separate linguistic systems but as stratified layers of a single language (Auer, 2011). However, many of the same social phenomena and parenting strategies are still relevant. Substandard varieties can also carry social meaning in the form of negative evaluations (Lybaert, 2017), which also entails the presence of emotions. The broader potential of studying multivarietal family language has been demonstrated by De Houwer (2003), Smith et al. (2013), and Van De Mieroop et al. (2016). These studies illustrate how the tensions between standard and nonstandard language affect production and evaluation of language use in the home, similar to how tensions affect FLP in multilingual situations.

To study this relation between FLP and emotions in multivarietal context, we focus on the multivarietal case of Belgian Dutch. This case is particularly informative given the standardization history of Dutch in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium, which is marked by a complex macro-level language policy, strong opinions and emotions. The aim of this paper is to tease out whether we can see traces of this in Flemish micro-level FLPs. The following section will explain the linguistic history of Flanders. After this, we will identify and define some of the emotions that are relevant to the Flemish language context, which will lead us into our research questions.

Belgian Dutch: a crash-course

Belgian Dutch is spoken in the northern half of Belgium, a country split into different regions and language communities according to the languages historically spoken in each region. Because French was the only official language of Belgium until the twentieth century, French was the default language in most public domains in Flanders, but various dialects of Dutch were used at home (Jaspers & Van Hoof, 2013). No standard variety of Dutch was in place. When Dutch became the only official language in Flanders, policymakers then implemented a standard by adopting Standard Dutch (SD) as it was long established in the Netherlands, this way orienting Flanders toward an exoglossic norm (Auer, 2011; Jaspers & Van Hoof, 2013 and see De Schutter, 2022 for an overview of language policy). A terminological consequence is that “Flemish” (Vlaams) is used to refer to the region “the Northern part of Belgium”, not to the language used in this region. Instead, in a bid to underline the linguistic union with the Netherlands and with the standard variety “Standard Dutch” that is used in both Flanders and the Netherlands, “Belgian Dutch” (Belgisch Nederlands) is used to refer to the official language of Flanders (Vlaanderen).

To enhance the entrenchment of the “foreign” standard adopted from the Netherlands, a period followed in the second half of the twentieth century of what has been referred to as hyperstandardization (Grondelaers & Van Hout, 2011; Jaspers & Van Hoof, 2013) with robust, explicit language policies (Delarue, 2013) marked by a strong standard language ideology (Milroy, 2002). The significant efforts to promote Standard Dutch in education and the media for instance included primetime TV series explaining how to speak Standard Dutch. These efforts did result in general public acceptance of the new norm as the standard variety, though its exoglossic nature restricted its broader use in the Flemish community: the standard variety felt too foreign for daily communication (Jaspers & Van Hoof, 2013). In turn, a supraregional Flemish variety emerged as informal norm for day-to-day communication, Colloquial Belgian Dutch (CBD). Flanders as such moved from a diglossic system with traditional dialects versus the new standard, to a diaglossic system, with CBD found as intermediate variety in between standard and dialect (Geeraerts, 2001a). Unlike dialects, which are more and more restricted to older generations (Ghyselen & De Vogelaer, 2013), many Flemings speak CBD frequently in everyday situations, including educational and professional settings, which leads some to consider the spread of CBD as evidence of a growing Flemish self-confidence and as an emancipation from Standard Dutch (Grondelaers & Van Hout, 2011). At the same time, nonstandard varieties, including both dialects and CBD, are often still considered less prestigious and less appropriate for formal contexts (Geeraerts, 2001a).

An emotional debate

The Flemish language history resonates in the often heated and emotionally loaded societal debates about the use and appropriateness of the language varieties available in Flanders that still spark up at regular intervals. Close consultation of previous research on Dutch in Flanders points to shame, pride, confidence, and insecurity as the most relevant emotions to this debate, complemented by the expression of a lack emotion, viz. indifference. Below, we give a brief general definition for these emotions and for “indifference,” and explain their particular relevance for the Flemish context by providing selected fragments from opinion pieces published in public media outlets. This way, we tap into the underexploited potential of the societal treatment approach, which, in his overview of language attitude research, Garrettt (2010) describes as the way in which particular linguistic phenomena are discussed and employed in “various sources in the public domain” (p. 51). A more detailed description of the way we have identified the manifestation of these emotions in the Flemish family language context will then follow further down in “Methods.”

Shame and pride are both self-conscious emotions, related to an individual’s self-perception (Galmiche, 2017; Gibson, 2018). Pride is associated with positive self-perception (Ross & Stracke, 2016) and can be either authentic or hubristic (Tracy & Robins, 2007), in the sense of being an accurate or inaccurate reflection of an individual’s actual abilities. Shame can be considered as the opposite of pride in that it is associated with negative self-perception (Galmiche, 2017). Lybaert (2017) suggests that some speakers in Flanders may feel pride in speaking local varieties of Dutch (compare Miyake, 1995 description of dialect pride), or they may feel shame over their inability to speak Standard Dutch consistently in formal or pedagogical situations (see also Geeraerts, 2001b; Lybaert, 2017b, and compare Jiang & Dewaele, 2019; Sevinç & Backus, 2017b, for research outside of the Flemish context). Pride and shame have emerged regularly in the media debate as well, as we see in examples (1) and (2) respectively. Both fragments can be considered ends of the continuum from pride to shame.

