208

CASE STIIDY 5: Cultural Vitality and Creativity: The "Dutch Language Union"

1. One of the most recent and also strongest signs of cultural vitality and creativity in TheNetherlands (in the largest sense of that name, viz. "The Low Countries") has been the installmentof the "Nederlandse Taalunie" ["Dutch Language Union"], as a consequence of the "Verdragtussen het Koninkrijk Belgie en het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden inzake de Nederlandse Taalunie"["Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning theDutch Language Union] which was signed in Brussels on 9 September 1980 and the instrumentsof ratification of which were exchanged in The Hague on27 January 198216. The text reads that"His Majesty the King of the Belgians and Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands ... havedecided the installment of a union in the field of the Dutch language"17.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate why this has to be considered a very strong sign ofcultural vitality and creativity in The Netherlands, by explaining the unique character of this treatyas far as international cultural and linguistic relations are concerned. In order to do so I will startwith a short expose ofthe historic development of language planning in the Low Countries, thenconcentrate on the language planning mechanisms devised by the "Taalunie"18 and conclude withsome ideas as to the future development and possible applications elsewhere.

2. Historical survey

In order to fully understand the Treaty one needs to be informed about the nature of therelationship between Dutch speaking people on both sides of the Dutch-Belgian border. First ofall it should be remembered that the Dutch language community was undivided until the 17thcentury. Although there was some political separation due to feudal division in the Middle Ages,when different parts were owned by different lords, the whole of the Dutch communitynevertheless constituted a more or less homogeneous linguistic and cultural unity in which thedialect boundaries did not correspond to present-day national frontiers. As a consequence of theBurgundian unification policy all the Netherlands constituted a very strong politically, culturallyand linguistically united country in the 16th century (Willemyns 1995).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish provinces in the so-called Low Countries were prominent not onlyin the political and economic but also in the cultural field. Consequently, the language variety ofthese southern provinces was the prestige one and could have been expected to become the mostimportant component of a growing supra-regional standard language.

16 The ofiicial text of the treaty is published in "De Nederlandse Taalunie" ('s-Gravenhage:Staatsuitgeverij 1980). p. 9-15. A French translation of the text is to be found in Govaert(1982), an English translation of the main clauses in Willemyns (1984).

t7 "Zijne Majesteit de Koning der Belgen en Hare Majesteit de Koningin der Nederlanden... hebben besloten tot de instelling van een unie op het gebied van de Nederlandse taal"

18 "Taalunie" will be used to refer to the institution created by the Treaty and "NTU" willbe used as an abbreviation.

209

This evolution, however, was interrupted and the fate of Dutch has been directly influenced bythe following three historical events (Willemyns 1992):

-the splitting up of the Dutch language community in the early 17th century, politicallyseparating present-day Holland and Belgium;

-the fact that the latter part has been occupied and governed by foreign rulers (Spanish,Austrian and French successively) from the early 17th to the early 19th century;

-the emergence of an independent Belgian state in 1830 .

2.1The period directly preceding the political split of the Dutch language territory (second halfofthe i6th century) was the period in which language standardization gradually took shape (Vanden Branden 1956) and it could, therefore, be expected that the falling apart into two politicallyseparated entities would have dramatic consequences, the more so since the direction of ongoingstandardization also changed as a result of the political evolution. The center of gravity ofstandardization passed from the South to the North mainly because the North (more or less thepresent-day Netherlands) came out victoriously and as an independent nation from the war againstthe Spanish rulers. The South (present-day Belgium) remained under Spanish rule, underwent aneconomic and cultural decline and was soon ruled out as far as its influence on the evolution ofStandard Dutch was concerned (De Vries, Willemyns & Burger 1993).

An important part of the political and cultural elite having fled to the North, the Dutch communityin the South was deprived of its leaders and its language variety could only survive on a dialecticallevel, the more so since the affairs of state were run, by the successive foreign governors, inFrench which definitely became the prestige language of the nation . Dutch remained the vehicularlanguage of the majority of the population but only in its dialectical form and under asuperstructure of French as the language of culture (Willemyns 1992).

2.2. I shall now highlight some ofthe efforts made in both parts ofthe Dutch language communityto minimize the consequences of centrifugal tendencies. These efforts towards culturalintegration can be exemplified by three interesting language planning developments (Willemynsle88).

