Multilingualism and Attrition: Study of Adult Moroccan Immigrants in

the Netherlands

First Year Report

August 2008

Farah van der Kooi

Centre for Language and Cognition

University of Groningen

f.van.der.kooi@rug.nl

Promotor: Prof. Dr. C. L. J. de Bot

Supervision: Prof. Dr. C. L. J. de Bot & Dr. M. S. Schmid

2

1. Introduction

2. Attrition studies: a general overview

2.1 Bilingualism and attrition: Psychological aspects

2.2. Universal Grammar and attrition

2.3 The regression hypothesis and attrition

2.4 Dynamic system theory and attrition

3. Linguistic background:

3.1 Morocco languages pool

3.2 Morocco Triglossia

3.2.1 Berber-Moroccan Arabic bilingualism

3.2.2 Moroccan Arabic-French bilingualism

3.2.3 The sociolinguistics of Code-switching in Morocco

3.2.4 Moroccans in the Netherlands

4. Research design methodology:

4.1 Objectives

4.2 Research questions and hypothesis

4.3 Experiment and procedure

4.4 Subjects

4.5 Field work related constraints

4.6 Stimuli and procedure

4.6.1 Qualitative analysis: Sociolinguistic questionnaire

4.6.2 Quantitative analysis: Picture naming

5 Summary of initial findings

6 Summary of first-year activities & anticipated schedule of the PhD project

6.1 Past Activities (September 2007-June 2008)

6.2 Work Plan 2008-2011

References

Appendix 1: Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (English Version) Appendix 2: Sociolinguistic Questionnaire (Moroccan Arabic Version) Appendix 3: Snograss & Vanderwart, 1980 Picture Stimuli Appendix 4: The Snake Story

3

1. Introduction

Language balance is paramount in Dynamic Models of Multilingualism as indicated in

studies (de Bot, Lowie & Verspoor, 2007;Herdina & Jessner, 2002) which view the

individual psycholinguistic system as a prolonged course of adjustment to unceasingly

changing communicative requirements of the environment.

It is, therefore, crucial to probe into the interdependence of socio-demographic

variables in linguistic systems as they develop to bring up front an explanation to the

mechanism that allows processing to proceed in a more language-selective manner. This

study reports on how the linguistic systems of bilingual Moroccan immigrants in the

Netherlands compete and how the resulting competition is resolved. Without attempting

an exhaustive investigation on issues relevant to sociolinguistics, the project aims at

constructing an integrated view of social, psychological and linguistic determinants of

bilingual proficiency to assess to what extent the access to the more highly developed L1

(Moroccan Arabic/MA) is impeded by transfer from the L2 (Dutch). This involves

assessment of attrition of Moroccan groups living in Netherlands and investigating how

they negotiate various aspects of their identity: linguistic, social, gender, education,

attitude etc.; and whether they are motivated to learn Dutch for its utilitarian value or for

the prestige of the language itself.

The Moroccan community has been chosen for its largest presentation among

non–European immigrants in the Netherlands. It is also a good prototype of sequential

bilinguals who display distinct characteristics in their L1 depending on the variety of

their linguistic repertoire and the length of stay in the dominant L2 environment.

This community is frequently blamed for their failure to reach a high L2 proficiency

(especially the first generation), one of the major factors viewed as a hurdle to their

integration. Our purpose is to enhance the standing of multilingualism as a social reality

that needs to be appreciated by tackling issues relevant to the interplay between linguistic

features and other social and biographical factors that affect immigrants’ language and

integration. On this basis, we hope first to develop a more integrated framework for

prediction of the success of L2 acquisition; second, to assess the interdependency of

4

bilinguals skills in L1 and L2; and third, to reach a better understanding of the socio-

demographic characteristics of migrants of non-Western origin.

Another important goal of our investigation is to provide empirical evidence for the

assumption that linguistic integration is more difficult for some minority groups than for

others. The outcome of the study will form a basis for the development of measures and

instruments to improve bilingual competence among migrant groups, and allow specific

and targeted recommendations how to improve the overall language proficiency of

particular demographic groups.

2. Attrition studies: a general overview

2.1 Bilingualism and attrition

Grosjean (1994:1657) views “[…] the bilingual as a specific and fully competent

speaker/hearer who has developed a communicative competence that is equal, but

different in nature, to that of the monolingual”.

He goes further and categorizes bilinguals into the coordinate bilingual who has

two sets of meaning units and two modes of expression, the compound bilingual who has

one set of meaning units and two modes of expression, and the subordinate bilingual who

has the meaning units of the first language and two modes of expression: that of the first

language and that of the second, learned by means of the first (Weinreich, 1966).

Regardless of this sub-categorization, all scholars agree that the bilingual has a special

language system that is the fusion of several conceptual and linguistic resources.

Thus, “bilingualism creates a need for a communicative efficiency which

promotes certain reduced linguistic forms over other more complex ones" (Maher, 1991:

80). The bilingual has a second source of indirect positive evidence that emerges

whenever there is a problem in retrieving information stored in the first language

grammar or lexicon. Attrition may then be generated both by changes in the bilingual's

perception of the basic structures of his or her L1 and by easing the burden of processing

a less frequently used L1. Mägiste (1986) is convinced that “the very fact of having

available more than one response to the same stimulus may lead to slower reaction times

unless the two response systems are hermetically isolated from each other”. This is

substantiated by evidence from a list of recognition and lexical decision tasks carried on

5

bilingual adults by Ransdell and Fischler (1987) who find found that adults who had been

bilingual all their lives were slower at responding even if their accuracy was the same.

Further evidence from psycholinguistic studies suggests that language attrition is

influenced by factors such as age, literacy and the frequency of language use. Cases of

high attrition are reported in studies about adopted children who are removed at an early

age from their L1 environment (Isurin, 2000; Nicoladis & Grabois, 2002; Saville-Troike

et al., 2005). Similarly, immigrant children tend to forget their L1 quicker than adults

after moving to another language environment (cf. Anderson, 2001; Kaufman, 2001;

Yukawa, 1998). This decline in L1 proficiency is due first to language suppression under

the influence of the new environment (school, home and society) to assimilate new

linguistic features of another language. Second, psycholinguists relate dramatic loss of L1

in children to incomplete acquisition of L1 and its cultural associations (Jia & Aaronson,

1999).

On the other hand, de Bot and Clyne (1989, 1994) report in their research on

elderly immigrants that age is responsible for the development or decline of L1. In their

study a group of Australian Dutch-English bilinguals (who attrited first in their L1 after

immigration) starts to revert back to using their L1 more often. This shift of preference

for L1 use has stopped and has rather negatively influenced their fluency in L2; an

increased foreign L1 accent in L2 speech is also remarked. This indicates that the

individual’s age has an impact on the dynamics of language suppression or activation as

well as on the person’s motivation to assimilate in a group or another.

Another factor that plays a role in language attrition is literacy. According to

Köpke (2004), literacy is closely related to age and “might contribute to the cognitive

organization of language and contribute to age effects observed in L1 attrition together

with other factors such as plasticity and type of memory involved in language learning”.

This is suggested earlier by Olshtain (1986) who confirms that the use of written and

reading skills helps in decreasing attrition since they allow the speaker to have more

contact with L1 and maintain stronger knowledge of the language through its

orthographic presentation. Therefore, children who have not received a formal education

in their L1 or L2 are more prone to attrition.

6

Yet, psycholinguists do not believe that a language can be totally forgotten. They

attribute speech disfluency only to the inability to access a certain language as result of

lack of use. Here Sharwood Smith (1983a & 1983b) sets apart competence from

performance.

Based on Smith’s distinction, Seliger (1996: 606) elaborates more on this point by

stating that attrition in competence can express itself as:

1) the ability to recall a meaning shared by both the L1 and the L2 but only being

able to retrieve the L2 lexical item;

2) rule reordering or simplification in the morpho-phonemics of the L1 or the

inability to inflect in accordance with previously acquired morphology, or not being

aware that incorrectly inflected morphology is deviant where previously the speaker

inflected in accordance with the L1 grammar;

3) the acceptance of syntactically deviant sentences and the misperception of

syntactically grammatical sentences as incorrect.

Attrition at the competence level then results in the inability to make

grammaticality judgments that are easily carried out by native speakers.

At the level of performance attrition is reflected in difficulties in controlling

knowledge (Ammerlaan, 1996; Ammerlaan & al. 2001) as regards lexical retrieval

problems (Güral, 2004; Köpke, 2004; Seliger, 1996) and processing difficulties which are

closely related to the cognitive demands of comprehension vs. production (Dussias,

2002).

In spite of differences within all models applied in language attrition, there is a

key variable common in both sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic research, that of

language use (De Bot, 2001). Beaujour (1989) claims that “you cannot keep [a language]

safe deep within you, it must get some exercise. You must use it, or else it gets rusty,

atrophies and dies”. This has been accounted for through the notions of activation and

inhibition. Both mechanisms are said (Green, 1986; Paradis, 1993) to be in control of

multiple languages in the brain and for the change of dominance patterns among

languages. Paradis (1985, 1993) raises a neuropsychological interpretation of

bilingualism through the Activation Threshold Hypothesis (ATH). The latter was

originally designed to explain aspects of recovery in polyglot aphasia. Paradis (2004:28)

7

assumes that “an item is activated when a sufficient amount of positive neural impulses

have reached its neural substrate.” In other words, the ATH suggests that items (or

languages) that are more frequently activated need less stimulation to be reactivated than

items (or languages) that are less frequently activated (Paradis 1985, 1993, 2001).

Applied to language attrition and bilingual memory (Gürel, 2004; Köpke, 2002; Köpke &

Schmid, 2004), attrition may be seen as the result of the absence of frequent stimulation

of a certain language. The inhibited language has a high activation threshold compared to

a lower threshold for the active language.

In addition to the psycholinguistic perspective, attrition research has examined

other linguistic hypotheses about forgetting (Ecke, 2004) and their relevance to language

loss such as UG parameters, regression, interference, language decay, language change

and Dynamic Systems Theory (DTS). Studies on L1 attrition caused by a dominant L2

have proven retroactive interference, especially in the lexicon. This interference is

expressed through compensatory strategies such as borrowing, code-switching, loan

translation, onomatopoeia, meaning extension, lack of lexical diversity and

communicative lingering.

2.2. Universal Grammar and attrition

The onset of attrition can be connected to advanced stages of L2 acquisition or

multilingualism. Universal Grammar (UG) (Chomsky, 1981) has a different impact at

different stages of L2 acquisition. In the early stages, the bilingual remains dependent on

UG parameters. Interference from L1 has been argued to be, thus, the result of the

innateness of language principles that are independent of the characteristic of a certain

first language or another. Throughout the continuum of L2 acquisition, L2 grammar

develops gradually a separate set of rules. Yet, as the bilingual reaches an advanced stage

of acquisition, transfer and UG still play a major role. In other words, as the bilingual

becomes fluent in L2 the direction of transfer is reversed towards L1. Accordingly, UG

argument for attrition is pertinent to the loss of an innate language learning competence

(Cook 1984; Flynn 1987). Other researchers in the minimalist frameworks (Platzack,

1996; Sharwood Smith & van Buren, 1991, Sorace 2000) relate language attrition more

to restructuring and loss of semantically interpretable structures (i.e. lexicon). They claim

8

that syntactic structures are most stable and that attrition is the result of loss of control

over “an invariant computational system”.

Alternatively, UG is also said to be responsible for attriters (and language

learners) simplification of (irregular) marked forms in a language (Andersen, 1982;

Clyne, 1992; Hansen & Chen, 2001; Seliger, 1996). It has, thus, been suggested that a

marked parameter in L1 might be reset to an unmarked value in L2 (Hyltenstam, 1987).