“It is especially crucial that (young) language users . . . should learn that their language is not incorrect, not bad, not wrong, and not of lesser worth. Isn’t the essence of our multicultural society that everyone should be able to be proud of his or her language and background, without having fingers pointed at them?” (opinion piece by linguists Gert De Sutter, Stefan Grondelaers, and Steven Delarue in magazine MO*- Mondiaal Nieuws, 13 November 2017)¹

“You ought to hear it, what all gets babbled and jabbered in the vicinity of a lectern [these days]” (opinion piece by fiction writer Dimitri Verhulst in newspaper De Morgen, 31 August 2012)²

The next two emotions, confidence and insecurity, can also be considered as each other’s opposites. A feeling of confidence indicates a greater feeling of ability and agency, while insecurity indicates a lack of trust in or certainty over one’s own ability or agency (Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2011). Previous work on the Flemish language situation shows that both might apply: speakers might feel either confident or insecure about their ability to speak SD consistently (Jaspers & Van Hoof, 2013; Plevoets, 2008). A historic example of the fiercely negative appraisal of Flemish confidence found in the public domain in the early rise of Colloquial Belgian Dutch is found in (3).

“Verkavelings-Vlaams [CBD], that’s the language of a newfangled, thoroughly false Flemish confidence, it’s the language born out of a contempt for the speech of ordinary people and out of a fear of Dutch, a monstrosity is what it is, that language of the new Flanders, that radiates intellectual laziness.” (in Het Belgisch Labyrint, a book on the Belgian context by essay writer and journalist Geert Van Istendael, published in 1989.)

In shaping their language regards, viz., their “language attitudes and metalinguistic beliefs about language” (Preston, 2018), Flemish language users can express these emotional tensions found in the macro-level debate. Yet, they can also choose to resign from the discussion: some speakers in Flanders may position themselves as indifferent toward any debates surrounding language in Flanders. Following Truesdale and Pell (2018, p. 131), we distinguish indifference from apathy. Apathy is “the absence of an aroused response” and indifference is “the deliberate expression of a lack of arousal below an expected neutral baseline.” We believe that it is crucial to study this conscious expression of a lack of arousal, or more broadly considered, a lack of emotion, alongside the (un)conscious expression of emotion in the context of family language planning. Particularly, following insights from Grondelaers and van Hout (2011) and Delarue (2013), we anticipate that Belgian Dutch parents may engage in this deliberate expression of indifference, declining to take a stance on the status of different language varieties at their disposal.

Research questions

The general aim of our case study is to gauge which of the emotions above appear in caregivers’ regards concerning the Flemish language situation at large and their family language policy in particular. At the same time, we want to compare the emotions that surface in reflections on language in Flanders with caregivers’ actual language practice, gauging whether and to what extent different emotions about the Flemish language situation equally result in different patterns of variation when comparing adult-directed and child-directed speech. For instance, a higher use of non-standard variants could be anticipated for caregivers who express pride toward non-standard varieties and who feel confident about their own language use. Instead, we might find a fair amount of variation between standard and non-standard forms in the child-directed speech of caregivers who feel shame concerning their own language us (orienting toward standard forms) but likewise reflect insecurity toward their own ability to use the standard language (resulting in use of vernacular forms) (see AUTHORS 2016, and also Curdt-Christiansen, & Gao, 2021). Three research questions are addressed:

RQ1: Which of the emotions shame, pride, confidence, and insecurity are present in Flemish caregivers’ language regards, and what is the position of indifference in these regards?

RQ2: Which choices do caregivers make between standard and nonstandard variants in their child-directed and adult-directed speech?

RQ3: What can we learn from the relationship between emotions or indifference portrayed about language by the caregivers from different families and their linguistic choices in spontaneous speech?

These research questions ask for a triangulated approach. RQ1, which aims to understand to what extent emotions identified through societal treatment of the macro-level and a review of previous research play out in caregivers’ language regards, will be addressed by verifying which emotions surface in caregivers’ self-reported language regards in metalinguistic interviews on the Flemish language situation, and how this relates to any possible position of the expression of a lack of emotion (indifference). To this end, a bottom-up discursive analytic approach is adopted, imbued with insights from conversation analysis. RQ2 is a prerequisite for RQ3, with the aim of clarifying the relationship between the Flemish language situation and speakers’ linguistic behavior in family language practice. RQ2 will be addressed by studying language choices in spontaneous conversation in the family context through a straightforward variationist analysis of one salient sociolinguistic variable. RQ3 aims to integrate the insights from RQ1 and RQ2 to gain a more holistic understanding of the interplay between emotions, policy, and practice in Flanders. This final question will be addressed in the discussion section.

Data

The data used to address our research questions consist of caregivers’ responses to audio-recorded metalinguistic interviews (RQ1), and of self-recorded audio and video of family dinner table conversations (RQ2) for two families selected from a larger corpus of family data from the Brabantic dialect region, located in the center of Flanders (see also AUTHORS 2016, 2021). We juxtapose data for caregivers from the two families listed in Table 1, as a pilot study seemed to showcase interesting oppositions in the interplay between language regard and emotion in these caregivers’ metalinguistic interviews. As can be seen in Table 1, the mother of each family has an occupation where strong communication skills and/or knowledge of Standard Dutch is required, which could impact the mother’s norm orientation (see “Discussion”). Furthermore, in an attempt to reduce SES-differences between the families, at least one parent per family has at least a BA degree.

Table 1.

Demographic information for Family1 and Family2.