- The North having become a protestant state, was badly in need of an appropriatetranslation of the Bible. The commission appointed to this end was very carefullycomposed of members representing all dialect regions from the South as well as from theNorth. The language of the resulting Statenbijbel (Bible of the States, 1637), actuallycreated for the purpose, carefully combined northern and southern characteristics andbecame the basis of the northern written language and writing tradition, thus preventingnorthern and southern varieties of the language of growing too far apart (De Vries,Willemyns & Burger 1993,82-87).

- From the beginning of the 18th century onwards there appeared to be great need for acomprehensive dictionary of Dutch and here also we witness constant negotiations

2t0

between northem and southern scholars on how to start and accomplish this project. Thereal work only started some 100 years later, sponsored by the Linguistic and LiteraryCongress bringing together writers and scholars from the Netherlands and Belgium ona regular basis. Serious editing started in 1851 and the Woordenboek derNederlandsche Taal can be considered the second major project aiming at closer culturalintegration of both parts of the Dutch language community (Moerdijk 1994).

- A third initiative very essential to language unity is the mutual concern for orthography.The Dutch speaking people have a tradition of regular orthographic reforms. From thebeginning of the 19th century onwards it was acknowledged that reforms neededadministrative approval and reinforcement and we witness governmental action tomaintain orthographic uniformity in both countries. Three or four ofiicial reforms andalmost as many attempts made it a difficult task to secure this uniformity which wasnevertheless always maintained. This, by the way, was the first mutual language planningaction taken by ofiicial bodies on both sides of the border (Couvreur 1975).

These three examples show that there has been a constant desire for cooperation and integrationin spite of political separation. Yet language planning from 1830 onwards was going to be of acompletely different nature, viz. much more unilateral, a consequence of the fact that theintegrational effort was always stronger in the South than in the North.

2.3.In 1830 Belgium became an independent constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary systemdominated by the bourgeois elite for which French was a natural choice. Although the constitutionproclaimed that the use of language was to be free (Lorwin 1972), in reality French was the onlylanguage used in administration and indeed in public life in general in both the French and theDutch-speaking parts of the country. Yet, this had been preceded by a short reunion of Belgiumand Holland as one United Kingdom of the Netherlands. This union, although short-lived, wasof the utmost importance to the Flemings who suddenly rediscovered their language foradministration, politics, court and education, areas where it had not been used for almost twocenturies. Especially a small group of Flemish cultural leaders and intellectuals was very muchinfluenced by both the Dutch standard language and the new linguistic opportunities. After 1830they were to form the hard nucleus of the so-called Flemish Movement, a cultural pressure grouptrying to secure linguistic and cultural rights for the Dutch language in the young Belgian state. Their views on language evolution and the way it could possibly be planned was entirelydominated by the political goals they wanted to achieve. Language planning indeed was not anaim in itself but only a means in a much broader plan. It appeared very soon that to obtainlinguistic rights for Dutch-speakers was only possible by the means of a linguistic legislation whichonly could be brought about by enhancing the prestige of the language. At the same timeincreased linguistic rights for Dutch speakers was a necessary condition for the language plannersmentioned to obtain a position in which they could at all hope to influence language development.

Several problems emerged simultaneously, one of them being that the Dutch language as it hadbeen preserved in 19th century Belgium was not at all prepared to assume the functions itsadvocates had in mind. It needed standardization, it needed to be transformed into a tool fit toperform all the functions a language has to perform in a modern, industrialized state. Thesituation, therefore, was theoretically favorable for language planning activities, because linguistic

2tt

systems have a tendency to adapt to changing communicative needs, brought about by societalchange, Since, however, similar adaptations usually occur with some retardation there is plentyof room and time for language planners to try to interfere.

Among those who displayed this willingness two factions may be discerned: those advocating astandard language development on the basis of the local varieties, i.e. domestic standardization,called particularists, and those insisting that the northern model should be followed and that, inother words, the Flemings should take over as much as possible the standard language as italready existed in the North. They were called the integrationists and after a few decades ofstruggle it clearly appeared that the integrationist solution was victorious, a victory that was nevermore to be challenged afterwards. One ofthe reasons for this victory was undoubtedly a politicalone: the only possibility for successfully repelling the competition of French - it was felt - was theelaboration of a language that could be accepted as being the same as the one used in TheNetherlands, in order to profit domestically from the prestige the language had acquired abroad(Willemyns 1993)!