Based on the UG framework, attrition is governed by principles that create the most

effective grammar that can serve both L1 and L2. The bilingual innovates a rule for L1 in

those areas of grammar where the L2 rule is simple or less marked. Those forms that are

less marked in L2 are more likely to replace more marked forms in L1, thus the less

marked forms in L1 seem to be less vulnerable to attrition.

In case of attrition, though the two languages of the bilingual have a semantic

concept expressed in two different ways, only one of these realizations will survive.

2.3 The regression hypothesis and attrition

The regression hypothesis was first mentioned by Roman Jackobson (1941) in relation to

research on aphasia (Freud, 1891; Pitres, 1895). It is based on the theory that language is

acquired in stages. Thus, the process of forgetting a language is the reverse of acquiring

it. In other words, the linguistic features acquired in early childhood are more resistant to

loss than those acquired later; i.e. “last in, first out”. Unmarked forms, which are acquired

early, are argued to be more resistant to loss than marked ones (Hyltenstam & Viberg,

1993). Theories of forgetting explain this mirror symmetry on the argument that the

human mind is composed of layers in such a way that intermittent stages of both

acquisition and attrition are intersecting. However, evidence for regression as a mirror of

acquisition has been scarce (cf. Caramazza & Zurif, 1978; De Bot & Weltens, 1991;

Hakansson, 1995; Hedgcock, 1991) and the hypothesis is frequently doubted in attrition

research.

Keijzer (2007:35) argues that “although language growth and decline are both

guided by competition principles in a limited cognitive system, the source of such

competition may be very different for both. Whereas competition in acquisition tends to

stem from systems that have not yet fully matured, in attrition it is more likely that two

languages are competing for available memory space”.

9

2.4 Dynamic system theory and attrition

According to Kecskes and Papp (2003), they are two major factors that are shaping the

influence of L2 on L1:

(1) Level of proficiency and the development of a Common Underlying

Conceptual Base;

(2) Nature of transfer.

As indicated by De Bot (1992), L1 is processed through a system that is flexible

enough to receive further emerging foreign registers. Yet, extensive exposure and use of

an L2 in an L2 environment will affect the cognitive development of L1. The level of

proficiency in L2 remains an influential factor that would lead to a certain hypothetical

threshold and would determine the nature of transfer.

Transfer is argued to be dynamic in a multilingual environment either positively or

negatively. Herdina and Jessner (2002:137) suggest that the multilingual system is

governed by a dynamic balance within the person’s psycholinguistic system and is

incessantly changing and adapting to the emerging communicative requirements of each

environment. This results in certain kind of rivalry between existing psychological

systems and new developing ones. Figuratively, Dewaele & Pavlenko (2003: 137)

compare the languages in contact in the individual to two liquid colours that blend

unevenly, i.e. some areas will take on the new colour resulting from the mixing by other

colour, but a closer look may reveal a slightly different hue according to the viewer's

angle.

Thus, according to the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM), both

language acquisition and attrition should not be considered in isolation. The individual

system should rather be examined as being subject to ongoing change. In case of attrition,

due to the change in dominance one language system is stabilized at the expense of

another one that is subject to erosion or decay. The dynamic nature of multicompetence

leads to a bidirectional transfer (Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002) that upsets the stability of the

native-speakerness. The transfer is happening from L2 to L1 (and vice versa) or among

10

more than two language systems and attrition occur in one system under the influence of

another.

Inspired by the DMM, the current study will discuss the interrelatedness of

variables such as language acquisition, language maintenance effort and language attitude

and their influence on language attrition by multilingual speakers. The discussion will be

within the framework of the language production of adult Moroccan native speakers who

acquired Dutch after the age of 15 and how transfer is simultaneous during the

individual’s use of L1 and L2.

3- Linguistic background

3.1 Morocco linguistic varieties

“The bilinguals differ among themselves as to the extent they travel along the language

mode continuum; some rarely find themselves at the bilingual end whereas others rarely

leave this end” (Grosjean (2001:7). Moroccan bilinguals rarely leave the bilingual mode

as language mixing is the norm in Moroccan society; a practice that induced many

changes to Moroccan Arabic (MA) itself (Sayahi, 2007). In fact, Morocco is known for a

unique multilingual situation even by comparison to other Arab countries. This is mainly

due to its geographical position that made the country exposed to different cultural

influences from the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East and reshaped the

sociolinguistic map since centuries ago. Yet, the socio-cultural plurality is characterized

by language conflict (Ennaji 2005); the languages spoken do not fulfill all the linguistic

functions and each of them only covers a specific domain. Plus due to the high level of

illiteracy, not all Moroccans are multilingual in the sense of mastering speaking and

writing. In such a multilingual society there are prominent differences among individuals;

there are those who are monolingual in MA or Berber, simultaneous bilinguals of Berber

and MA, sequential bilinguals MA and French (and/or Literary Arabic) and finally

multilinguals who learned another foreign language such as English, Spanish or German.

Some people speak either French or Spanish (languages of colonization) in addition to

their L1 but have no proficiency of the written forms.

3.2 Morocco Triglossia

11

The linguistic pool of Morocco is rather intricate in that it creates a triglossia among the

different varieties of Arabic language used. (See figure 1 for summary):

1. The vernacular Moroccan Arabic (MA) spoken by 90% of the population and

used in formal context for daily life purposes;

2. Middle Modern Arabic (MMA) exclusively used by educated individuals for

formal and administrative purposes. 40% of the population has a functional

proficiency of this variety and a majority has a passive knowledge of it;

3. Literary Arabic (LA) is the only variety that is a common language in the

whole Arab world and has a written form. It is the language of religion and

administrative/formal writing. Only 20% of the population master this variety

and can read and write it.

3.2.1 Berber-Moroccan Arabic bilingualism

This is the most widespread bilingualism in Morocco. It is a one-way bilingualism

motivated by geographical, religious, socio-cultural or educational factors. Berbers

become bilinguals while MA natives are rarely motivated to learn Berber. The former are

bilingual thanks to daily contact with MA at school, at work, in the media, in the

administration, etc. Urbanization and rural exodus generate more Berber-MA bilinguals

to the extent that young generation abandons their native language. This shift to MA does

not involve a radical change of domains of use. Both languages are low in status and have

no written form or role in administration or education. They are both used for purposes of

informal practical daily life and intimacy.

3.2.2 Moroccan Arabic-French bilingualism

The diglossic situation of Morocco is further complicated by the French occupation

between 1912 and 1956. After independence, the Moroccan government made Literary

Arabic the official language. Yet, as Arabic was not linguistically advanced enough to

meet all the requirement of modern society, French remained prominently used in all

institutions (i.e. education, administration, business, media, etc.). French is a second

language and has larger domains of use compared to other foreign languages as English,

Spanish or German. According to Ennaji (1997), 10 million Moroccans spoke French but

only half of them could read and write it. In general, all Moroccans who complete their

12

high school education achieve a good command of French. They tend to mix MA and

French in their informal conversations (especially in cities) for practical reasons

depending on the topic and the interlocutor linguistic background because French has a

prestigious status and is prominent in public life.

Figure 1: Relationships between the languages and the dialects (Youssi 1995: 30)

*Tamazight= Berber

3.2.3 The sociolinguistics of Code-switching in Morocco

Speakers of certain bilingual communities systematically produce utterances in which

they switch from one language to another, suggesting that the two language systems

systematically interact with each other in the production of these sentences. In Morocco,

people belonging to the upper or middle class favor code-switching from MA to French

(Bentahila & Davies, 1988). In individual speech factors such as age, gender, cultural and

13

religious beliefs regulate code-switching. Women tend to code-switch more than men to

assert their feminism and express their emancipation in a male dominant society. Literary

Arabic (LA) is, therefore, considered a male language associated with religious men and

scholars. This religious factor instigates code-switching (Ennaji, 2005). Quran verses

should be quoted in their original version and religious lectures are conducted in LA with

in intermittent explanations in MA. Berber is also a female language. It is spoken by a

large number of illiterate rural female population and it is associated with neither

religion, literacy nor politics. Be it an unwritten mother tongue, Berber is closer to

women than men. Conversely, MA is both a male and female language. It is used as a

lingua franca among all Moroccan Berbers who speak different regional dialects. It is

widely spoken in all public domains and is not limited to private or domestic contexts.

Code-switching is a social habit used by Moroccans strategically to express

solidarity and to overcome the linguistic constraints of one language over the other no

matter how typologically distinct these languages are (See Table 1 for Domains of Use of

Languages in Morocco). However, code switchers differ in their competence in the

languages concerned and it is often difficult to distinguish situations when code-

switching is used as a way of overcoming sentences planning or to convey sociolinguistic

norms of the Moroccan society. In relation to attrition, Myers-Scotton (1997: 225)

communicates a similar opinion confirming that

bilingual speech showing attrition coincides with CS [code-switching] in several ways,

but with the resemblances fading over time: (1) Initially, the waning language still sets

the grammatical frame, even though content morphemes from the waxing language are

introduced; (2) Also initially, speakers are proficient enough in both languages to

produce well-formed utterances in either language so their bilingual speech may consist

of both mixed constituents and islands which show the same predictable structure as does

CS.

The current project attempts to pinpoint areas where code-switching from MA to

Dutch is motivated by loss of competence in L1 rather than by a sociolinguistic conduct

acquired historically through multilingualism in Morocco. It is worth mentioning that the

phenomenon of code-switching in Moroccan Arabic is complex and interesting that it still

initiating much research (e.g. Abbassi, 1977; Ait Ouarasse, 2003; Appel & Muysken,

1987; Bentahila & Davies, 1988; Broersma & De Bot, 2006; Ennaji, 2005; Heath, 1989;

14

Nortier, 1990; Suleiman, 1999; Schiffman, 1997). Yet, based on Schmid (2002)

bibliography of attrition studies there is only one research by Aissati (1997) - out of 93

studies (applied 73, theoretical 20) about L1 attrition- conducted on second generation of

Moroccan bilinguals residents in Netherlands.

Table 1 for Domains of Use of Languages in Morocco (adapted from Youssi, 1995)

Languages & Varieties Domains of Use B MA MMA LA F

1. Intimate, informal relations: family, friends, inferiors x x (x) practical street life x colleagues, peers, inferior strangers (x) x x strangers of equal/superior status x (x) 2. Formal spoken communication: office colleagues x x functionaries with educated citizens x x functionaries with uneducated citizens (x) x shop assistants with educated citizens (x) x doctor/chemist with educated patients x political speeches (x) (x) x x political & union discussions x discussions during university lectures & teaching x x prayers & religious practices x 3. Written communication administering social & religious affairs x administering economic & technical affairs x secondary level teaching of science & technology x university level teaching of science & technology x family correspondence x x love letters of young people x x 4. Language use in media radio news bulletins x x x x television news bulletins x x x informative television programs x x x live interviews & reports x x x current affairs panels, round tables x x (x) cultural & literary programs x x x national series & films (x) x foreign non-Arab productions x Middle Eastern productions x x

3.2.4 Moroccans in the Netherlands

15

Like most western European countries, the Netherlands harbor different ethnic groups

that are defined and distinguished either by nationality or country of birth. The largest

numbers of migrant groups are in descending order: Surinamese, Turks, Moroccans,

Antilleans, Moluccans, Spaniards, Italians, Yugoslavians, Cape Verdeans and

Portuguese. Moroccans came first between 1960 and 1970 (Extra & de Ruiter, 1994). As

other Mediterranean groups, men migrated at that time as unskilled or semi-skilled labor

and were later joined by their families. General motives for immigration were either

connected to work or to joining a partner. Migration was thought to stop gradually after

the phase of family reunification. Instead, many Moroccans of the second generation

decided to marry a partner still living in the country of origin, resulting in a new

migration (Hooghiemstra, 2001). This is mainly due to the influence of the social (and

religious) surroundings.