Family	Children (gender; age)	Father(occupation; age)	Mother (occupation; age)	Data
Family1	Girl; 6 years old Girl; 5 years old	Electrician; 36 years old	Teacher; 32 years old	Interviews: 40’ Dinner table: 150’
Family2	Girl; 3 years old Girl; 1 year old	Business Analyst; 33 years old	Communications Specialist; 33 years old	Interviews: 40’ Dinner table: 110’

The interview data, which forms the basis for addressing RQ1, were collected after the recordings of the family’s spontaneous speech (see below) and consist of one metalinguistic interview per caregiver. These interviews, which are audio-only recordings, were conducted by students enrolled in the final year of a bachelor in linguistics program. The interviewers were native speakers of Dutch who conducted the interview as part of their linguistics research training. They were trained to conduct semi-structured interviews following an interview guideline. Specifically, the caregivers were asked a series of questions about their knowledge of language variation in Flanders, about their own linguistic behavior and competencies, and about language use within the family, including evaluations of their partners’ language use and any distinction between child-directed speech and adult-directed speech. Questions on language regard were asked, with the goal of observing how emotion surfaces in discussions about language regard, without explicitly probing for it. In this way, we hope to have avoided an overly conscious orientation to and replication of the emotions that typically circulate in Flemish society regarding language varieties.

The self-recorded dinner table conversations that are used for RQ2, consist of over 4 hours of recordings of spontaneous speech during mealtime. Different sociolinguistics variables were present in the data, but we chose to focus on second-person singular pronouns (nonstandard gij/u/uw and standard jij/jou/jouw, e.g., ge speelt vs. je speelt “you play,” N = 1004), given the high degree of awareness language users have of this alternation (AUTHORS 2016, pp. 39-40; Ghyselen & De Vogelaer, 2018; Vandekerckhove, 2005).

Methods

Given the prominence of RQ1 for our analyses, we provide a detailed description of the bottom-up discursive analyses of the emotions found in the interview responses. Next, we additionally provide some background to the fairly straightforward variationist approach followed for RQ2.

Qualitative analysis of interview excerpts (RQ1)

In addressing RQ1, we drew on the conversation analytic framework. This means that we consider how emotions and emotional stances are created in situ over the course of a conversation, and sometimes co-constructed between interlocutors (Peräkyla & Sorjonen, 2012a, 2012b), in this case the caregiver and the interviewer(s). Emotional stances are public positions that speakers take up to display certain emotional evaluations of the topic at hand (Peräkyla & Sorjonen, 2012b, pp. 4–5). In our case study, we are looking for instances where Flemish caregivers display emotional stances when discussing their language regards, as a means to gain insight into participants’ emotions without inquiring about them directly.

There are a number of resources that speakers use to construct emotion in interaction. These can be divided into three basic categories, namely verbal, vocal and nonvocal resources (Peräkyla & Sorjonen, 2012b, pp. 6–9). As we will be analyzing audio-recorded interviews, we will only focus on the former two:

Verbal cues include certain syntactic constructions (active or passive voice), lexical choices (use of specific adjectives), and quantifiers or intensifiers, that may signal particular emotional stances in different contexts (Peräkyla & Sorjonen, 2012b).

Vocal cues include phonetic and prosodic resources. Lengthening of a sound or changes in pitch can, for instance, be important indicators of emotional stances. Prosodic resources often have a stronger effect on stance than lexical choices alone, especially when they occur in particular places in the sequential organization (Goodwin et al., 2012). Nonverbal vocal cues like laughter (Haakana, 2012) or sighing (Hoey, 2014) also give indications of emotional stances.

In determining which emotions are constructed in speech, it is important to appreciate the highly context-sensitive nature of these resources (Couper-Kuhlen, 2012) and the potential disconnect between inner and outer emotions. In addition, rather than considering “single resources in isolation,” it is by analyzing “the cooccurrence of resources from different modalities and levels of modality” that “emotional stances and their intensity” are displayed (Peräkyla & Sorjonen, 2012b, p. 9). For example, a speaker may use a nonverbal vocal cue, like laughter (Haakana, 2012) or sighing (Hoey, 2014), in addition to a number of verbal cues, and these, together, may then express one complex emotion or emotional stance like shame. Therefore, we aim to perform holistic analyses that capture the nuances of the interview responses by scrutinizing how verbal and vocal cues together, in their particular context of use, construct a certain emotional stance or the expression of a non-emotional state (indifference).

Quantitative analysis of dinner table speech (RQ2)

Tying in with earlier work in developmental sociolinguistics (see, for example, Smith et al., 2013), the quantitative analysis targets potential style-shifts in Family1 and Family2 comparing the relative presence of standard and non-standard pronouns of address in child-directed speech and adult-directed speech. The style-shifts were measured for mother and father separately. Table 2 provides an overview of the address forms that are considered standard and non-standard in the informal context of family dinner table conversations (compare Zenner & Van De Mieroop, 2021, and see De Vogelaer, 2008; Debrabandere, 2005 for more details). The proportion of standardness was calculated following the principle of the sociolinguistic variable (cp. Chevrot et al., 2000) by dividing the number of standard pronouns by the total number of pronouns of address, per speaker (mother, father) and per addressee style (adult-directed, child-directed). Significance of effects was gauged on the absolute frequencies through Chi² tests. In case of significance, effect sizes were measured through Cramer’s V. This test provides an indication of association strength, with an output between 0 (no association) and 1 (strong association).

Table 2.

Informal standard and non-standard pronouns of address.

Type	Standard	Non-standard
Nominal, subject-verb	je/jij drinkt sap ‘you drink juice’	ge/gij drinkt sap ‘you drink juice’
Nominal, verb-subject	drink je/jij sap ‘you drink juice’	drinkt ge/gij sap drinktegij sap ‘you drink juice’
Oblique	hij geeft je sap ‘he gives you juice’	hij geeft u sap ‘he gives you juice’
Reflexive	je moet je inhouden met dat sap ‘you have to restrain yourself with that juice’	ge moet u inhouden met dat sap ‘you have to restrain yourself with that juice’
Possessive	is dit je/jouw sap ‘is this your juice’	is dit uw sap ‘is this your juice’

Results

This section presents the findings for the two juxtaposed families separately. For each family, we first focus on the emotional mix that surfaced in the interviews (RQ1), which we illustrate with crucial interview excerpts.³ Then we give a brief overview of the findings of the parents’ language use in practice (RQ2). The discussion section of our paper will bring these findings together (RQ3).