The strategy used to convince the population was quite simple and straightforward and indeedthe same as the one used before to beat the particularist adversaries. if you want rights for yourlanguage (and for those who speak it) you should use the prestige variety which, in the course ofcenturies, has only been preserved in Holland. To adopt it now means only to gain repossessionof the heritage which has always been there for you to collect!

It is obvious that this action was essentially of an ideological nature, appealing to political feelingswhich, as years went on, grew more and more intense in large portions of the population. Theresults of this first period of language planning in modern Belgium are, therefore, essentially ofan attitudinal nature, trylng to convince the population that they ought to speak the same languageas their northern neighbors. Attempts to bring actual performance in line with the convictions andattitudes sta(ed from about 1930, the year the first Dutch language university in Belgium openedits doors.

Dutch in Belgium had, obviously, been used in writing before i930 and, therefore, a partialdomestic standardization had occurred drawing essentially on three resources: the writtenlanguage as handed down from the Middle Ages, the local dialects and French, the language allBelgians were permanently in contact with. In the eyes of the second generation of languageplanners Flemings had to abandon most ofthat and preferably in the reversed order of what I justmentioned. Especially French influence had to be banned. It is no coincidence that the first majorcorpus planning publication in Flanders, Peeters' Nederlandsche Taalgids was subtitled Lexiconof Belgicisms, since it was meant to provide language users with "good", i.e. northern equivalentsfor the countless gallicisms, i.e. French influenced words and expressions the Flemings hadadopted in their language in the course of many centuries. Yet, the lack of direct and frequentcontact with the Netherlands made the implementation of the northern norm a precarious anddifEcult problem. The practical obstacles, for one, were so huge that it was only after World WarII that substantial success could be expected and actually occurred. The popularization of radioand, afterwards, television was undoubtedly the first major means helping to overcome practicalproblems and another one was the massive "entrance into battle" of almost all Flemish linguists.Especially in the sixties and seventies the Flemings were not only constantly exposed to thenorthern norm in the media, but the Flemish media also contributed actively by giving linguists

2t2

the opportunity of addressing the audience and of spreading their views. All radio and televisionchannels and almost every newspaper had a daily column, resp.. prime time program to helpFlemings to gain proficiency in the standard language which was, as was constantly repeated,their own. Most of these programs were of the "do not say ... but say ..."-kind. Following thecolumn title of one of the prestigious newspapers all of these activities were called languagegardening and mostly the gardeners were established linguists and university professors. Theresults of this combined effort were quite amazing since apparently one succeeded in what is avery tough and unusual task, viz. to provide almost an entire population in a couple of decadeswith a more or less new language or, to put it more conectly, with a hardly known variety of theirown language.

Before analyztngthe mechanism in itself and the real impact it had another unusual factor shouldbe stressed, viz. that this massive language planning effort was performed with almost no officialgovernment backing. Although is must be understood that this integrational policy was morallysupported by the entire cultural establishment one could hardly mention any governmental actionto officially endorse what was going on and the main effort was performed via private initiative.

As a result of the historical evolution mentioned above the use of regional dialects in Flanderswas, and to a certain extent still is, very popular. Banning dialects, then, meant to persuade over90 % of the population to give up the language variety they were used to speak in all informal andeven in many more or less formal situations (Willemyns 1987).

Unexpected consequences of language planning on the macro level are definitely matched on themicro level. In order to adapt performance to the northern norm as urged in the massivecampaign mentioned above, the Flemish standard language learner had to come to grips withpronunciation, lexical aspects and morphological and syntactic problems.

- Pronunciation is undoubtedly the aspect which caused the least trouble. Flemings areprogressively abandoning their habit of regarding the spelling as the ultimate norm ofpronunciation and convergence towards the northern norm is almost complete (Goossens1973,1985; Cassier-Van de Craen i986) except for some prosodic features no one everurged to abandon (Willemyns 1987).