In Dutch-Moroccan society most people have had little or no education. The

majority of Moroccan families live in the larger cities of the Netherlands (eg.

Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) in smaller and inferior homes compared

to the total population (Roelandt & Verweij, 1991). In May 2008, it was estimated by the

CBS (Centraal Bureau of Statistiek, Netherlands) that the Netherlands hosts 335 128

citizens of Moroccan origin; 167 063 of which are from the first generation and 168 064

are from the second generation. The majority of the fathers are working in low paid and

in socially low-prestige jobs. Mothers stay at home to take care of the children and do the

housekeeping. This is a generally accepted image and is also a well established pattern in

Moroccan residential neighborhoods.

According to the NCB 1989 statistics, 58,5% of Moroccan immigrants did not

attend or finish their primary school in their mother tongue nor in Dutch. Recent statistics

reviewed in 2007 by the CBS show that the problem of lower education among Moroccan

men is still persistent and is affecting their income (see figures below).

For Moroccan men education accounts for about one quarter of the lower level of

income; Moroccan men are at the bottom of the income ladder compared to other men

with a non-western foreign background in the Netherlands. On average, the income of

Moroccan men aged 25–59 years in 2003 was 43 percent lower than that of native Dutch

men in this age group. Turkish men had a 34 percent lower income. For Antillean,

Aruban and Surinamese men the difference was smaller. (Lautenbach & Otten, 2007).

16

����������������� �������������� �������������

�

�

���������� �������������������������������

�

Illiteracy is even higher among Moroccan women who have less prestige in their

society of origin. Related to this issue is the problem of differences between the home

language (MA which has no written form) and the school language. Thus, Moroccans’

knowledge of the Dutch language is often limited or absent; so that oral interviews in the

mother tongue are practically the only means of reaching a representative part of the

population. Hamminck (1990) refers to “[f]unctional illiteracy in the sense of not

speaking, reading and writing Dutch adequately can be related to the socioeconomic and

sociocultural position of the allochthones, but must be related to a lack of attractive

facilities for learning Dutch. Another factor may be the fact that in the first years of

17

migration most of the migrants (and the official policy) felt that they were here on a

temporary basis”. In fact, up to now very few Moroccans in The Netherlands are actually

Dutch citizens.

Immigrants from Morocco, and in particular young male immigrants, are mainly seen

by Dutch public as a group caught up in criminal activities. And young generations are

confirmed in their ideas that they are different and might be inferior due to the schooling

system that favors children from higher social background by implicitly taking their

knowledge, their use of language, their way of life and their behavior as a standard

(Eldering, 1997). The majority of Moroccan children go to lower forms of secondary

education than an average Dutch child and “[t]he proficiency of the parents in Dutch

correlates significantly with the language choice of children […] as their medium of

communication” Vermeer (1985). This negative image becomes representative of the

Moroccan community, while older men and women simply disappear from the picture.

4. Research design methodology

4.1 Objectives

The purpose of this study is to report on and analyze the structural changes occurring in

L1 due to the immersion in an L2 environment. It highlights, therefore, L1 proficiency in

terms of lexical diversity, morpho-syntactic complexity and general level of fluency on

the basis of results from the tasks conducted in Moroccan Arabic and Dutch. A control

group of Moroccans living in Morocco is going to undertake similar tasks as the

experimental group in order to assess the degree of L1 attrition for those Moroccans

residing in the Netherlands more than ten years.

4.2 Research questions and hypothesis

In view of the dynamic nature of linguistic competence, this study examines if language

loss actually occurs or, as according to Schmid (2000), attrition is only a temporary

inhibition of certain linguistic features?

More specifically, this general hypothesis can be categorized to further questions:

1- To what extent is access to the L2 lexicon mediated by transfer from the more

highly developed L1?

18

2- How distinct are the substantially stable linguistic features from those that are

more vulnerable to change?

3- What are the individual differences in sequential bilingualism and how does

language contact produce a pattern of language use that is notably bilingual at all

linguistic levels?

4- To what extent do language performance and attitude, education, social status, age

and L2 proficiency correlate positively or negatively with L1 attrition?

5- In terms of lexical attrition, what are the results indicated by online tasks

compared to offline tasks?

6- If bilingualism aggravates difficulties in language processing in contexts when

two languages are not represented and accessed separately, then what are

individuals’ strategies for mother tongue maintenance against loss or attrition?

4.3 Experiment and procedure

The research design is based on the test battery developed by Schmid (2005). It consists

of:

• a sociolinguistic questionnaire 60 items on personal and linguistic background, L1

and L2 use, social networks, and linguistic and cultural affiliation, developed and

used in previous investigations on immigrant multilingualism. The interview

includes items based on Attitude and Motivational Test Battery (Gardner 1985) in

order to determine if and how individual attitudes can be seen as a link between

overall societal attitudes on the one hand and individual language learning success

on the other;

• a picture naming task (150 pictures) to compare online and offline tasks in

Moroccan Arabic as L1 and Dutch as an L2 to explore the consequences of the

interplay between the two languages;

• an autobiographical interview in Dutch;

• an autobiographical interview in Moroccan Arabic for the control group.

19

4.4 Subjects

4.4.1 Experimental group

On the basis of specific socio-demographic, socio-psychological and linguistic-

theoretical factors, a comprehensive framework is set to choose 35 Moroccans

participants to take part in the current study. They are aged between 37 and 65 years

(mean 46.5 years), moved to the Netherlands after the age of 15 and resided in the

Netherlands for at least 10 years. The data of the present research is collected through a

sociolinguistic interview and a picture naming task in Moroccan Arabic all in one

session. Arranged by appointment and conducted in the informants’ homes, the

interviews were informal (though within a structured framework) and are based on a

preliminary survey of historical background initiated previously by a phone conversation.

Interviews were conducted with participants living in different cities of the Netherlands,

namely Groningen, Leeuwarden, Harlingen, Hoogezand, Weert, Rotterdam and

Amsterdam. Though all participants have Moroccan Arabic as L1 and Dutch as L2, they

were born in different parts of Morocco and differ in their educational and linguistic

repertoires (see Table 1: Participants Profile).

Table 1: Participants Profile

Code

No.

Sex Date

of

Birth

Place of

Birth

Place of

Residence

Year of

Emigra-

tion

Level of

Education*

Languages

Repertoire**

1 M 1954 Assila Groningen 1973 I F, S, A, D

2 M 1957 Meknes Groningen 1986 II A, D

3 M 1966 Warzazat Groningen 1993 II A, B, F, E, D

4 M 1962 Agadir Groningen 1990 II A, E, G, S, F, D

5 M 1969 Warzazat Groningen 1994 III A, B, E, F, D

6 M 1971 Arfoud Groningen 1997 III A, B, E, F, D

7 M 1970 Oujda Groningen 1991 II A, F, D

8 M 1956 Kenitra Groningen 1979 II A, F, D

20

9 M 1970 Casablanca Groningen 1993 II A, F, E, D

10 F 1963 Warzazat Hoogezand 1986 I A, D

11 M 1943 Warzazat Hoogezand 1965 I A, B, E, G, D

12 M 1946 Tetouan Hoogezand 1978 II A, F, S, B, D

13 M 1971 Oujda Groningen 1995 II A, F, E, D

14 M 1973 Meknes Harlingen 1997 II A, F, D

15 M 1943 Assa Weert 1970 I A, B, F, D

16 F 1959 Weladtayema Weert 1987 I A, D

17 M 1969 Berkane Rotterdam 1990 II A, F, E, D

18 M 1975 Tafraout Rotterdam 1994 III A, F, E, D

19 M 1958 Oujda Rotterdam 1985 III A, F, D

20 F 1973 Rabat Leeuwarden 1998 III A, F, E, D

21 M 1948 Aitbaamran Amsterdam 1976 II A, S, F, D

22 F 1957 Sidi Ifni Amsterdam 1976 I A, F, D

23 M 1966 Settat Groningen 1990 II A, F, E, D

24 F 1943 Sidi Ifni Amsterdam 1975 I A, D

25 F 1976 Essaouira Amsterdam 1997 II A, F, E, D

26 M 1978 Sidi Ifni Amsterdam 1996 II A, F, S, E, D

27 F 1977 Sidi Ifni Amsterdam 1997 II A, S, F, D

28 M 1956 Tetouan Amsterdam 1976 I A, D

29 M 1943 Nador Hoogezand 1965 I A, F, S, E, D

30 M 1971 Casablanca Groningen 1998 I A, F, D

31 F 1957 Nador Hoogezand 1981 I A, B, D

32 M 1962 Benslimane Groningen 1986 II A, F, E, D

33 M 1971 Rabat Groningen 1996 II A, F, E, D

34 M 1948 Sidi Ifni Amsterdam 1971 II A, F, D

35 M 1947 Hoceima Amsterdam 1969 II A, B, D

* I = primary school education, II = high school education, II = university education

** A= Moroccan Arabic, B= Berber, D= Dutch, E= English, F= French, G= German,

S= Spanish

21

4.4.2 Control group

The control group will comprise 35 Moroccans who match the immigrants’ cohort in

terms of age, gender, education and regional origins. All participants are adult native

speakers of Moroccan Arabic and have never been exposed to Dutch. This is in order to

explore the erosion of immigrants’ lexical systems in total immersion circumstances.

A pilot study of 5 interviews and 10 picture naming task was conducted over ten days in

Morocco and the actual data collection will follow.

4.5 Field work related constraints

The research questions required the application of several methods. Initially the language

attrition test battery was designed to include a sociolinguistic questionnaire, C-Test texts,

Can-do scales and a Charlie Chaplin film re-telling task. After in-depth observation and

survey, it has been judged that the best methods of data gathering are an interview with

open-ended questions for researching and understanding attitudes, opinions, feelings and

behaviors of an individual or groups plus picture naming tasks conducted both in MA and

Dutch.

The reason for disregarding other tests is mainly due to the fact that the daily

spoken Moroccan Arabic has no written form and Moroccans consider their vernacular as

a spoken heritage preserved throughout generations without any serious interest to write

or read it. The Charlie Chaplin film re-telling task is not used because of cultural

differences between western subjects and Moroccan participants who would not be

motivated to carry out such task.

Other difficulties are related to the process of participants’ selection. Moroccan

immigrants in the Netherlands are mainly from the north part of Morocco where the

majority is Berber. It is, therefore, difficult to find subjects who are native speakers of

MA only. Selective criteria have been slightly changed to enable us to recruit subjects

who are MA natives or MA/Berber bilinguals before the age of 5. On the other hand,

there is no doubt about the first generation proficiency in L1; their major linguistic

problems are pertinent to their proficiency in Dutch.

22

The degrees of freedom in work performance have also been confined by the

general attitude towards scientific research. This is due to the high level of illiteracy

among immigrants who are originating from rural areas. Women suffer more from

illiteracy and it was not an easy task to find educated ones to join the research project.

Furthermore, as the interview setting is in the subject’s home, it is not easy to control

several acoustic interruptions either by other family members or phones ringing. Last but

not least, the mike fright and concerns about breach of privacy are factors which trigger

high anxiety reflected in both the active interviews and the picture naming task.

4.6 Stimuli and procedure

4.6.1 Qualitative analysis: Sociolinguistic questionnaire

The interview is a semi-structured questionnaire that is used as a guideline to elicit as

much free speech as possible and to unveil the linguistic knowledge, social background,

educational level, motivation, attitude, social network, language performance and choice.