Family1

Emotions in interviews

One of the most prominent emotions expressed in the interviews with Family1 with regard to FLP is indifference toward normative varieties. For example, the father says the following when asked if he and his wife discussed language use with the children:

Excerpt 1

1 FAT helemaal in t begin hebbe(n) we da(ar) way in the beginning we 2 wel (ee)ns iets van gezegd van euh once said something about that like of uh 3 (.) we moeten daar natuurlijk (.) we should obviously pay 4 een beetjen op letten (h)e (.) a little bit of attention to that hey (.) 5 da(t) ge de (.) juiste taalgebruik=@(.) meegeeft that you impart the (.)right language use=@ 6 (.) ma(ar) (.) dadis helemaal in ‘t begin (.) but (.) that was way in the beginning 7 (ee)ns besproken en voor de rest ja discussed once and for the rest yeah 8 dan da(t) loopt eigenlijk zoals then that’s going actually like 9 ‘t is en kdenk (.) it is and i think (.) 10 da(t) da(t) ni(et)slecht is ((lach)) zo that that’s not bad ((laugh) like this

In this excerpt, the father first temporally distances himself from any potential plan to have a norm-oriented FLP, as we see by the use of the repeated phrase ‘helemaal in t begin’/ way in the beginning (lines 1 and 6). He creates further distance from an explicit discussion of FLP by pausing a number of times, thus signaling a hesitancy about how to answer the question. Furthermore, he expresses additional detachment from the topic by downplaying the significance of this discussion by means of several hedges and mitigators (‘wel eens iets’/ once. . .something, line 2; ‘een beetjen’/a little, line 4 ‘eens’/once, line 7). These markers all signal the lack of importance he attaches to the implementation of a FLP in this interview.

Interestingly, when discussing the topic in more detail, it is on the one hand framed as obvious (line 3) for the father that there should be a little bit of attention to a FLP, and, on the other hand, that the orientation of this FLP should be in the direction of more normative language varieties like SD, from which the father simultaneously distances himself. This is done, first, by briefly pausing before and after the term ‘juiste taalgebruik’/right language use (line 5), thus separating it from the rest of his turn. Second, he uses mincing pronunciation to indicate a view that prestige varieties are normative and therefore distant from his typical speech. Finally, he also later latches on a single laughter particle after repeating the phrase way in the beginning, which signals the double voicing in this pronunciation shift. These linguistic resources invoke a view of prestige varieties as a normative issue rather than valuable linguistic tools, which are presented as to a certain extent self-evident for the Flemish context, and thereby the father also suggests conscious indifference toward the topic of FLP.

In her interview, the mother largely mirrors the father’s distant, indifferent position toward prestige varieties and actually also expresses a highly similar interpretation that such varieties are normative but not necessarily essential. However, she takes this a step further and expresses some pride in local varieties, indicating that she wants her children to learn and thus help maintain the local dialects. Yet, overall, indifference toward prestige varieties is the main emotion in this family. We will now see whether this is reflected in the language practice of the parents in this family.

Dinner table speech

In Table 3, we can see that in the spontaneous speech at the dinner table, both caregivers used nonstandard pronouns the majority of the time in both adult- and child-directed speech. The father used almost no SD pronouns, and the difference between his adult-directed and child-directed speech was not significant (p for Fisher exact > 0.05), while the mother used more SD in her CDS, and the difference with her ADS was significant, X² (df = 1, N = 219) = 17.18, p < .001. A Cramer’s V test showed that the effect size for the mother’s results was somewhat large (0.293).

Table 3.

Standard and nonstandard pronouns in CDS and ADS for Family1.

Speaker	Addressee	Nonstandard pronouns	Standard pronouns	% Standard pronouns
Father Family1	Adult	17	0	0%
Father Family1	Child	145	5	3.3%
Mother Family1	Adult	43	0	0%
Mother Family1	Child	119	57	32.4%

This thus shows that the father’s indifference toward SD is nicely reflected in his actual language practices, while the mother’s indifference, enhanced by her dialect pride, seems to be countered by her clear attempts to “clean up” her pronouns when speaking to the children.

Family2

Emotions in interviews

Family2 contrasts with the previous family’s emotional profile, showing a fairly different range of emotions, but also in the sense that the mother and the father in Family2 express contrasting emotions. Turning to the mother first, she seems to express primarily shame and insecurity when discussing the FLP, as in Excerpt 2, where she is asked about what she thinks of the different language varieties spoken in Flanders:

Excerpt 2

1 INT3 en als u met de kinderen bent and when you’re⁴ with the children 2 is het niet dat u dan (.) is it not the case that you then (.) 3 uw dialect gaat proberen meer te vermijden en (.) are going to try to avoid your dialect more and (.) 4 MOT ((zucht)) nee (i)k [prob- ((sigh)) no i tr- 5 INT3 [meer gaat more going to 6 spreken zoals ze op de tv bijvoorbeeld doen talk like they do on tv for example. 7 MOT (i)kprobeer da(t) wel he want i do try that hey because 8 (i)kwil da(t)oo::k nie(t) i a::lso don’t want 9 da(t) ze zo echt eu::h (.) (.) that they really u::hm (.)(.) 10 hhh. maa(r) (.) allez (.) das nie(t) zo hhh. but (.) well (.)that’s not so 12 das niet zo evident vin(d) ik that’s not so self-evident i find 13 maar ik probeer da(t) wel but i do try that 14 INT ja yeah 15 MOT (i)kzou proberen i would try to 16 toch wel iets allez mooier te praten voor (h)aar to just talk a little you know prettier for her⁵ 17 ma(ar) ‘t £lukt nie(t) altijd£ but £that isn’t always successful£ 18 ((lach)) ((zucht)) ((laugh)) ((sigh))