- In the lexical field a similar convergence is under its way, albeit that this evolution is notgoing as smoothly. Lexical standardization being one of the prominent sociolinguisticissues investigated during the past decades, we know that tenacious and often bitterdiscussions are and have been held on the amount of southern vocabulary that ought tobe retained or even introduced into the general norrn. Vocabulary is undoubtedly whatappeals most of all to the imagination of the public and lexical change hardly ever passesunnoticed. The controversy in general is a symptom oflinguistic insecurity which is, itselfa hardly avoidable characteristic of rapid change. Another interesting example of linguisticinsecurity is to be found in

- the morphological field. Morphological and syntactic problems as a result of languageplanning have hardly been investigated so far and the same goes for north-south variationin this field in general. A notorious exception, though, is the discussion on the pronominalsystem with respect to the forms of address. Most southern dialects have a one-pronoun

213

system of address, as opposed to the T-V distinction in Standard Dutch. For a long timeand in spite of corpus planning efforts, this one-pronoun system remained characteristicin the standard language of many southerners to the extent that it was sometimesconsidered to be a core value of southern language use (Pauwels 1954). Yet, thecampaign of the sixties and seventies succeeded in even taking this well defendedstronghold. Yet, replacing a one-pronoun system by a T-V system is not only a matter ofattitude and goodwill but may lead to practical problems even for those who made thetheoretical decision to adopt the northern system (Deprez-Geerts 1977).

2.4. Summarizing, it is clear that the specific type of language planning (of an unofiicial nature)tryrng to conform southern language habits to northern standards has a long tradition in Dutch-speaking Belgium. After a period of status planning with mainly attitudinal purposes there hasbeen a relatively short, but very intense and massive campaign in the field of corpus planning.From the viewpoint of its advocates it may undoubtedly be regarded as very successful and therecan be no doubt that language standardization, as a continuous movement towards the northernnorm (Van de Craen-Willemyns 1988) is proceeding steadily, be it often also unconsciously,

3. Offrcial contacts between The Netherlands and Belgium.

3. 1. Dutch being the mother tongue and vehicular language of some 630/o of the Belgianpopulation it would seem altogether natural for the Belgian government to be concerned with itspromotion and to be anxious to remain in permanent contact with the government of theNetherlands. As the preceding survey reveals, the Belgian government has for a long time beenhostile to the language of the majority of its subjects and this has limited similar contacts untilafter World War II, when the "Convention on the Cultural and Intellectual Relations" betweenboth countries was ratifiedle. It has always been the ultimate goal of the Flemings to associate theDutch to their efforts and this has often proven to be a tough job. The conclusion of the "CulturalTreaty" has been acclaimed as a first step in the desire for integration2o but it was undoubtedly the"Taalunieverdrag" which has been felt to be the consecration of these efforts. The Treaty indeedinstalled De Nederlandse Taalunie, an international body, to which both the Dutch and theBelgian (and eventually the Flemish) government have delegated what are usually considered tobe their own prerogatives, i.e. to decide autonomously on linguistic and cultural affairs.Consequently both governments are no longer responsible for the matters which are now underthe jurisdiction of the supranational Taalunie. In the field of international law the status of theTaalunie is very much similar to that of e.g. the European Community meaning that althoughrepresentatives of the different countries are involved, the decision-making is the prerogative ofthe international body itself and its decrees are compulsory for every member-state. To my

re complete text in Govaert (1982).

2o On xx January 1995 this Cultural Treaty has been replaced by a new one, this timeconcluded between the Government of the Netherlands and the autonomous Government ofFlanders, to which the constitutional reform had granted the right to conclude treaties withforeign nations.

214

knowledge this is the only incidence of such an international body in the field of language,literature and culture.

3.2. The Treaty of Linguistic Union.

3.2.1. The explanatory Statement ("Memorie van toelichting")" states, among other things:

"Although the political separation which in 1648 has divided the Dutch language area intotwo parts has neither broken down nor totally weakened the language unity, it has causeda disintegration, extremely prejudicial to the proper usage of Dutch as the mutualvehicular language. In order to remedy this situation many private as well as official stepshave been taken, particularly in recent decades. Although these efforts were undoubtedlysuccessful it was nevertheless felt that to enforce linguistic unity there needed to be a legalframework. Thanks to the enlightened intellectual climate in both countries and to recentdevelopment in Belgian legislation22 it has now been made possible to set up the requiredframework".