The data collected from the sociolinguistic questionnaire can be grouped into variables as

follows (see appendix for more details):

a) Personal characteristics:

Age (question 1)

Sex (question 2)

Emigration length (question 6)

Education (question 5)

b) Language contact:

Frequency of visit (question 13)

Frequency of use (question 19)

Native language of (ex-) partner (question 26)

Native language of friends (questions 22, 42)

Amount of contact with friends/family back home (question 40)

c) Language choice:

Use of L1 with partner (questions 28, 29)

Use of L1 with children/grandchildren (questions 31, 32, 34, 35)

Use of L1 media (questions 45, 46, 47)

23

Network questions (question 43)

d) L1 proficiency self-evaluation:

Proficiency now (question 18)

Proficiency at emigration (question 17)

Change in proficiency (question 48)

Fully bilingual (question 52)

e) L2 proficiency self-evaluation:

Lessons in L2 after emigration (question 10)

Proficiency at emigration (question 15)

Proficiency now (question 16)

f) Attitudes:

Importance of maintaining L1 (question)

Importance that children acquire L1 (questions 21, 36, 37, 38, 39)

Cultural preference (question 23)

Language preference (question 24)

Language learning (questions 57, 58, 59, 60, 62)

Homesickness (question 44)

Embarrassment (questions 50, 52)

Intention to return (questions 53, 54)

Additional questions on politics, economy, hobbies, etc. are added towards the

end of the questionnaire to elicit further free discourse to tag hesitation, pauses,

retractions, false starts, borrowing, code-switching, simplification; i.e. compensational

strategies for language loss.

Open Hypotheses:

i) The experimental group may lose efficiency and speed in L1

compared to the control group;

ii) Subjects who have frequent contact with their L1 and choose

to use it regularly will do better in the picture naming task

than those who use L1 less frequently;

24

iii) Subjects who rated their L1 proficiency positively will

perform better in L1 picture naming task compared to those

who are not confident about their L1 proficiency level;

iv) Subjects who highly self-evaluated their L2 proficiency will

perform worse in L1 picture naming task than those who are

claiming low L2 proficiency;

v) Subjects having a positive attitude about their L1 will

perform better in L1 picture naming task than those who tend

to have negative attitudes.

vi) Subjects will perform better in an offline task such as SQ

than the online of picture naming task.

4.6.2 Quantitative analysis: Picture naming

Based on Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) standardized set of 260 pictures for use in

experiments exploring similarities and differences in words production and pictures

processing, 150 pictures are selected for naming tasks in both MA and Dutch. The

pictures are in black and white line drawing designed to be consistent in terms of pictorial

representation (see sample below).

Sample of pictures:

Eagle

25

Doll

Pictures are evaluated according to four variables pertinent to memory and

cognitive processing in terms of name and image agreement, familiarity and visual

complexity. The 150 pictures are divided in two equal sets in MA and Dutch. The target

stimuli are equally composed of high, medium and low frequency words and every set of

75 pictures is in turn reshuffled randomly and presented into 4 distinct sequences of

experiments to control the priming effects. This investigation is designed in an effort to

measure the reaction time (RT) of attriters compared to that of the control group and to

account for the influence of each variable on the semantic retrieval.

Procedure:

Subjects were tested individually and items were displayed on an LCD screen (14

inches). Prior to the actual picture naming task, voice sensitivity was rectified for each

participant through a practice set of pictures. This trial was used also for the purpose of

familiarizing the subjects with the task. The distance between the participants and the

microphone was approximately 25 cm. The participants viewed items centered from a

distance of about 60 cm. To maximize consistency of results, the same equipment was

used during all tests; a Toshiba laptop computer connected to an SR Box through an

outside comport. A digital voice recorder was separately used to tape vocal responses.

On each trial a blank sheet is shown for 1500 ms followed by a fixation mark (+)

for 100 ms. The target item is then 6 on the screen for a maximum time of 3000 ms. An

26

asterix sign (*) would appear on the screen for 1000 ms as soon as a voice response is

detected by the microphone attached to the SR Box. Thus, the participants were carefully

instructed to name the pictures as quickly as they can without producing sounds such as

coughs or hesitations vocal signs (e.g. “hmm”), etc.

RTs are automatically recorded by the computer and will be used in statistical

comparative surveys. Yet, a print out of the score sheet is simultaneously used by the

researcher to note manually the scores according to Bates & al. (2003) scoring protocol.

Scoring:

As the E-prime device is either sensitive to any external voice or sometimes unable to

detect the participant response, we needed to apply a reliable manual scoring system

which is also used to note alternative naming. Based on Bates & al. (2003) criteria of

scoring, the target response was evaluated in two steps as follows:

a. error coding:

1. Valid response: all responses with a valid name and response time (no hesitations,

coughs, laughs or false starts). Some participants used the expressions “I don’t

know” or “pass”. These responses were unexpected and were considered as

incorrect;

2. Invalid response: all responses having an invalid or missing RT; i.e. the

microphone is either triggered by coughs, hesitations, false starts, etc. or the

microphone did detected the participant voice even though the latter produced a

name;

3. No response: any trial where the participant remained completely silent.

b. lexical coding:

Valid responses are in turn categorized according to the following criteria:

1. The target name or dominant response;

2. Morphological and phonological variations of target names sharing the same root;

3. Synonyms of the target name with different word roots;

27

4. Hyponyms (e.g. insect for fly), semantic associates ( e.g. dog for fox), part-whole

relations (e.g. foot for leg), and other visual errors.

Name Agreement:

The percentage of name agreement is determined based on all valid trials on which the

subjects produced the target name. Yet, viewing the regional differences among

participants L1, the validation of responses cannot be rigorously restricted to one unique

target name.

Hypotheses:

With regards to picture naming tasks, the number of alternatives available for naming one

object has effects on RTs within and across languages indicating inhibitory effects from

lexical competitors. The hypotheses that can be formulated in this context are:

i) Having available more than one response to the same

stimulus may lead to slower reaction times;

ii) The experimental group will find the task of articulating the

name that corresponds to a picture more effortful in L1 than

L2;

iii) The experimental group will score longer in terms of RTs

compared to the control group.

5.Summary of initial findings

Sociolinguistic questionnaire:

The lexical data obtained from the naturalistic MA speech shows less evidence of

attrition but it shows a great infiltration of code-switching to other languages (e.g.

Standard Arabic, French, Spanish or English) including sometimes Dutch. Disfluency is

also located in subjects’ free discourse through frequent filled pauses, false start,

retractions and lack of stylistic variants.

28

The participants have different educational levels ranging from primary levels to

university education. They all share the same opinion regarding their self-evaluation of

L1 and L2; they all claim that their L1 is good enough to enable them to communicate

with the native speakers and the only difference is that their linguistic repertoire is not

updated to include the register of new generations in Morocco. None of the participants

considered themselves as fully bilingual in both MA and Dutch and still consider their L1

proficiency higher. This is might be due to absence of exposure to L2 prior to

immigration and use of L2 only for instrumental reasons such at work, in the market or

with the spouse if she is Dutch. Almost all the participants learned Dutch at school upon

arrival in the Netherlands for a duration of between one to two years. Yet, early

immigrants of the 60s and 70s are more proficient in Dutch because they had more

contact with Dutch colleagues and friends than later when the Moroccan community has

become bigger.

L1 is predominantly the language of choice in terms of media. Participants watch

Moroccan TV and listen to Moroccan songs very frequently on daily basis. The

nationality of origin of the spouse determines the language of choice with the children. If

the spouse is Moroccan then the language chosen to speak to the children is MA. Parents

go further to make it the only language spoken in the house depending on their level of

education and how religiously conservative they are. If the spouse is Dutch then the

children would be exposed to an L1/L2 mix with the dominance of Dutch.

Almost all participants maintain regular contact with their families back home,

pay visits to Morocco at least once a year and have more Moroccan friends than Dutch.

Their attitude towards the Dutch culture is rather moderate and likes to pick up some

positive aspect of the modern society while preserving their home country traditions and

trying their best to pass them to their children. With no exception, all subjects find it

important to maintain their L1 and that their children acquire it. L1 is important for the

children to preserve their Moroccan identity and for them to be able to communicate with

the rest of the family in Morocco when they go on holidays. Their argument is that Dutch

is only spoken in the Netherlands and cannot be a substitute for L1 like French which has

a special prestige in Morocco.

29

Positive attitudes towards language learning do not correlate with the subjects’

proficiency in L2. They all like to learn new languages and appreciate the experience but

admit that the age and motivation have great influence on learning. They all admit that

their first priority is to improve their economic status; a factor that affects negatively their

chances to study.

All participants immigrated to the Netherlands for economic reasons and it is

these reasons which still control their stay in the host country. They all feel homesick and

would appreciate to go back and live in Morocco if they manage to have a better

economic status.

Participants who perform well during the free-discourse session do not

automatically score positively in the PNT. The circumstances of both tasks are different

and the corpus of the sociolinguistic questionnaire is more naturally framed compared to

an online task such as the PNT.

Picture Naming Task:

The process of naming a picture involves several factors and is sensitive to cognitive,

linguistic and external variables. Methodological measurements obtained by E-prime

software have proven their reliability to enable the study to show new evidence on these

effects’ influence upon naming latency. The preliminary conclusions that can be currently

drawn, prior to a scrutinized analysis, are mainly related to visual complexity, concept

familiarity, image agreement and name agreement as determinant of naming speed.

Visual complexity is a significant predictor of picture naming speed. Subjects take

more time to recognize some objects because they are not represented in the familiar

image they stored in their memory. Some problematic pictures in our set of experiments

are: “potato”, “orange”, “peach”, “cherry” and “apple”. They all fall in the category of

vegetables and fruits. Due to their poor image representation, they are named by several

subjects as a “ball”. Objects like “bee” and “fly” are confusing and are named either both

a “fly” or subjects opt for the general word “insect”. Participants experience difficulty to

30

name the image of “fox” and distinguish it from “wolf” or “dog”; the latter being some of

the responses produced.

The lack of familiarity with some objects affects RTs. The participants do not

encounter frequently objects such: “watering can”, “anchor”, “rolling pin” and “kite”.

These are one of the items which scored longer RTs. They are surely some individual

differences especially for the image of the “rolling pin” which was named by more

women than men be it a kitchen utensil.

The experimental group was faster in processing the image of “bread”; it has a

high name agreement and concept familiarity. Based on the pilot study, the control group

produces a totally different naming for this object: “cake”. This is due to the fact that the

representation of “bread” in Morocco is totally different than in Western countries. Both

groups show less agreement in naming the picture of the “doll”; it is named “doll”, “little

boy”, “little girl” or “baby”. Presumably, processing such objects with low name

agreement produces the activation of more lexical candidates and takes additional time to

respond. RTs in these cases are also affected by the number of phonemes and syllables of

alternative responses.

Though I have no statistical results at this stage, the PNT ostensibly shows more

evidence of lexical attrition compared to the directly elicited corpus through the

sociolinguistic questionnaire. The educational factor plays a major role in this online task

and consequently affects RTs. Educated participants have less fright from technology

equipment. On the other hand, uneducated subjects produce more correct naming in the

target language (MA) because they are more proficient in their L1 and suffer less from

rich competitive linguistic repertoires. Age, gender and length of stay in the host country

equally affect the PNT because participants experience shifts in their language use and

dominance.

The above remains very preliminary impressions and more conclusive will follow

after in-depth analysis.

31

6. Summary of first-year activities & anticipated schedule of the PhD project

6.1 Past Activities (September 2007-June 2008)

Reading and Orientation to Literature: (Aug. 2007- January 2008) A considerable part of the first semester this year was spent in reading and gathering the

relevant references for the research.