When initially asked if she avoids speaking dialect with children, the mother first sighs in line 7 and starts to say no I try before the interviewer interrupts her to continue the question and add something about talking like people on tv do. Due to this interruption, she repeats what she was about to say before, putting emphasis on the word try this time (line 7), which indicates an intention to speak more standard but also an insecurity about whether she actually does or is able to. She then elongates the vowel in the word also in line 8 (Goodwin et al., 2012: 29) to sketch a counter-intentional scenario (what she does not want her kids to do), before trailing off at the end of the phrase in line 9, thus leaving this scenario unuttered. However, she does express a desire to not use dialect at home in lines 10–12, but indicates that she is insecure about her ability to do so by putting stress on the word self-evident in the negative construction in line 11. Also, the repeated use of the word ‘probeer’/try (lines 12 and 14)—bringing the total number of uses of the word try in this excerpt to 4—indicates once more a very insecure stance in relation to her own linguistic behavior.

Furthermore, the feeling of shame also emerges here, as through the phrase for her in line 15, she evokes the notion that a good parent should try to speak prettier (line 16) as much as possible around children. This is then contrasted with an expression of failure in this respect (line 16) that is mitigated by the ensuing laughter (line 17), but which, together with the closing sigh, further indicate shame on the mother’s part. So especially when she is referring to her daughter, the mother gives the impression that she sometimes feels like a neglectful parent for not being able to consistently avoid speaking dialect.

When asked later on in the interview about her partner’s language use, the mother states that she believes that he will also ‘try to pay attention to it,’⁶ but how this will be ‘in the same category of wishful thinking’⁷ as herself. As such, she projects similar feelings of shame and insecurity upon her husband. Yet, when this topic is discussed with the father, we see quite a different range of emotions occurring, which emerge quite explicitly in the account in Excerpt 3a of the lessons he had at school that specifically focused on standard versus nonstandard words:

Excerpt 3a

1 FAT ja (.) wij hadden in het derde yes (.) we had in the third 2 middelbaar een ↑leerkracht jan jaspers high school year⁸ a ↑teacher jan jaspers 3 .hhh en eu::hh (.) daar kregen wij (.) .hhh and u::hh (.) there we got (.) 4 die had een bepaald deel van zijn dinge he had a certain section of his thing 5 en dat was taalzuivering and that was language purification 6 tis alweer en nie(t) weeral it’s alweer⁹ and not weeral 7 tis yoghurt en niet yughurt (.) it’s yogurt and not yughurt (.) 8 INT2 °°ah ja (.) yughurt°° °°ah yes(.)yughurt °° 9 FAT en(.) en allez en diejen and (.) and well and he 10 (h)ad dan zo echt da(t) waren denkik really had then those were i think 11 vijftien à twintig A4-bladzijden fifteen to twenty A4 pages 12 vol me(t) het is da(t) en nie(t) da(t) (.) full of it’s this and not that (.) 13 INT2 ah ja ah yes

Although this is not a topic the father initiated himself, as it comes from a very explicit question about his experience with taalzuivering (“language purification”) at school, it is clear that the father has a keen interest in this topic as he begins a long monologue about his experiences. His long narrative follows Labov and Waletzky’s (1967) canonical narrative structure, starting with an orientation (lines 1-3), where the father orients the conversation toward his high school Dutch teacher. In line 3, he begins the complicating action, which focuses on the section of this teacher’s class that dealt with “correct” language use, in which he quickly moves to listing examples of standard-nonstandard word pairs that he learned in school (lines 6-7). The fact that he still remembers these words and other details like the A4 pages they were printed on (lines 11-12) is used to demonstrate his thorough knowledge of SD, which already hints at his confidence regarding this matter. This emotion comes to the fore even more clearly in Excerpt 3b, which immediately follows Excerpt 3a:

Excerpt 3b

14 FAT en sindsdien let ik daar ook wel op and since then i also do pay attention to that 15 INT2 ah dus u vindt dat wel belangrijk ah so you do find that important 16 FAT ja (.) ((zucht)) ondanks het feit yes (.) ((sigh)) despite the fact 17 da(t) ik liever dialect spreek that i’d rather be speaking dialect 18 vind ik het toch belangrijk da(t) ge eigenlijk (.) i still find it important that you actually (.) 19 in bepaalde situaties da(t) als ge dan uw best doe(t) om in certain situations that if you¹⁰ then do your best to 20 het juist te doen (.) het ook juist doe(t) en nie(t) (.) do it the right way (.) really do it right and not (.) 21 INT2 ah ja ja ja ah yeah yeah yeah 22 FAT ((zucht)) zo hey ik ben kei:: chic be::zig (.) ((sigh)) all like hey i’m rea::lly do::ing a good job (.) 23 INT2 ((lach)) ((laugh)) 24 FAT weeral (.) weeral (.) 25 INT2 ja yes 26 FAT da(t) wringt dan bij mij then that doesn’t sit right with me

Confidence really starts coming to the fore explicitly through the word choice and prosodic stress from line 14 onward, in the resolution of the story. There, he states that these lessons on standard language from almost two decades ago have really stuck with him (‘en sindsdien let ik daar ook wel op’/ and since then I really pay attention to that). He is then asked if adhering to language norms is important to him (line 15), which initiates the evaluation, where he explains in very certain terms that knowing and speaking SD is important, even if he feels some dialect pride (lines 17-18). Interestingly, the father’s confidence is further underlined by his—rather unexpected in this context—expression of dialect pride (lines 19-20) where he refers to the fact that he would rather be speaking dialect but chooses not to. It is exactly by presenting his use of SD as a choice that he makes despite his preference for dialect, that he strongly expresses his confident stance in this respect.