The commission which had the task of preparing the Treaty felt that for the two governments tofurther the promotion of Dutch culture it was necessary to "create a climate in which this culture,free of political frontiers, could give birth to appropriate structures and mutual institutionsintended to be both the reflection of its unity and the instrument of its development". Thecommission thus advocating linguistic, literary and cultural integration made the followingstatement:

"Based on real unity beyond political separation, the aim should be to achieve recognitionand acceptance of this unity [i.e. of Dutch language and culture] in all classes of thepopulation in the North and in the South as well as beyond the borders of the Dutchlanguage territory"

and thus accounts for the intentions as well as lor the concrete form it eventually assumed.

3.2.2.Bothgovernments agreed with the propositions of the commission, expressing hopes thatits realization would "favor and reinforce, both with reference to cooperation between theircountries and their mutual relations with foreign countries, the unity of language and literaturewhich had for so long been endangered by political separation". The uniqueness of this treaty lies,among other things, in the fact that the two governments solemnly declare that in all mattersconcerning the Dutch language neither can claim preeminence, declaring that "unilateral decisionscan only be prejudicial", since "the Dutch language constitutes an indivisible cultural heritage forall Dutch speakers and an irreplaceable means of social, cultural and literary communication

2r The text of which is published in "De Nederlandse Taalunie" ('s-Gravenhage:Staatsuitgeverij 1980), p. 17-32.

22 reference is made here to the constitutional change of 1980

215

within the two nations and between them". Such an unequivocal statement in this field seldomoccurs and the two governments appear to be well aware of it since they declare themselves tobe "conscious that the consolidation of the unity of the Dutch language community by means ofa treaty between the two countries involved is to be considered something totaily new ininternational relations". In fact it rarely happens that governments willingly give up any right ofprimogeniture stating that "not only should there be a common policy in the field of DutchIanguage and literature but, more important still, this policy should be mutually agreed upon asthe only possible one". This seems to be an absolutely indispensable attitude for any languageplanning activity of this kind.

3.2.3. The Treaty, art.Z says, aims at :

" integrating as far as possible the Netherlands and the Dutch speaking community ofBelgium in the field ofthe Dutch language and literature in the broadest sense" and "aimsat a responsible use of the Dutch language, especially in education and in officialcommunications"

and both parties

-" wish to promote the Dutch language and literature and to stress the necessity that bydoing so the unity of the language should be taken into particular consideration".

This constitutes a considerable shift of responsibilities from both governments to the internationalbody. In art. 4 it is decided to create and maintain joint institutions and to let the Taalunie fix theorthography and the official grammar of the language. Attention must also be drawn to theintention ol both parties to "determine a uniform terminology for legislation and ofticialpublications" which is indeed rare and difficult to achieve. Rare, because it seldom occurs that twocountries agree to change their terminology, that has been established over centuries; difficultbecause juridical terminology is often related to institutions and customs peculiar to a givencountry. Frequently a change in terminology would effect a change in these institutionsthemselves.

The Treaty also stresses that "the notion of the unity of the Dutch language and literature is tobe diffi-rsed", which means that more efforts still are to be made to leveflanguage differences onboth sides of the border. Finally the Treaty states in art. 5 that the Taaluni.'r ,.rporribility willalso be to "further or organize the teaching of the Dutch language, literature and culture abioad"and to see to it that the Dutch language situation gets better known outside their borders.

3 .2.4. Institutions.

In order to be able to execute what is mentioned above the treaty decrees the creation of the

216

following mixed institutions:

- A Committee of Ministers. This committee consists of 4 ministers(2 from both countries) andthey constitute the ultimate deciding instance of the "Taalunie";

- A Parliamentary Commission, comprising MP's of both countries; they assume the normalfunctions a parliament assumes in a democracy;

- A Secretary General, the ultimate administrative body of the "Taalunie"

- A "Council for Dutch Language and Literature"; this is the real advising body consisting ofspecialists from both countries and advising on all aspects of language, literature and culture,covering such fields as linguistics, literature, translation, EU-legislation, education, editing,libraries, theatre, cinema, press, radio, television and scientific research in all of these domains.

- A new instance and instrument not mentioned in the Treaty but created in the early nineties toenhance efficient work is the so called "Beleidsoverleg", meaning that there are regular andinstitutional consultations between the secretary general on the one hand and high ranking officialsof the four ministers constituting the "Committee of Ministers" on the other hand (Beleidskader1993,15).