First Round of Data Collection:

Material development: (Aug. 2007- March 2008) Prior to the first round of data

collection, the test battery materials for attrition were translated from English to Arabic.

This included a sociolinguistic questionnaire, Can-do scales and C-tests. Attempts to

tailor and formulate the C-tests to a written form of MA failed and were dropped as an

experimental technique. The Can-do scales test was ultimately disregarded since the MA

natives can only self-assess their proficiency in two skills namely, speaking and listening.

There was, thus, a compulsory need to constitute a reliable model for future experiment

that would elicit qualitative as well as quantitative results. Story telling (See Appendix 3:

snake story) was another option for collecting free discourse data in addition to the

sociolinguistic questionnaire. An E-prime picture naming task (PNT) was created to serve

the same purpose. A period of four weeks was spent only in exploring E-prime program

and trying to build-up a reliable experiment. An additional four weeks were invested in

tailoring the experiment and testing it in Rug Psychology laboratory as well as testing its

reliability in laptop use.

Recruitment: (March 2008- June 2008) Subjects were recruited through various

informal networks. This first round of data collection was launched by a pilot study

consisting of 8 subjects who carried out three experiments in MA: PNT, “snake story”

telling and sociolinguistic questionnaire.

Initial findings from this pilot led to disregarding he “snake story” as it did not produce

enough free speech. Additional questions were added to the sociolinguistic questionnaire

to divulge more information about informants’ language attitude and performance.

An additional 35 subjects were subsequently recruited through snowball sampling

from different cities of the Netherlands; It was difficult to locate a sufficient number

subjects

32

who fit the research criteria in Groningen as the total Moroccan population of Groningen

province is 643, 96% of whom are Berber (according to Gemeente Groningen statistics,

October 2007).

Transcription and encoding: Transcription started in parallel with the data

collection and I have managed with the help of an assistant to transcribe 9 interviews.

Transcriptions will be analyzed by CHILDES/CLAN programs in order to identify

disfluency features, i.e. hesitation, pauses, retractions, false starts, borrowing, code-

switching, simplification, etc. The first round of data collection has just stopped in June

2008. Encoding and statistical analysis of data will follow subsequently this summer.

Control group pilot study in Morocco: (May-June 2007) During a ten day

vacation in Morocco, I recruited 10 subjects with whom I conducted 10 PNT and 5

interviews. Based on this preliminary research I will restructure the autobiographical

interview to produce more feedback from informants.

Writing up: The first phase of data analysis will yield to a presentation in Eurosla

18 next September and I presume that further analysis will produce more conferences

papers and presentations during the second year. Further data collection will also

positively influence the amount of output.

Courses:

Sept 9- Dec.15, 2007 Dutch Course Level 1, RUG University

Sept. 3- Dec. 17, 2007 Methodology & Research Tools for Applied Linguistics,

RUG University

Nov. 14-15, 2007 Endnote, RUG University

Conferences:

Sept. 11-14, 2007 Eurosla17, Newcastle (attended)

Feb. 22, 2008 Symposium on Generative & Neurolinguistic Perspectives

of Language Attrition, RUG University (attended).

6.2 Work Plan 2008-2011:

July-Sept. 2008 Transcription phase

33

Oct.–Dec. 2008 Second round data collection: Interviews and PNT for

control group in Morocco.

• Publishing Article for the EuroSLA Year Book 2009

Jan.-June 2009 Coding phase of free data in CHAT format.

• Publishing Article on the PNT results.

July-Sept. 2009 Third round data collection: Interviews and PNT in Dutch

for Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands.

• Publishing Article about L1 & L2 proficiency for

Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Oct.2009-Feb. 2010 Preliminary analysis of findings within groups of speakers

• Publishing Article on the general findings of the

previous period.

March-May 2010 Adaptation of analysis and writing-up

June 2010-May 2011 Writing PhD dissertation.

Courses 2008-2009:

Oct. 27- Dec. 8, 2008 Dutch Course Level 2, RUG University

January 19- 30, 2009 LOT Winter School, Groningen.

June 22-July 17, 2009 The Summer Institute in Applied Linguistics, Penn State,

USA.

Conferences 2008-2009

Aug. 24-29, 2008 AILA World Congress Multilingualism and Challenges:

Essen

Sept. 10-13, 2008 Eurosla18, Aix-en-Provence

March 11-13, 2008 Attrition Workshop, RUG University

March 27-28, 2009 First & Second Languages: Exploring the Relationship in

Pedagogy Related Contexts, The LINGUIST, Oxford.

May 27-28, 2009 6th Anéla Conferentie, Kerkrade.

July 8-11, 2009 The International Symposium on Bilingualism, Utrecht.

Sept. 2-5, 2009 EUROSLA 2009, Cork.

34

References:

Abbassi, A. (1977). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Multilingualism in Morocco. PhD

dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.

Ait Ouarasse, O. (2003). What Immigration Does to Young People: The Psychological

Acculturation of Moroccans in the Netherlands. Dutch University Press.

Ammerlaan, T. (1996). "You Get a Bit Wobbly..."; Exploring Bilingual Lexical

Retrieval Processes in the Context of First Language Attrition. The University of

Nijmegen.

Ammerlaan, T. Hulsen, M., Strating H. and Yagmur, K. (2001). Sociolinguistic and

Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Maintenance and Loss of Languages. Waxmann.

Andesen, R. W. (1982). “Determining the Linguistic Attributes of Language Attrition”.

In R. D. Lambert & B. F. Freeds (Eds.), The Loss of Language Skills (pp. 83-118).

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Appel, R. & Muysken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. British Library

Cataloguing.

Bates E, & al. (2003). “Timed picture naming in seven languages”. Psychonomic

Bulletin & Review. 10 (2), 344-380.

Beaujour, El. K. (1989). Alien Tongues: Bilingual Russian Writers of the "First"

Emigration. Cornell University Press.

Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. (1988). Convergence and Divergence: Two Cases of

Language Shift in Morocco. Noordwijkerhout The International Conference on

Maintenance and Loss of Ethnic Minority Languages.

Broersma, M. & De Bot, K. (2006). Triggered Codeswitching: A Corpus-based

Evaluation of the Original Triggering Hypothesis and a New Alternative.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9 (1), 1-13

Caramazza, A. & Zurif, E. (Eds.). (1978). Language Acquisition and Language

Breakdown. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Clyne, M. (1992). “Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Aspects of Language Contact,

Maintenance and Loss: Towards a Multifacet Theory”. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, &

35

K. Sjaak (Eds.), Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages (pp. 17- 35).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cook, V. (1984). “Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and Second Language Learning”.

Applied Linguistics 6: 1-18.

De Bot, K. (1992). “A Bilingual Production Model: Levelt’s Speaking Model Adapted”.

Applied Linguistics 13 (1), 1–24.

De Bot, K. (2001). “Language Use as an Interface between Sociolinguistic and

Psycholinguistic Processes in Language Attrition and Language Shift”. In J.

Klatter-Folmer & P. van Avermaet (Eds.), Theories on Maintenance and Loss of

Minority Languages: Towards a more Integrated Explanatory Framework (pp.

65–82). Münster: Waxmann.

De Bot, K., & Clyne, M. (1989). “Language Reversion Revisited”. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 11, 167-177.

De Bot, K. & Clyne, M. (1994). A 16-year Longitudinal Study of Language Attrition in

Dutch Immigrants in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development 15(1): 17- 18.

De Bot, K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2007). “A Dynamic Systems Theory approach

to Second Language Acquisition”. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 10: 7-

22.

De Bot, K. & Weltens, B. (1991). “Recapiltulation, Regression, and Language Loss”. In

Seliger, H. S. & Vago, M. (Eds.). First Language Attrition (pp. 31-51).

Cambridge University Press.

Dewaele, J. M. & Pavlenko A. (2003). “Productivity and Lexical Diversity in Native

and Non-Native Speech: A Study of Cross-cultural Effects”. In Cook, V. (Ed.),

Effects of The Second Language on The Firs. (pp.137-141). Dublin:

Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Dussias, P. E. (2002). “On the Relationship between Comprehension and Production Data in

Codeswitching”. In C. Wiltshire & J. Camps (Eds.), Romance Phonology and

Variation (pp. 27-39). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ecke, P. (2004). “Language Attrition and Theories of Forgetting: A Cross-disciplinary

Review.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3): 321-354.

36

El Aissati, A. (1997). Language Loss among Native Speakers of Moroccan Arabic in the

Netherlands. Tilburg University Press.

Eldering, L. (1997). “Ethnicity and School Performance: Complicating the

Immigrant/Involuntary Minority Typology”. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly,28, (3) : pp. 330-350

Ennaji, M.(1997). “The Sociology of Berber: Change and Continuity”. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 123: 23-40.

Ennaji, M. (2005). Multilingualism, Cultural Identity, and Education in Morocco

Springer.

Extra, G. & Ruiter, J.J. de. (1994). “The Sociolinguistic Status of the Moroccan

Community in the Netherlands”. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 1 & 2,

151-176.

Flynn, S. (1987). A Parameter-setting Model of L2 Acquisition. Dordercht: D. Reidel

Publishing Company.

Freud, S. (1891). On Aphasia. E. Stengel (Trans.). International Universities Press, 1953.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: Technical report.

Retrieved March 6, 2008 from:

http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/AMTBmanualforwebpage.pdf

Green, D. W. (1986). Control, Activation, and Resource: A Framework and a Model for

the Control of Speech in Bilinguals. Brain and Language 27, 210-223.

Grosjean, F. (1994). ‘Individual Bilingualism”. In The Encyclopedia of Language and

Linguistics (pp. 1656-1660). Oxford: Pergamon.

Grosjean, F. (2001). “The Bilingual's Language Modes”. In J. L. Nicol (Eds.), One

Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing (pp.1-23). Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced Attrition: A Psycholinguistics Account.

Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53-78.

Hakansson, G. (1995). “Syntax and Morphology in Language Attrition: A Study of Five

Bilingual Expatriate Swedes”. International Journal f Applied linguistics, 5

(pp.153-171).

37

Hamminck, K. (1990). “Functional Illiteracy and Adult Basic Education in the

Netherlands”. UIE Studies on Functional Illiteracy in Industrialized Countries 5,

Unesco Institute for Education, Hamburg.

Hansen, L. & Chen, Y.-L (2001). What Counts in the Acquisition and Attrition of

Numeral Classifiers? JALT Journal, 23, 90- 110.

Hedgcock, J. (1991). “Foreign Language Retention and Attrition: A Study of Regression

Models”. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (pp.445-457).

Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of

Change in Psycholinguistics. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Hooghiemstra, E. (2001). “Migrants, Partner Selection and Integration: Crossing

Borders? (Turks and Moroccans in Netherlands)”. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 32 (4): 609-626.

Hyltenstam, K. (1987). “Markedness, Language Universals, Langugae Typology and

Second Language Acquisition”. In Paff, C. (Ed.), First and Second Language

Acquisition Processes. New York: Harper & Row, 55-80.

Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg A (Eds.). (1993). Progression and Regression in Language:

Sociocultural, Neuropsychological, and Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge

University Press.

Jackobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie und Allgemeine Lautgesetze.

Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets i Uppsala Förhandlingar, Uppsala: Uppsala

Universitetet. English Translation: Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological

Universals. The Hague & Paris: Mouton, 1968.

Jia, G. & Aaronson D. (1999). “Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition: The

Dominant Language Switch and Maintenance Hypothesis”. In A. Greenhill, H.

Littlefield, & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University

Conference on Language Development 23: 301–312. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla

Press.