This is further underscored in lines 20-25, where he begins a new and contrasting hypothetical narrative (Van De Mieroop, 2021), where he expresses his disapproval of people who fail to speak SD consistently and sincerely. He first uses reported speech (Buttny, 1997) to imitate people who try and fail to speak SD, thereby painting them as ignorant, using the emblematic nonstandard word ‘weeral’/again, which he recalled explicitly in line 6. He follows this imitation with one of the most explicit references to emotion in this data set- (‘da(t) wringt dan bij mij’/then that doesn’t sit right with me in line 26). This annoyance with the false confidence of others thinking they are using SD the right way while using the “wrong” words shows the intensity and certainty of his confidence. This stands in contrast to his wife’s insecurity about FLP, and the feelings she projects on her husband. Thus, though both caregivers seem to agree that SD use is important in their FLP, the father feels confident about his ability to speak SD, while the mother feels the opposite emotion, insecurity, in addition to shame, while anticipating the same from the father.

In Excerpt 4, we see how the conflict between the mother’s insecurity and shame and the father’s confidence contributes to the emergence of another emotion related to the SD-based FLP.

Excerpt 4

1 INT1 en corrigeren jullie and do you correct 2 elkaar dan soms ook? (.) each other then sometimes too? (.) 3 MOT ahh ik [corr ahh i [corr 4 INT1 [allez vooral in [well like especially in 5 het bij::zijn van ↑kinderen the pre::sence of ↑children 6 MOT ((lach)) hohoho ((laugh)) whoawhoawhoa 7 (.) dus axel diejen doe(t) (.) (.) so axel he does (.) 8 INT1 ((lach)) ((laugh)) 9 MOT dieje corrigeert (h)eel den tijd (.) he corrects me all the time (.) 10 INT1 ((lach)) ((laugh)) 11 MOT en das echt nie(t) te doen das soms and that’s really unbearable that’s sometimes 12 echt op t enerverenden af (.) really almost irritating (.) 13 INT1 oei geez

It is noticeable that the mother takes a question about both parents correcting each other and reformulates it from oriented to her own behavior (I in line 3) to that of her husband (Axel in line 7) after the interviewer overlaps and gives in the presence of children as a context where this might happen. Thus, when the question is worded more specifically and the mother has had more time to consider what is being asked, she refers only to the father when she thinks of correcting language. When sketching this situation, the initial laughter (line 6), the pauses (lines 7 and 9) and the emphasis on all in line 9 result in a dramatic effect, adding extra weight to the mother’s description. Her laughter is mirrored by the interviewer (line 11), but then the mother switches to a more serious frame from line 11 onwards to express her annoyance with the father’s habit of correcting in lines 11–12. The choice of the words unbearable and irritating, as well as the prosodic stress on these words (cf. Goodwin et al., 2012: 22), and the double use of the intensifier really, all express and emphasize this feeling of annoyance. It is interesting that she softens the second use of really in line 12 (cf. almost). This may show some awareness of how negative and intensely emotional her word choice is in talking to an unfamiliar interviewer. Nevertheless, the interviewer does primarily appear to notice the negativity in the response (cf. her response in line 13), emically demonstrating that the sensitive nature of this topic is foregrounded.

Interestingly, when this topic arises in the father’s interview, his reaction corroborates the sensitivity of this issue among the caregivers in this family. In particular, the father claims that when he corrects the mother, he says, ‘I get the word know-it-all hurled at my head’,¹¹ which, through the verb choice clearly reflects the mother’s feelings of annoyance. Finally, the lexical choice for the particular reproach — viz., know—it—all — also reinforces the confidence expressed by the father before in his competence regarding correct language use. So, by invoking this particular reproach, he is also, in a way, agreeing with the notion that he, in fact, knows it all.

Dinner table speech

When we turn to see how these caregivers’ contrasting emotions toward a norm-oriented FLP play out in practice, the language usage data in Table 4 instead show striking similarities between the two caregivers. There were far more SD pronouns in this family than in the previous family, particularly in child-directed speech. The mother used significantly more standard pronouns when speaking with children (χ²(df = 1, N = 345) = 61.12, p < .0001), with a large effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.429). The same is true for the father (χ²(df = 1, N = 273) = 59.38, p < .0001; Cramer’s V = 0.478). This reflects the fact that both caregivers have rather strong views on FLP and the importance of SD, even though they are subject to fairly contrasting emotions.

Table 4.

Standard and nonstandard pronouns in CDS and ADS for Family2.

Speaker	Addressee	Nonstandard pronouns	Standard pronouns	% Standard prounouns
Father F1	Adult	34	1	2.9 %
Father F1	Child	67	171	71.8 %
Mother F1	Adult	52	3	5.5 %
Mother F1	Child	105	185	63.8 %

Discussion and conclusion

The macro-level policy debate on Belgian Dutch and associated emotions seem to affect micro-level policy in these two families in quite different ways. Both caregivers in Family1 mostly expressed pride in local nonstandard varieties and (sometimes deliberate) indifference toward the macro-level debates and a strict, norm-oriented FLP, despite the mother using more Standard Dutch pronouns. In Family2, we instead found a conflict between the mother’s shame and insecurity and the father’s confidence, which surprisingly resulted in relatively unified switch patterns, where both caregivers used far more standard pronouns and more extensive adaptations in child-directed speech.