4. Recent achievements.

Although the Treaty was signed in 1980 real functioning started only in 1984. A lot of energy hasbeen spent to set up a competent and effective framework able to administrate what, accordingto the treaty, were the prerogatives of the NTU. A subsequent administrative effort was requiredto integrate tasks previously perlormed by both governments separately and now transferred tothe NTU. Along with some smaller transfers came the Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie("Institute for Dutch Lexicology"), the Regionale Woordenboeken ("regional dictionaries", i.e.dialect dictionaries) and the so-called "Neerlandistiek extra Muros", i.e. the stimulation of DutchDepartments at Universities Abroad. Although this transfer policy is undoubtedly going tocontinue, the real challenge for the NTU is to find ways of better "integrating the Netherlands andthe Dutch speaking community of Belgium " as art. 2 of the Treaty suggests.

Since, within the limits of this article, it is impossible to describe all the achievements of theNederlandse Taalunie so far, let alone evaluate them, I shall restrict myself to a brief enumerationof the fields in which the Taalunie has been especially active during recent years.

4.1. Language.

- continuing integration will implicate the necessity to reach and affect other social classes thanthe "intellectual elite" alone. How to meet this challenge is now being studied rather thanimplemented already.

217

- within the framework of traditional policy on "language", the commission preparing the nextorthographic reform has already issued a report, the Committee of Ministers has taken an officialdecision and within a year or so new spelling rules will be effective.

- after the publication, under NTU auspices, of the authoritative ANS (: "AlgemeneNederlandse Spraakkunst" ["General Grammar of Dutch"]) research is now funded on"grammatical norms in Dutch" and on "practical relevance of grammars". Another current projectis the production of Dutch grammars for non-native speakers. Newly initiated projects are theproduction of an electronic version of the ANS and the development of derived products of it forspecific target groups (Actieplan 1994, 12). Also a purely scientific grammar of Dutch will beproduced and published in English in order to accommodate linguists all over the world (ib.).

- the lexicographic and lexicological projects are mainly continuations of work already inprogress. This includes the bringing to an end of the "biggest dictionary of the world", the 40volume Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, of which the last volume will be published in1998 (Moerdijk 199a). Yet, the setting up of data banks and similar electronic lexicologicaldevices has progressed rapidly since the Taalunie's involvement in the matter. A totally newproject is a new and authoritative pronunciation dictionary of Dutch, the production of which issupposed to start in 1995 (Actieplan 1994,13).

- as far as the "quality of the language" is concerned, the NTU is not only continuing funding ofexisting institutions but is stimulating the research to improve language instruction in both primaryand secondary schools in both countries. Also, a professional committee was installed to adviseboth individuals and public offices on "correct" language usage on the basis of a coherent policyon language quality improvement, something that has never existed before and has been devisedby the Taalunie. We distinguish a "Taaladviesoverleg" ["Committee on language consultingpolicy"] and a "Taaladviescommissie" ["Expert Committee on language consultation"] . It is thetask of the former to "further the mutual agreement between and the professionalization of allexisting committees on language consulting. The main instrument is a data bank storing languageadvice, destined for professional usersx. The latter is a "normative committee authorized to issuethe "quality label Taalunie". This committee comprises both Flemish and Dutch linguists, mediaexperts and writers. It is an additional task of this committee to advise on a number of linguisticprojects of the Taalunie, involving normativity and language normalizationza. As far as"normativity" is concerned the NTU wants to take a rather reserved stand yet, it also wants toprovide those who ask for it with professional advise on language usage

- terminological commissions are currently working to accommodate with the part of the Treaty"to determine a uniform terminology for legislation and official publications". The"Samenwerkingsverband Nederlandse Terminologie" (SaNT) are now publishing terminologicallists in various domains, thus furthering the standardization of technical terminology in bothcountries.

23 "Annual report 1993" of the NTU.

24 ib.

218

4.2. Literature.

- Since both the production of and the policy on literature are much more in the field of privateinitiative than is language policy, the NTU is practically restricted to encouraging and fundingprojects and has less possibilities to really initiate new things. Yet, it sees to it that the ofticialpolicy of both countries in the field of literature is harmonized as much as possible and that therewill be a common policy as far as the "production, distribution and accessibility" of literature inDutch is concerned. The NTU, therefore, participates directly in subsidizing increasingly literaryexchange (ofboth authors and books) between both countries and stimulates research to promotethe integration to the maximum.