Kaufman, D. (2001). “Tales of L1 Attrition- Evidence from Prepuberty Children. In T.

Ammerlaan, M. Hulsen, H. Strating, & K. Yagmur (Eds.), Variation in Second

Language Acquisition, Vol. 2: Psycholinguistic Issues, 185-202.

Münster:Waxmann.

38

Kecskes. I. & Papp, T. (2003). “How to Demonstrate the Conceptual Effect of L2

on L1? Methods and Techniques”. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of The Second

Language on The First (pp. 247-266). Dublin: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Keijzer, M. (2007). Last in First out? An Investigation of the Regression Hypothesis in

Dutch Emigrants in Anglophone Canada. Utrecht, NL:Graduate School of

Linguistics LOT.

Köpke, B. (2002). “Activation thresholds and non-pathological L1 attrition”. In F.

Fabbro(Ed.), Advances in the Neurolinguistics of Bilingualism. Essays in Honor

of Michel Paradis (pp.119-142). Undine: Forum.

Köpke, B. (2004). Neurolinguistic Aspects of Attrition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17,

3-30.

Köpke, B. & Schmid, M. (2004). “Language Attrition: The Next Phase”. In M. S.

Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer and L. Weilemar (Eds.), First Language Attrition:

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues (pp. 1-47).Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Lautenbach, H. & Otten, F. (2007). “Education Deficiency Means Lower Income for

Immigrant Men”. CBS Web Magazine. Retrieved on 8 August, 2008 from:

http://www.cbs.nl/enGB/menu/themas/dossiers/allochtonen/publicati

es/artikelen/archief/2007/2007-2155-wm.htm

Maher, J. (1991) “A Crosslinguistic Study of language Contact and Attrition”. In

Seliger, H. W. & Vago, R. M. First Language Attrition. Cambridge University

Press.

Mägiste, E. (1986). “Selected Issues in Second and Third Language Learning”. In J.

Vaid (Ed.),Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and

Neurolinguistic Perspectives (pp.97-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). “Code-Switching”. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The Handbook of

Sociolinguistics, (pp. 217-237). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Nicoladis, E. & Grabois, H. (2002). Learning English and Loosing Chinese: A Case

Study of a Child Adopted from China. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6, 441-454.

Nortier, J. (1990). Dutch-Moroccan Arabic Code Switching among Moroccan in the

39

Netherlands. Foris Publications.

Olshtain, E. (1986). The Attrition of English as a Second Language with Speakers of

Hebrew. In B. Weltens, K. de Bot and T. van Els (Eds.), Language Attrition in

Progress, 187-204. Dordrecht: Foris.

Paradis, M. (1985). On the Representation of Two Languages in the Brain. Language

Sciences, 7(1), 1-39.

Paradis, M. (1993). Linguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Neurolinguistic Aspects of

“Interference” in Bilingual Speakers: The Activation Threshold Hypothesis.

International Journal of Psycholinguistics 9(2), 133-145.

Paradis, M. (2001) “An Integrated Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism (1976-

2000)”. In R. M. Brend, A. K. Melby & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS forum

XXVII: Speaking and Comprehending (pp. 5-15|). Fullerton, CA: LACUS.

Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Pavlenko, A. & Jaris, S. (2002). “Bidirectional Transfer”. Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 23/2 (pp.190-214).

Pitres, A. (1895). “Aphasia in polyglots”. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Readings on Aphasia in

Bilinguals and Polyglots (pp. 26–49). Montreal: Didier.

Platzack, C. (1996). “The Initial Hypothesis of Syntax: A Minimalist Perspective on

Language Acquisition and Attrition”. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative Perspective

on Langugae Acquisition (pp. 369- 414). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ransdell, S. E., & Fischler, I. (1987). “Memory in a Monolingual Mode: When are

Bilinguals at a Disadvantage?”. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 392-405.

Roelandt, T. & Verweij, A. (1991). Kerngegevens Minderheden in Nederland.

Statistisch Vademecum. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.

Sayahi, L. (2007). Diglossia and Contact-induced Language Change. International

Journal of Multilingualism 4 (1). 38-51.

Seliger, H. W. (1996). “Primary Language Attrition in the Context of Bilingualism. In

W. C. Ritchie & TEJK Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition

(pp. 606-625). London: Academic Press.

40

Schmid, M.S. (2000). First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The Case of

German Jews in Anglophone Countries. Ph.D. at the Heinrich-Heine-Universität

Düsseldorf. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Dieter Stein.

Schmid, M. S. (2002). “Language Attrition Research: An Annotated Bibliography”. In

M. S. Schmid, & al. (Eds). (2004). First Language Attrition. Interdisciplinary

Perspectives on Methodological Issues (pp. 317-348) John Benjamins.

Schmid, M.S. (2005). The Language Attrition Test Battery: A Research Manual. MS,

University of Groningen.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1983a). “On Explaining Language Loss”. In S. Felix and H.

Wode (Eds.), Language Development at the Crossroads (pp. 49-69). Tübingen:

Gunter Narr.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1983b). “On First Language Loss in the Second Language

Acquirer: Problems of Transfer”. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (Eds.), Language

Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 222-231). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Sharwood Smith, M. & van Buren, P. (1991). “First Language Attrition and the

Parameter Setting Model”. In H. W. Seliger & R. M. Vago (Eds.), First Language

Attrition (pp. 17-30). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Snodgrass & Vanderwart (1980). “A Standardized Set of 260 Pictures: Norms for

Name Agreement, Image Agreement, Familiarity & Visual Complexity”. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2),174-215.

Schiffman, H. F. (1997). “Diglossia as a Sociolinguistic Situation”. In F. Coulmans

(Ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp.205-216).Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers Ltd.

Sorace, A. (2000). Differential Effects of Attrition in the L1 Syntax of Near-native L2

Speakers. Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language

Development (pp. 719-725). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Suleiman, Y. (Ed.) (1999). Language and Society in the Middle East and North Africa.

London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Vermeer, A. (1985). “Moroccan and Turkish Children in The Netherlands: The Influence

41

of Social Factors on Tempo and Structure of L2 Acquisition”. G. Extra & T.

Vallen (Eds.) (pp. 50-64). Foris Publications: Dordrecht: USA.

Weinreich, U. (1966). Language in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:

Mouton.

Youssi, A. (1995). “The Moroccan Triglossia: Facts and Implications”. International

Journal of Sociology and Language, 112: 29-43.

Yukawa, E. (1998). L1 Japanese Attrition and Regaining: Three Case Studies of Two

Early Bilingual Children. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Appendix 1:

Sociolinguistic questionnaire (English original version)

1. What is your date of birth? 19

2. Are you: O male O female

3. Where were you born:

Village/Town:

County:

Country

4. What nationality do you have?

5. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

O primary school

O secondary school, level:

O higher education, namely:

O university, degree:

6. When did you come to Netherlands (year)? 19

7. Why did you emigrate and why to Netherlands in particular?

42

8. Apart from Netherlands, have you ever lived in a country other than Morocco for a

longer period of time (that is, more than 6 months)?

O no

O yes, in: for the period of:

9. What language(s) did you acquire before starting school?

O only MA

O MA and (an)other language (s)

O (an) other language(s):

10. Did you attend any Dutch classes before coming to Netherlands? (this has to be in an

educational environment, like a school or some similar institution):

O no

O yes, for the duration of (number of years):

11. What language or languages did you learn professionally or at school?

Writing: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

Speaking: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

Listening: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

Reading: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

12. What language or languages did you learn outside of an educational environment (so

outside of school or work)?

Writing: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

Speaking: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

Listening: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

Reading: O very bad O bad O sufficient O good O very good

13. Have you ever been back to Morocco since leaving for the Netherlands?

43

O no, never

O yes, but only occasionally

O yes, regularly: about: times a year.

14. Do you ever go to the mosque in the Netherlands?

O no, never

O yes, occasionally

O yes, regularly

15. In general, how would you rate your Dutch language proficiency before you moved to

the Netherlands?

O none

O very poor

O fairly poor

O sufficient

O good

O very good

16. In general, how would you rate your Dutch language proficiency at present?

O none

O very poor

O fairly poor

O sufficient

O good

O very good

17 In general, how would you rate your MA language proficiency before you moved to

the Netherlands?

O none

O very poor

O fairly poor

O sufficient

44

O good

O very good

18. In general, how would you rate your MA language proficiency at present?

O none

O very poor

O fairly poor

O sufficient

O good

O very good

19. How often do you speak MA?

O rarely, namely

O a few times a year

O monthly

O weekly

O daily

20. Do you consider it important to maintain your MA?

O very unimportant

O fairly unimportant

O no opinion

O important

O very important

21. Do you consider it important that your children can speak and understand MA?

O very unimportant

O fairly unimportant

O no opinion

O important

O very important

45

22. In general, do you have more MA- or Dutch-speaking friends in Canada?

O only Dutch-speaking friends

O both, but more Dutch-speaking friends

O as many Dutch- as MA-speaking friends

O both, but more MA-speaking friends

O only MA-speaking friends

23. Do you feel more at home with Moroccan or with Dutch culture?

O with Dutch culture

O with Moroccan culture

O with both cultures

24. Do you feel more comfortable speaking MA or Dutch?

O Dutch

O MA

O no preference

25 What is your current marital status?

O married

O separated/divorced

O widow/widower

O living together unmarried

O single

26. With what language(s) was your (ex)partner brought up?

O MA

O Dutch

O other, namely:

27. If your (ex)partner was not born in the Neterlands, what were the reasons that he or

she came to the Netherlands?

46

28. What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your (ex)partner?

O only Dutch

O Dutch mostly

O both Dutch and MA, without preference

O MA mostly

O only MA

O other language

29. What language or languages does your (ex)partner mostly use when talking to you?

O only Dutch

O Dutch mostly

O both Dutch and MA, without preference

O MA mostly

O only MA

O other language

30. Do you have children?

O no

O yes, they are years old.

31. What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your children?

O only Dutch

O Dutch mostly

O both Dutch and MA, without preference

O MA mostly

O only MA

O other language

47

32. What language or languages do your children mostly use when talking to you?

O only Dutch

O Dutch mostly

O both Dutch and MA, without preference

O MA mostly

O only MA

O other language

33. Do you have grandchildren?

O no

O yes, they are years old.

34. What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your grandchildren?

O only Dutch

O Dutch mostly

O both Dutch and MA, without preference

O MA mostly

O only MA

O other language

35. What language or languages do your grandchildren mostly use when talking to you?

O only Dutch

O Dutch mostly

O both Dutch and MA, without preference

O MA mostly

O only MA

O other language

36. Do you encourage your children to speak Dutch?

O no, never

48

O yes, occasionally

O yes, often

37. Did your children ever follow MA heritage classes (Saturday classes for example)?

O no

O yes

38. Did /do you ever correct your children’s MA?

O never

O very rarely

O sometimes

O regularly

O very often

39. If your children do not speak or understand MA, do you regret that?

O not at all

O not much

O no opinion

O a bit

O very much

40. Are you in frequent contact with relatives and friends in Morocco?

O all the time

O frequently

O sometimes

O rarely

O very rarely

41. Have you made many new friends in the Netherlands?

O yes

49

O no

42. What is the mother tongue of the majority of these people?

O Dutch

O MA

O Both Dutch & MA equal

O another language

43. Could you, in the following tables, please indicate to what extent you use MA (table

1) and Dutch (table 2) in the domains provided? You may simply tick the box. If a certain

domain is not applicable to you, you may leave the box empty.