There are a few ways this research could be expanded upon in the future to provide more support for these initial findings. First, interview recordings that contain video would allow for further contextualizing responses using observable visual phenomena like gesture and eye gaze. Second, it would be useful to study more than just one highly salient sociolinguistic variable in the quantitative analyses. Third, it could be revealing to delve (even) deeper into the personal history of caregivers with language variation and standardization, to better grasp the similarities and differences in ideologies found in this paper. Fourth, it could examine more families, as this case study only dealt with two families that met specific criteria.

Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the two families presented in this study already reveals some interesting patterns. First, we attested each of the emotions we anticipated to find, pride, shame, confidence, and insecurity, alongside clear expressions of a lack of emotion (indifference), with annoyance or irritation appearing as additional emotions. When comparing mothers and fathers, both harmony (Family1) and disharmony (Family2) between caregivers is attested. The multivarietal Belgian Dutch setting thus seems to engender similar positive, negative, and indifferent emotional stances toward certain language practices in FLP as multilingual situations (cf. Obojska, 2018 and del Puy Ciriza, 2019) and hence seems to be a critical site where policies are negotiated, as suggested by Curdt-Christiansen and Gao (2021). These similarities can be linked up with caregivers’ description of the Belgian Dutch context in diglossic rather than diaglossic terms. In the interviews, parents typically distinguish between separate L- and H-varieties (Auer, 2011), steering clear of the diaglossic gray area in between. As such, clear parallels can arise in caregivers’ reflections in multivarietal and multilingual contexts. More research is of course needed to fully grasp caregivers’ perceptions of the Belgium Dutch stratum and of the features they associate with the varieties they identify (though see Lybaert, 2014, and Ghyselen & De Vogelaer, 2018), and to better understand the origin of the different ideologies and emotions reflected in both the interviews and the actual linguistic practices. For one thing, it appears that schooling leaves important traces on ideologies and emotions for the father of Family2, and it might also further help explain the stronger norm orientation of the mother of Family1, who is a teacher.¹²

In methodological terms, our findings demonstrate the value of using data triangulation for FLP research. Without the interview data, we would not be able to uncover caregivers’ metalinguistic reflection on their child-directed speech, and without studying the actual speech, we would not have been able to uncover if caregivers’ behavior in practice coincided or contrasted with their interview responses. Crucially, where some caregivers show remarkably similar patterns in either interview or usage data, the comparison of both reveals differences for other caregivers.

We hope these promising insights serve as an incentive for future studies, further illuminating the way caregivers inherit, alter and/or transmit emotions and ideologies in complex multilingual and multivarietal language situations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: from FWO Flanders for the research presented in this article (G072819N).

ORCID iD

Eline Zenner

Notes

Author biographies

Lars Naborn was involved as a researcher at KU Leuven, as a member of the research groups Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics (QLVL) and Multimodality, Interaction and Discourse (MIDI). He holds a master’s degree from North Carolina State University. His research at KU Leuven focused on language variation and attitudes, and discourse analysis.

Dorien Van De Mieroop is professor at KU Leuven, Belgium. Her main research interests lie in the discursive analysis of institutional interactions and of narratives, about which she published 30 + articles in international peer-reviewed journals and co-authored/edited a few books. She is co-editor of the journal Narrative Inquiry.

Eline Zenner is associate professor at KU Leuven, Belgium. Eline’s work focuses on the usage-based analysis of contact-induced variation and change, with a prominent focus on the way children (and adults) acquire the social meaning of language variation. Her research particularly focuses on the Dutch linguascape, analyzing both the influence of English on Dutch and the tensions resulting from the Dutch standardization process.

References

Auer

(2011). Dialect vs. standard: A typology of scenarios in Europe. In Kortmann

van der Auwera

(Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe (pp. 485–500). De Gruyter Mouton.

Buttny

(1997). Reported speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 477–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00407.x

Chevrot

J.-P.

Beaud

Varga

(2000). “Developmental data on a French sociolinguistic variable: Post-consonantal word-final /R/.” Language Variation and Change, 12, 295–319.

Couper-Kuhlen

(2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 113–146). Oxford University Press.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8, 351–375.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

Gao

(Eds.). (2021). Family language policy and planning in China: The changing langscape. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(4), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1819049

Debrabandere

(2005). Het echec van de ABN-actie in Vlaanderen [The failure of the Standard Dutch- action in Flanders]. Nederlands van nu, 53(1), 27–31.

De Houwer

. (2003). Language variation and local elements in family discourse. Language Variation and Change, 15, 329–349.

Delarue

(2013). Teacher’s Dutch in Flanders: The last guardians of the standard? In Grondelaers

Kristiansen

(Eds.), Language (de)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental studies (pp. 193–226). Novus.

10.

del Puy Ciriza

M. P

. (2019). Towards a parental muda for new Basque speakers: Assessing emotional factors and language ideologies. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(4), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12363

11.

De Schutter

. (2022). Personality and territoriality in theory and in Belgium. Language Problems and Language Planning, 45(2), 218–238.

12.

De Sutter

Grondelaers

Delarue

. (2017, November 13). Het verkrampte standaardtaalideaal. [The contorted standard language ideal]. MO*- Mondiaal Nieuws. https://www.mo.be/opinie/het-verkrampte-standaardtaalideaal

13.

De Vogelaer

. (2008). De Nederlandse en Friese subjectsmarkeerders: geografie, typologie en diachronie [The Dutch and Frisean subject markers: geography, typology and diachrony]. Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.

14.

Galmiche

(2017). Shame and SLA. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 11(2), 25–53.

15.

Garrett

(2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844713

16.

Geeraerts

(2001a). Een zondagspak? Het Nederlands in Vlaanderen: gedrag, beleid, attitudes [A sunday suit? Dutch in Flanders: behavior, policy, attitudes]. Ons Erfdeel, 45(3), 399–411.

17.

Geeraerts

(2001b). Everyday language in the media: The case of Belgian Dutch soap series. In Kammerer

Konerding

K.-P.