-Also "samenwerkingsverbanden" ["cooperation units"] with publishers and libraries have beeninstalled so that harmonization will not be limited to governmental policy but will also try toincorporate the policy of private enterprises. As far as the first aspect is concerned strongemphasis is put on education and the way instruction is performed and the unity of the literatureof both countries is stressed. As far as both the first and the second aspect are concerned a majoreffort has been achieved to integrate the media of both countries into this same kind of endeavor.By initiating and stimulating co-productions between networks the integrational policy will benefita great deal, the NTU believes. All other kinds of media cooperation are stimulated and itsinitiation is subsidized.

4.3. Education.

- Apart from what has been said on education in the preceding chapters the NTU is mainlyinterested in adult education and instruction where it intends to stimulate initiatives to increasemastery of and proficiency in the standard variety of the language of

a) non-natives (so-called "guest workers")b) natives with social or educational deficits

- Also a project has been initiated aiming at "leesbevordering", i.e. encouraging and increasing theeagerness to read in pupils and students of both countries. It is the NTU's policy to coordinateand stimulate initiatives taken and projected by both countries (Actieplan 1994,17).

4.4. Dutch Abroad.

- The stimulation ofDutch Programs and Departments in universities abroad has become one ofthe top priorities of the NTU. A new policy was devised to subsidize existing programs, createnew ones and stimulate or convince more and more countries and universities to enter Dutch ontheir curricula. Also a new policy will be implemented shortly in order to enlarge somedepartments as "cultural centers" and so broaden their activities in order to reach a larger public.

- The NTU stimulates the translation of Dutch literature by coordinating the activities of bothcountries in this area. As Actieplan 1994 (10) reports "this procedure has proven to be veryeffective since the number of translations of Dutch literary products in other languages hasconsiderably increased". One of the most famous examples of the NTU's firm intention to only

2r9

promote foreign initiatives in which the "unity of the Dutch literature of Flanders and theNetherlands is stressed" (Actieplan 1994, 10) has been the Frankfurter Buchmesse of 1993 wherethe "Literatur aus Flandern und den Niederlanden" constituted the "Schwerpunkt Niederliindisch".

- Other points of interest are the Certificate Dutch as a Foreign Language, the activeparticipation in the Erasmus project of the European Union and, last but not least, the instructionof Dutch in secondary schools and adult education of the so-called border regions of WestGermany and France. This policy of stimulating the diffi-rsion of Dutch abroad in and outsideuniversities has been one of the most innovating new initiatives of the NTU, the more so since adetailed list of priorities has been devised as on where and how to concentrate the efforts and themoney.

- Another main actual concern of the Taalunie is the position of Dutch as an official language inthe European Union. It is its firm intention to see to it that this position will not be harmed orbelittled in any way. One of the priorities, therefore, is to concentrate financial and other effortson language technology, i.e. programs for automized translation, which, in the current state, oftentend to neglect all but the three "major languages" of the Union. Negotiations have also startedwith language planning organizations in other EU-countries to safeguard the position of all ofiiciallanguages of the member states.

- an interesting new evolution has been the initiative to also involve the French speaking part ofBelgium into the concern of the NTU, thus creating a very special kind of "foreign territory" forwhich a special approach has been designed.

5. Conclusions.

- fu the foregoing has demonstrated the Nederlandse Taalunie has been extremely active duringthe past first decade of its functioning. Yet, this relatively short period has also shown aninteresting change as far as its focus of interest is concerned. During the time of preparation ofthe Treaty and the first years of the functioning of the institution the Flemish community saw theNTU in the first place as an instance of status planning, whereas The Netherlands were mainlymotivated by corpus planning perspectives (Willemyns 1990). Yet, the Flemings wholeheartedlysupported the many corpus activities developed during the initial working of the organization,whereas The Netherlands have come to realize that status planning activities have become veryurgent during recent years. This is one of the examples demonstrating that the integrationistactivities of the NTU were not oniy effective in the outside world but also within the organizationitself (Beleidskader 1993, 11).