I speak MA

all the time frequently sometimes rarely very rarely

With father

With mother

With elder

siblings

With younger

siblings

With other

relatives

With friends

At work

In mosque

In shops

At clubs or

organisations

I speak Dutch

all the time frequently sometimes rarely very rarely

50

With father

With mother

With elder

siblings

With younger

siblings

With other

relatives

With friends

At work

In mosque

In shops

At clubs or

organisations

44. Do you ever get homesick in the sense of missing Morocco?

O no

O yes, what I then miss most is/are:

45. Do you ever listen to Moroccan songs?

O no

O rarely

O sometimes

O often

O very often

46. Do you ever listen to Moroccan radio programmes?

O no

O rarely

O sometimes

51

O often

O very often

47. Do you ever watch Moroccan television programmes?

O no

O rarely

O sometimes

O often

O very often

48. Do you think your MA language proficiency has changed since you moved to the

Netherlands?

O yes, I think it has become worse

O yes, I think it has become better

O no

49. Do you think you use more or less MA since you moved to the Netherlands?

O yes, I think I use less MA

O no, I don’t think I use more or less MA now

O yes, I think I use more MA

50. Do you ever feel uncomfortable when speaking MA with a Moroccan person who has

never spent a considerable amount of time outside Morocco?

O very comfortable

O comfortable

O neutral

O uncomfortable

51. Do feel uncomfortable when you speak MA with someone who, like you, has lived in

the Netherlands for a long time?

O very comfortable

52

O comfortable

O neutral

O uncomfortable

52. Do you see yourself as bilingual? In other words, do you think you are as proficient in

MA as in Dutch?

O no, my Dutch is better because____________________________________________

O yes, because __________________________________________________________

O no, by MA is better because ______________________________________________

O I don’t know, because ___________________________________________________

53. Do you ever intend to move back to Morocco?

O surely

O maybe

O I think no

O surely no

54. If you have indicated that you do (not) intend to ever move back to Morocco, can you

explain why you feel that way?

55. Looking back, do you think you have made the right decision in moving to the

Netherlands?

O surely

O maybe

O I think no

O surely no

because:

53

56. What is/are language(s)you used in the last couple of hours before this interview and

with whom?

57. If you happen to visit a new country would you like to speak its language?

O surely no O no O I don’t care O yes O surely yes

58. Do you in general find learning foreign languages important?

O surely no O no O I don’t care O yes O surely yes

59. Do you in general like to learn new languages?

O surely no O no O I don’t care O yes O surely yes

60. Do you like to hear others when speaking foreign languages?

O surely no O no O I don’t care O yes O surely yes

61. Do you find learning foreign languages an enjoyable experience?

O surely no O no O I don’t care O yes O surely yes

62. What do you think about politics in the Netherlands? What are the problems that the

Moroccan immigrants have in the Netherlands and how can we possibly help them to

have a better status?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

63. What are your hobbies, what do you do in your free time and how do you usually

spend your week?

54

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

64. You have come to the end of this questionnaire. Is there anything you would like to

add? This can be anything from language-related comments to remarks about the

questionnaire or research itself.

55

Appendix 2:

Sociolinguistic questionnaire (Arabic version written in Modern Moroccan

Arabic just for the purpose of personal reference point. The interview is orally

conducted in the Moroccan Arabic dialect spoken publically by all Moroccans. )

����������� �����

1�������������� ��������������������19�������� �

2����� ���� ���� ���

3��������� �!�� �����������"#$����"� � �����#%&$���"� � ������

��'��"� � ����������������

4�� (�)$*�+,��������"#�$�-, #�.�/�0�#�$�-,��� #�.�/������

5��-()����1��-,���2��3�4�50�+6���7"

+8��(.9��:��;(������ <-������:��;(��� �+;��=���>+��;���:��;(��

+$?����@�(������ �?��1�4�A�������0�B��?C���+,������

6��D��$�-,���3�4����#$6�<��+������19

7��D��E(��.���$�-,���3�F�*�,������

G�1���� H0I���G�1��������0I��#* H0I���J������������#*0I��

7�K��L�'6�����"� � � �����������������

8���#�-M�B�(N��L�/����H�K��KO���.�+��4C1�G,�>��$�-,�P�$�(6�.Q��1��I�6�?R��SD

9���� B���0�#$6����GT������� �����0��#$6�����������"� � � �����

���������������� � ���������������������� 9��D#6�������3�U-K����G'T��?(��;��+(���F�/����0��#/����+,��

#N�(V��7�K��#/�����������7�K��#/�0�#�.�/����#*����������#�.�/����#*������

56

������������������������������

10���D�#�$�-?���#/����:�;��W0��F����G, 9�������:;���������������

?R����GT������ ����GT��3�?R�� ����GT��6�?R��

#$6����GT����� #$6�������������

11��D#6�����F�-$6�U�K�0��#���;��� �����P�$X���?(��;��+(���F�/����0��#/����+,��

#.�(�"

������� ����� �������� ������������������ � �������������������� Y��"

������� ������ �������� ������������������ ������ �������������������� Z��6"

� ������� ����� �������� ������������������ ������ �������������������� BP��T"

������� ������ �������� ������������������ ������ �������������������� 12����#/����+,��D#6�����0��G�;���[�&��H�K��?(��;��+(���F�/����0

#.�(�"

������� ������ �������� ������������������ ������ �������������������� Y��"

������� ������ �������� ������������������ ������ �������������������� Z��6"

������� ������ �� �������������� ���������������� �������������������� BP��T"

�� ������� ���� �������� ������������������ ������ �������������������� 13�����9��������D��$�-,���3�B�=?����;.�L�/������3�4;*�G, �������:;������

+,������������������������D#$)���+��B���:���DL�/����+���?��%��+(���B�(N���� � ����

14��D��$�-,�+���=)����+��B�A���@,\��G,

57

9�� F���������� ���(6�.�����

15��D��$�-,���3�P+=����G'T� ����T�#�$�-?���#/����+����-()��7���]���#��1

�� V(���+���������� �̂6�������_��*� �̂6�������#/����`�1��9�_��*���*���������*�������@M�

16D a��#�$�-?���#/����+����-()��7���]���#��1�

�������*��������b�E(���+���������� �̂6�������_��*� �̂6�������#/����`�1��9� ��*���*��

17��D��$�-,���3�P+=����G'T� ����T�#�.�/����#*���+����-()��7���]���#��1

`�1��9_��*���*����������*�������@M�V(���+���������� �̂6�������_��*� �̂6�������#/����

18��D a��#�.�/����#*���+����-()��7���]���#��1

_��*���*���������*�������@M�V(���+���������� �̂6�������_��*� �̂6�������#/����`�1��9�

19��D#�.�/����#*���b�E(��7���<����3

G��T ���#$)���+��#���T�F�� ��?R������ _���-�������Z-'6c��+��B������

20��D ��#')$��.�_��?��#�.�/����#*�����1�d�NE����'(;��G,

�� _��*�:?����������:?�������_��*�:?��e����������:?����f��'�%���������:?����f��

21��*�����90��:�!(� ����?���'(;��G,D�?�-�?N0�#�.�/����#

�� _��*�:?����������:?�������_��*�:?��e����������:?����f��'�%���������:?����f��

22��D���$�-,�0�������#.�/��P�T�5����$�-,�+�� ���G,�#��1

��� .�/������������#.�/�����������;���eN����������������$�-,������g%�����$�-,�g%��#

23��D#�$�-?���0��#�.�/����#��%����G�N��G,

g%��#�.�/���������������#�.�/�������������$X9��������������#�$�-?���������g%��#�$�-?������

24��D#�$�-?���0��#�.�/����#*����.�b�E(���G�N��G,�#��1

58

#�$�-?������ #�.�/����#*�������� $,�e������[�����

25��D#�1��(*9�� (����#�,��

H0I(����� J�&����� G������ J�5�h����� LI1�����

26���#/����+,��QF�/����0��S *0i��?��1��.���� (*0i-+��E��QB�SJ.�)���0�QBS-D

#�.�/����#*�������� #�$�-?������ 7�K��#/�����

27����� *0i��!�:�� 3���� j(*0i-�+��jE��QB�S���J.�)j���0QBS-�������P�0�L�'j6c��+,�j��>��j$�-,�+j���j�0��jT�

�2k�=�Q�,�SD��$�-,���3

G�1���� H0I���G�1��������#*0I�� H0I���J������������#*0I��

7�K��L�'6�����"� � � �����������������

28��������� jj*0i�hjj��b�jjE(���+jj���jj�����?��;()jj��+jj(���F�jj/����0��#jj/����+,�jj��� jj(*0i-+��jjE��QB�S0��

J.�)��QBS-D

�������#�.�/����#*�����������U�;����eN$.���$X9������������#�$�-,�������g%��#�$�-,

7�K��#/���������g%��#�.�/��#*���

D�������������������������������

29�� *0i�������?��;()�+(���F�/����0��#/����+,���� (*0i-+��E��QB�SJ.�)���0�QBS-����b�E(���+

D ;�

�������#�.�/����#*��������U�;����eN$.���$X9������������#�$�-,�������g%��#�$�-,���

� 7�K��#/���������g%��#�.�/��#*��

30��D�90�� ���G, 9���� ��1�>:;�����"� � � �������������

:?8��6�"� � �����������������������

59

:,��1"� � �����������������������

31��D_��/5��-����������90��h��b�E(���+��������?��;()��+(���F�/����0��#/����+,��

�������#�.�/����#*�����������U�;����eN$.���$X9������������#�$�-,�������g%��#�$�-,

7�K��#/���������g%��#�.�/��#*���

32���;()�+(���F�/����0��#/����+,��D ;��b�E(���+����90��������?�

�������#�.�/����#*�����������U�;����eN$.���$X9������������#�$�-,�������g%��#�$�-,

7�K��#/���������g%��#�.�/��#*���

33��D��N��� ���G, 9���� ��1�>:;�����"� � � �������������

:?8��6�"� � �����������������������

:,��1"� ������������������������

34��D���N���h��b�E(���+��������?��;()��+(���F�/����0��#/����+,��

�������#�.�/����#*�����������U�;����eN$.���$X9������������#�$�-,�������g%��#�$�-,

��� 7�K��#/���������g%��#�.�/��#*���

35��)�+(���F�/����0��#/����+,��D ;��b�E(���+�����N���������?��;( �������#�.�/����#*������������U�;����eN$.���$X9������������#�$�-,������g%��#�$�-,

7�K��#/���������g%��#�.�/��#*��

36����D#�.�/����#*���:�!(�����1���90��h=C��G, _�'��f������������_����������������9�����

37���L�/����+��%������(����1�_�60����90����E�G,Q_����4')���l��SD

:;����� 9����

38��D#�.�/����#*���+��:?8�&K����90c�mEA��G,

_��8�������������__�'��f�����������_�������������������_���T�������������9����

60

39��(�9���90�� �����3D �����1�]6n��G,�>#�.�/����#*��� -X�E

��0���f��������_��*���������_���T���������:(,��9��������9�������[�Mo����1�9

40��DL�/���.� 8�T�5�0� (�8�;.�_��8���GA(��G,

8�������������__�'��f�����������_�������������������_���T�������������9����_��

41��D��$�-,�+����*�P�T�5�� ����G, 9���� _��*�������������������G��T�������_��*�G��T��

42���lc��#/����+,��Q#��5c��SD 8�T�5��:p;��

#�$�-?���� #�.�/����#*���� U�;����eN$.���$X9�� 7�K��#/�������

43������/����#jj*���G�;()jj���jj��<���jj�3� ��jj���jj���jj����#jj�.Q�:jjT�U0�jj*1�S���G�;()jj��7�jj���jj�30

�#�$�-?��Q�:T�U0�*2�S��mA��� �!������1� �������:�1�D#���(���]T�-����+�Qx���S�q �;(��:����3