Lehr

Storrer

Thimm

Wolski

(Eds.), Sprache im Alltag: Beiträge zu neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik Herbert Ernst Wiegand zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet [Language in Everyday Life: Contributions to New Perspectives in Linguistics – Dedicated to Herbert Ernst Wiegand on his 65th Birthday] (pp. 281–291). Walter de Gruyter.

18.

Ghyselen

A.-S.

De Vogelaer

(2013). The impact of dialect loss on the acceptance of tussentaal: The special case of West-Flanders in Belgium. In Kristiansen

Grondelaers

(Eds.), Language (de) (pp. 153–170). Novus.

19.

Ghyselen

A.-S.

De Vogelaer

(2018). Seeking systematicity in variation: Theoretical and methodological considerations on the “variety” concept. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 385.

20.

Gibson

(2018). A pragmatic investigation into the emotions of pride, shame, guilt, humiliation, and embarrassment: Lived experience and the challenge to established theory. Social Science Information, 57(4), 616–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018418810814329–349

21.

Goodwin

M. H.

Cekaite

(2012). Emotion as stance. In Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–42). Oxford University Press.

22.

Grondelaers

Van Hout

(2011). The standard language situation in the low countries: Top-down and bottom-up variations on a diaglossic theme. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 23(3), 199–243.

23.

Haakana

(2012). Laughter in conversation: The case of “fake” laughter. In Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 174–195). Oxford University Press.

24.

Hoey

E. M.

(2014). Sighing in interaction: Somatic, semiotic, and social. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900229

25.

Jaspers

Van Hoof

(2013). Hyperstandardisation in Flanders: Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics, 23(2), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.2.06jas

26.

Jiang

Dewaele

J. M.

(2019). Language anxiety in Chinese dialects and Putonghua among college students in mainland China: The effects of sociobiographical and linguistic variables. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1515213

27.

King

K. A.

Fogle

Logan-Terry

(2008). Family language policy. Linguistics and Language Compass, 2(5), 907–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x

28.

Labov

Waletzky

(1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Helm

(Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). University of Washington Press.

29.

Lybaert

(2014). Het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: percepties en attitudes van een spraakmakende generatie [Spoken Dutch in Flanders: perceptions and attitudes of a high-profile generation] [Unpublished PhD manuscript]. Universiteit Gent.

30.

Lybaert

(2017). A direct discourse-based approach to the study of language attitudes: The case of tussentaal in Flanders. Language Sciences, 59, 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.002

31.

Milroy

(2002). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163

32.

Miyake

(1995). A dialect in the face of the standard: A Japanese case study. In Proceedings of the annual society, Berkeley linguistics (pp. 217–225). https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/view/1385

33.

Obojska

(2018). Between duty and neglect: Language ideologies and stancetaking among Polish adolescents in Norway. Lingua, 208, 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.03.009

34.

Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(2012a). Epilogue: What does the study of interaction offer to emotion research? In Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 274–289). Oxford University Press.

35.

Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(2012b). Introduction. In Peräkyla

Sorjonen

M.-L.

(Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press.

36.

Piller

(2001). Private language planning: The best of both worlds? Estudios de Sociolingüística: Linguas, Sociedades e Culturas, 2(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v2i1.61

37.

Plevoets

(2008). Tussen spreek-en standaardtaal: Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands [Between colloquial and standard language: A corpus-based study of the situational, regional and social distribution of some morphosyntactic phenomena from spoken Belgian Dutch] [Unpublished PhD manuscript]. KU Leuven.

38.

Postareff

Lindblom-Ylänne

(2011). Emotions and confidence within teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 799–813.

39.

Preston

(2018). Language regard: What, why, how, whither? In Evans

Benson

Stanford

(Eds.), Language regard: Methods, variation and change (pp. 3–28). Cambridge University Press.

40.

Ricento

(2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00111

41.

Ross

A. S.

Stracke

(2016). Learner perceptions and experiences of pride in second language education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.3.04ros

42.

Schalley

A. C.

Eisenchlas

S. A.

(Eds.). (2020). Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors. Mouton de Gruyter.

43.

Sevinç

Backus

(2017). Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an immigrant context: A vicious circle? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1306021

44.

Smith

Durham

Richards , H. (2013). The social and linguistic in the acquisition of sociolinguistic norms: Caregivers, children, and variation. Linguistics, 51(2), 285–324.

45.

Spolsky

(2012). Family language policy: The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072

46.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506

47.

Truesdale

D. M.

Pell

M. D.

(2018). The sound of Passion and Indifference. Speech Communication, 99, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2018.03.007

48.

Vandekerckhove

(2005). Belgian Dutch versus Netherlands Dutch: New patterns of divergence ? On pronouns of address and diminutives. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 24, 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2005.24.4.379

49.

Van De Mieroop

(2021). The narrative dimensions model and an exploration of various narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 31(1), 4–27.

50.

Van Mensel

. (2016). Children and choices: The effect of macro language policy on the individual agency of transnational parents in Brussels. Language Policy, 15(4), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9391-x

51.

Van De Mieroop

Zenner

Marzo

(2016). Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of address: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae, 50 (1), 31–64.

52.

Verhulst

(2012, August 31). Het volk dat Nederlands weigert te leren. [The people that refused to learn Dutch]. De Morgen. https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/dimitri-verhulst-het-volk-dat-nederlands-weigert-te-leren~bb2c544f/

53.

Zenner

Van De Mieroop

(2021). The alternation between standard and vernacular by Belgian Dutch parents in child-oriented control acts. In: Ghimenton

Nardy

Chevrot

J-P.

(Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation and language acquisition across the lifespan, (52-80). (Studies in Language Variation). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN: 9789027209078.