- Another change can be witnessed as far as the modus operandi of the NTU is concerned.Increasingly we see how the organization is encouraging what they call a "vliegwielfunctie"25,meaning that they are seeking and stimulating cooperation with external participants to realizetheir objectives, rather than to try to manage projects solely from within (Beleidskader 1993, 18).The Taalunie initiates and stimulates projects, raises starting funds and then creates"samenwerkingsverbanden" ["cooperation units"] with other interested parties. Examples of

" "fly wheel function"

220

similar projects already started are to be found in the fields of educational research (OORD),Dutch as a second language (SaNeTT), the Certificate "Dutch as a Foreign Language"(WGCNA). Projected cooperation units will cover such fields as "library and documentation" or"drama" (on radio and television as well as on stage)26.

- All in all it appears to me that the "Nederlandse Taalunie" is to be considered an excellentexample ofvitality and creativity. Not only it has an impressive record by what has been achievedin the past but the many plans and projected initiatives for the future guarantee a more creativeand vital functioning still.

6. Reflerences.

Actieplan 1994 Publikatieblad NTU # 30 (1993).

Beleidskader voor de Nederlandse Taalunie in de jaren negentig ( 1993). 's-Gravenhage. StichtingBibliographica Neerlandica.

Cassier, Luc & Van de Craen, Piet (1986). Vijftig jaar evolutie van het Nederlands. In Jos Creten,Guido Geerts & Karel Jaspaert (eds.), Werk in uitvoering, Leuven. Acco, 59-73.

Couvreur, Walter. (1975). Spellingoorlog. Encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging. Tielt.Lannoo, 1461-1463.

Deprez, Kas & Geerts, Guido (1977). Lexical and Pronominal Standardization in the Evolutionof Standard Netherlandic in West-Flanders. Zeitschrift fiir Dialectolosie und Linquistik. BeihefteNeue Folse Nr. 22.

Devries, Jan, Willemyns Roland & Burger, Peter (1993). Het verhaal van een taal: Negen eeuwenNederlands. Amsterdam. Prometheus.

Goossens, Jan (1973). De Belgische uitspraak van het Nederlands. De Nieuwe Taalgids 63,54-70.

Goossens, Jan (1985). Herausl6sung und Herausbildung des Niederltindischen. In Store Ureland(ed.), Entstehung von Sprachen und V6lkern, Tribingen: Niemeyer, 287-304.

Govaert, Serge (1982). La Flandre et les Pays-Bas. Rapports nouveaux. Bruxelles: Cahiers duCrisp # 960-961.

Lorwin, YaL (1972). Linguistic pluralism and political tension in modern Belgium. In Fishman,Joshua (ed.), Advances in the Sociology of Language II,386-412.

26 Details on these cooperation units are given in Beleidskader 1993 (18 tr)

221

Moerdijk, Alfons (1994). Handleiding bij het Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal (WNT). DenHaag: SDU.

Pauwels, JanL. (1954). In hoeverre geeft het Noorden de toon aan? Nu Nog, 1-9.

Peeters, Constant H. (1930). Nederlandsche Taalgids. Woordenboek van Belgicismen.Antwerpen: De Sikkel.

Van de Craeq Piet & Willemyns, Roland (1988). The Standardization of Dutch in Flanders. TheInternational Journal of the Socioloev of Laneuaqe 73 ,45-64.

Van den Branden, Lode (1956). Het streven naar verheerlijking.zuiverin-q en opbouwvan hetNederlands van de 16de eeuw. Gent: Kon.Vl.Academie.

Willemyns, Roland (1984). A Common Legal Framework for Language Unity in the DutchLanguage Area. Multilingua 3-4. 215-223.

Willemyns, Roland (1987). Norm en Variatie in Vlaanderen. In Jaap de Rooij (ed).Variatie enNorm in de Standaardtaal. Amsterdam: P. J.Meertens Instituut, 1 43 -164.

Willemyns, Roland (1988). Language Planning as an Initiator of Linguistic Change. GeorgetownRoundtable on Languages and Lin:euistics 1988. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown UniversityPress. 349-357.

Willemyns, Roland (1990). Taalplanning door de Nederlandse taalunie. PublikatiebladNederlandse Taalunie 3. # 2 ,25-29.

Willemyns, Roland (1gg2). Taalontwikkeling in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden na de politiekescheiding. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- enLetterkunde , 99-115.

Willemyns, Roland (1993). Integration vs. particularism. The undeclared issue at the first "DutchCongress" in 1849. In Fishman, Joshua (ed.), The Earliest Sta=ee of Lan-euage Planning.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 69-83.