�B-�\����]T�-������cQ4�'���+��#N����F���-��� ���e�������S_�f��� �!���������!��

�� ��!���1�

#�.�/����#*���:�!��

_��8�� '��f_� _������ _���T _����

Lc��h�

lc��h�

"�#$��%��&$��'�

�%��(((((((((((&$��'(((((((((((�

"�)$�

���*�"(((((+,�� (((((-�'(((((�

��./��

P�T�5c��h�

61

G�;���+�

�=)����+�

[-)���+�

�0��<��-$���+�

F��;�=��

�� ��!���2�

#�$�-?���:�!��

8��_�� _�'��f _������ _���T _����

Lc��h�

lc��h�

"�#$��%��&$��'�

�%��(((((((((((&$��'(((((((((((�

"�)$�

���*�"(((((+,�� (((((-�'(((((�

��./��

P�T�5c��h�

G�;���+�

�=)����+�

[-)���+�

0��<��-jjjjjjjj$���+jjjjjjjj��

F��;�=��

62

rr���;C��G,�.�_����������DL�/������3���$E� ��:;�� 9�������

�������?��3��E��+(���P��Rc��+,���� � ���������������

45��D#�.�/����+��fs��h�()��G, 9� _������������_�'��f������_������������_��������

46��D#�.�/����#*����.�-������+��t����'��h�()��G,

9� �_��������_����������������������_�'��f�����������������_������������������

47��D#�.�/����#*��.� -IN�(���t���.��,�C��G,

9� _��������������������_�'��f�����������������_�������������������_��������

48��D��$�-,���3� k�=��\$����/��#�.�/����#*����� ��%�3�7-()�� ���%(;��G,

�-6c����3�>:;����� 9���� �)�c����3�>:;�����

49��D��$�-,���3� k�=��\$�������0��GT��#�.�/����#*���G�;()�� ���%(;��G,

GT��>:;����� 9���� �����>:;�����

50��(���P�$X���;C��]��DL�/����H�K���.�<����3��*�,� ��2��J')�:��+.�/��<��h��b�E

D�����

_��*�u���� � u����� <��1 u�������f

51��D�����D ������$�-,�+��#�-M�B�(��v�1�+.�/����3�b�E(���P�$X���;C��]��

:;� 9

52��D#�.�/����#*��0�#�$�-?�����(/���_�$%(�� )N���'(;��G,

�)���#�$�-?���>9 :;� ��� �)���#�.�/����#*���>9� `�1��9������

�����������������������������

53��G,DL�/����+��#��Tw��Z-*����<-$�� ���� 9�����������9��%(1��������.�

63

54��L�/������3�Z-*����+��#'f����L�'6�� �����������"� � ��������

������������������������������

������������������������������

55��_�'8�5� �����$�-,���3�B�=?�����T�7���G,�> )N��4;*����3�D��*

����� ��.���� 9��%(1� 9���������

������������������������ � �����

��������������������� � ��������

������������������������������

������������������������������

56��DL�-=(69���\,�G'T���(�x�������(1�)���+���?(��;(6��+(���F�/����+,���

�����������������������������

yz��D��'���L�E5��#/��b�E(�� ���-��G,���'$*��_���.�Fi���3

9������ 9���� :(,��9 �:;����������������:;�

y{��D_��?��#�'$*��F�/��:�;��#��1��=��G,

9������ 9���� :(,��9 �:;����������������:;�

y|��DB��*�F�/��:�;��#��1�@E��G,

9����� :;������������������:;���������:(,��9�������������9�������

}~��D#�'$*��F�/�� -��!(����$1���K���Z��)���@E��G,

9������ 9���� :(,��9 �:;����������������:;�

64

}���D#;(���#.�=��#�'$*��#/��#6����=��G,

9������ 9���� :(,��9 �:;����������������:;�

}������$�-,�+��#�.�/����#���=����??*�-��+(���G��C����+,����D��$�-,�+��#�6��)���B��E���+�� ����

.�]��0D�)�c����3�hx-������/��+���1�)�� ���$��!��

��������������� � ����������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

}����� ���-,�+,����������������� jf����4jT0�+j��Gj�;�� ��@jE�����j����������+�j%��]j���>#jx��<��W�j���Gj,

DZ-'6c��l���#��1

��������������� � ����������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

}r���0��#/���.�#%�;(����#�k6c�.�J�;(����+�� ��.�P9�o�� $!��� ��'(69���\,�#�?����3�4�50��%�

#��1�YE'���+�� �"

��������������� � ����������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

65

Appendix 3: Snograss & Vanderwart, 1980 Picture Stimuli Item no. Dutch English

Moroccan Arabic Frequency Familiarity

253 put well ���� 897 1,45 45 kanon cannon ������ 7 1,52 69 kroon crown ��� 19 1,52 159 struisvogel ostrich ���� 0 1,52

4 anker anchor ���� 15 1,6 256 windmolen windmill ���� �� 1 1,8 208 slak snail ������� 1 1,85 24 tor beetle � ����� 0 1,88 238 tol top ������� 204 1,88 209 slang snake � ��� 44 1,9 98 vos fox ����� 13 1,95 223 zwan swan ���� 3 1,97 21 beer bear ����� 57 1,98 140 leeuw lion ���� 17 2 18 vat barrel ������� 24 2,02 164 pauw peacock ������ 2 2,05 43 kameel camel ����� 1 2,08 233 tijger tiger ���� 7 2,1 20 mand basket ������ 17 2,18 172 varken pig �� ���� 8 2,18 71 hert deer ������ 13 2,22 160 uil owl ����� 2 2,22 190 deegrol rolling pin ������� - 2,22 191 haan rooster ����� 3 2,22 254 wiel wheel ������ 56 2,22 12 bijl axe ���� 12 2,28

212 spin spider ��������

����� 2 2,28 84 olifant elephant ����� 7 2,35 17 schuur barn ������ 29 2,38 244 schildpad turtle ����� � 8 2,4 55 kip chicken ������ 37 2,42 68 koe cow ����� 29 2,42 82 adelaar eagle ���� 5 2,42 110 sprinkhaan grasshopper ������ 0 2,42 255 fluit whistle ������� 4 2,45 100 kikker frog ��� �� 1 2,48 129 vlieger kite ��!��� � 1 2,48 230 vingerhoed thimble ������ 1 2,48 249 wagen, wagentje wagon �������� 55 2,5 145 aap monkey ����� 9 2,58

5 mier ant ���� 6 2,62 23 bij bee ���� 11 2,68 148 berg mountain ����� 33 2,7 153 ketting necklace �� ���� 3 2,7

13 kinderwagen baby carriage �������

���������� - 2,72 251 gieter watering can ������� - 2,72

66

161 pensel paintbrush ������������ 1 2,78 61 clothespin clothespin ������ 0 2,8 207 slee sled ������ 0 2,8 52 ketting chain �� ���� 50 2,82 90 vlag flag ����� 16 2,9 163 perzik peach ��������� 3 2,9 40 vlinder butterfly �������� 2 2,92 74 pop doll �� ���� 10 2,92 196 zaag saw � ����� 352 2,92 165 pinda peanut ������� 6 3 87 hek fence ����� 30 3,02 93 vlieg, mug fly ����� �� 33 3,02 252 watermeloen watermelon ����������� 1 3,05 44 kaars candle ����� 18 3,08 181 pompoen pumpkin ���� 2 3,08 118 hoed hat �������� 56 3,18 143 (hang)slot lock ����� 23 3,18 14 bal ball ����� 110 3,2 220 aardbei strawberry ������ 0 3,2 135 citroen lemon ������ 18 3,25 89 vis fish ���� 35 3,28 151 spijker nail ������ 6 3,28 157 ui onion ����� 15 3,32 158 sinaasappel orange ���� �� 23 3,34 131 ladder ladder �������� 19 3,35 217 ster star ���� 25 3,35 31 laars boot ���� 13 3,38 54 kers cherry ���������� 6 3,38 106 handschoen glove ������� 9 3,38 176 tang pliers ������� 1 3,38 154 naald needle ����� 15 3,4 37 bezem broom �������� 2 3,42 199 schroevendraaier screwdriver �� �!��� 0 3,42 180 aardappel potato ������ 15 3,46 114 hammer hammer ������� 9 3,48 187 ring ring ����� 47 3,48 247 vest vest ����� 4 3,48 66 mais corn ������ 34 3,5 175 kruik pitcher ������ 21 3,5 48 wortel carrot ������ 1 3,55 121 paard horse ���� 117 3,55 166 peer pear �������� 6 3,55 10 asbak ashtray ������ 0 3,56 192 liniaal ruler �������� 3 3,58 28 vogel bird ����� 31 3,62 78 jurk dress ������ 67 3,62 205 rok skirt ��""�� 21 3,64 109 druiven grapes ��� 7 3,65 123 strijkijzer iron ������� 43 3,65 221 koffer suitcase ������� 20 3,65 32 fles bottle ������ 76 3,72

67

119 hart heart ����� 173 3,72 2 vliegtuig airplane ������� 11 3,78

27 fiets bicycle ����������

"� ���� 5 3,78 127 ketel kettle ������ 3 3,8 232 das tie ���!���� 23 3,8 216 eekhoorn squirrel �� ���� 1 3,82 41 knoop button ������ 10 3,85 64 jas, mantel coat ������ 43 3,88 91 bloem flower ������ 23 3,88 182 konijn rabbit � ���� 11 3,95 245 paraplu umbrella �#��� 8 3,95

6 appel apple ������� 9 3,98 146 maand moon ������ 60 3,98 197 schaar scissors ����� 1 3,98 105 bril glasses ������ 29 4 242 vrachtwagen truck ������� 57 4,02 102 afvalemmer garbage can ������$������ - 4,08 26 riem belt ����� 29 4,12 101 pan frying pan ����� - 4,15 34 kom bowl ������ 23 4,18 194 zoutvaatje saltshaker ����������� 0 4,18 49 kat cat ������������ 23 4,22 179 pot pot ����� �� 28 4,22 133 blad leaf ������$������ 12 4,3 226 tafel table ������ 198 4,35 60 klok clock ���� �� 20 4,38 122 huis house ����� 591 4,38 36 brood bread ����� 41 4,4 257 raam window �������� 119 4,4 168 potlood pencil ������ 34 4,42 130 mes knife ����� 76 4,45 224 trui sweater ����� 14 4,48 83 oor ear $��� � 29 4,5 141 mond lips ���� 69 4,5 215 lepel spoon ������ 6 4,5 65 kam comb ������� 6 4,52 116 klerenhanger hanger ������� 0 4,52 155 neus nose ��� 60 4,52 211 sok sock �������� 4 4,52 162 broek pants ������� 9 4,55 239 stoplicht traffic light ����$������ - 4,55 203 overhemd shirt ������� 27 4,56 53 stoel chair ������� 66 4,58 250 horloge watch ���� ������ 81 4,58 73 hond dog ����� 75 4,6 204 schoen shoe ������� 14 4,62 237 tandenborstel toothbrush ������ � � 6 4,62 134 been leg ����� 58 4,65 219 fournuis stove ������� 15 4,65 185 koelkast refrigerator ������� 23 4,68

68

241 boom tree ������� 59 4,68 22 bed bed ����������� 127 4,72 7 arm arm ���� 94 4,75

30 boek book ���� 193 4,75 88 vinger finger $���� 40 4,78 94 voet foot ����� 70 4,78 167 pen pen ����� 18 4,78 115 hand hand ���� 431 4,82 128 sleutel key ������ 88 4,85 86 oog eye �� � 122 4,88 222 zon sun ������ 112 4,9

69

Appendix 4: Snake Story

70

71

72

73