Cover not available
Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp.174–196

Regional languages on Twitter

A comparative study between Frisian and Limburgish

 | Fryske Akademy | Maastricht University
 | Meertens Institute
 | Maastricht University | Meertens Institute
This paper addressed the question how the use of Dutch and the regional languages Frisian or Limburgish differ on Twitter and which patterns in language choice can be identified. Previous quantitative studies (Jongbloed-Faber, Van de Velde, Van der Meer & Klinkenberg, 2016; Nguyen, Trieschnigg & Cornips, 2015; Trieschnigg, 2015) have already shown that people in the Dutch provinces of Friesland and Limburg tweet in Frisian or Limburgish respectively, but most often in Dutch interspersed with some English. In this qualitative study, we compared the tweets from twenty twitterers in Friesland and Limburg who use both Dutch and Frisian or Limburgish regularly in order to get insight into their language use patterns. The following patterns in language use were identified: when a twitterer aims to maximise his/her audience, Dutch is regularly employed. However, as soon as an interpersonal, addressed tweet is formulated, Frisian or Limburgish is often used. General tweets in Dutch may therefore very well get a Frisian or Limburgish continuation. Another mechanism frequently found in responding tweets is following the language used in the original tweet, notwithstanding such a tweet was in Dutch or in a regional language. Finally, the data show that, although Twitter is a global medium which can be accessed at any time and any place provided that one has access to the needed technical equipment and Internet connection, twitterers sometimes construct localness i.e. what is perceived as local culture through using Frisian or Limburgish exclusively.
Keywords: regional languages, Twitter, social media, language choice, Frisian, Limburgish, minority languages
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Limburgish varieties
    • 1.2Frisian varieties
    • 1.3Twitter
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1Social media
    • 2.2Language choice on social media
    • 2.3Existing quantitative research about Frisian and Limburgish on social media
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results: Identified patterns in language choice
    • 4.1Following language choice of others
    • 4.2Switching to the regional language in response to general tweets in Dutch
    • 4.3Enlarging audience by using Dutch
    • 4.4Language use in tweets about local culture
  • 5.Conclusions and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.16017.jon
References (42)
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Multilingualism, diaspora, and the Internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 429–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Code-switching in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 667–694). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context and Media, 4–5, 62–73.Google Scholar
(2014b). Moments of sharing: Entextualization and linguistic repertoires in social networking. Journal of Pragmatics, 731, 4–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. (2013). Recent developments in the Limburg dialect region. In F. Hinskens, & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and space: Dutch. An international handbook of linguistic variation (pp. 378–399). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2014). Taalcultuur: Talen in beweging. Taal & Tongval, 65(2), 125–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, D. (2007). Minority languages and the Internet: New threats, new opportunities. In M. Cormack, & N. Hourigan (Eds.), Minority language media: Concepts, critiques and case studies (pp. 133–150). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, D., Morris, D., & Prys, C. (2013). Investigating the differential use of Welsh in young speakers’ social networks: A comparison of communication in face-to-face settings in electronic texts and on social networking sites. In E. H. G. Jones & E. Uribe-Jongbloed (Eds.), Social media and minority languages: Convergence and the creative industries (pp. 75–86). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danet, B. & Herring, S. C. (2007). The multilingual Internet: Language, culture, and communication online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dann, S. Twitter content classification. First Monday, [S.l.], nov. 2010. ISSN 13960466. Available at: <[URL]> DOI logo
Driessen, G. (2006). Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995–2003. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 751, 103–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van Fries, streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995–2011. Nijmegen: ITS.Google Scholar
Flycatcher (2016). Resultaten en nadere analyses dialectenquete De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad. Also Urlings, Guus (2016). Slijtage in het taalbolwerk. De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad (23 May 2016)Google Scholar
Goeman, T., & Jongenburger, W. (2009). Dimensions and determinants of dialect use in the Netherlands at the individual and regional levels at the end of the twentieth century. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 196/1971, 31–72.Google Scholar
Gorter, D., & Jonkman, R. J. (1995). Taal yn Fryslân: Op ’e nij besjoen. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Hermans, B. J. H. (2013). Phonological features of Limburgian dialects. In F. Hinskens, & J. Taeldeman (Eds.). Language and Space: An international handbook of Linguistic variation. Volume 3: Dutch (pp. 336–356). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heyd, T., & Mair, C. (2014). From vernacular to digital ethnolinguistic repertoire: The case of Nigerian Pidgin. In V. Lacoste, J. Leimgruber, & T. Breyer (Eds.), Indexing authenticity: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: 244–268.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L., Gill, P., Krishnamurthy, B., & Newbury, E. (2013). Historicizing new media: A content analysis of Twitter. Journal of Communication, 631, 413–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, I. (2013). Audience design and communication accommodation theory: Use of Twitter by Welsh-English biliterates. In E. H. G. Jones, & E. Uribe-Jongbloed (Eds.), Social media and minority languages: Convergence and the creative industries (pp. 99–118). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jongbloed-Faber, L. (2014). Social media: A treasure trove for minority language research. In K. Woodfield (Ed.), Social media in social research: Blogs on blurring the boundaries (pp. 189–194). London: Natcen Social Research.Google Scholar
Jongbloed-Faber, L., Van de Velde, H., Van der Meer, C., & Klinkenberg, E. L. (2016). Language use of Frisian bilingual teenagers on social media. Treballs de Sociolingüística Catalana, 261, 27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leerssen, J. T. (1996). Advies inzake de erkenning van het Limburgs als streektaal. Sittard: Werkgroep Erkenning Limburgs als Streektaal. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Leppänen, S., Pitkänen-Huhta, A., Piirainen-Marsh, A., Nikula, T., & Peuronen, S. (2009). Young people’s translocal new media uses: A multiperspective analysis of language choice and heteroglossia. Journal of Computer-mediated communication, 141, 1080–1107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society, January-March 2016, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, A., & boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitterers, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moll, A. (2014). Authenticity in dialect performance? A case study of “Cyber-Jamaican”. In V. Lacoste, J. Leimgruber, & T. Breyer (Eds.), Indexing authenticity: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 209–243). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nguyen, D., Trieschnigg, D., & Cornips, L. (2015). Audience and the use of minority languages on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 666–669). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van. (2006). Geen Friese toestanden! Het werk van streektaalfunctionarissen. Onze Taal, 251–253.Google Scholar
Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J. W., & Zappavigna, M. (2014). Researching the language of social media: A student guide. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Provinsje Fryslân (2015). De Fryske taalatlas 2015. Fryske taal yn byld. Leeuwarden: Provinsje Fryslân.Google Scholar
Schlobinski, P. (2005). Mündlichkeit/Schriftlichkeit in den Neuen Medien. In L. Eichinger & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? (pp. 126–142). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2014). Introduction: The language of social media. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language on social media: Identity and community on the internet (pp. 1–20). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stæhr, A. (2015). Reflexivity in Facebook interaction: Enregisterment across written and spoken language practices. Discourse, Context & Media, 81, 30–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefan, M. H., Klinkenberg, E. L., & Versloot, A. P. (2015). Frisian sociological language survey goes linguistic: Introduction to a new research component. In A. J. Brand, E. Hoekstra, J. Spoelstra, & H. Van de Velde (Eds.), Philologia Frisica Anno 2014. Lêzings fan it tweintichster Frysk Filologekongres fan de Fryske Akademy op 10. 11 en 12 desimber 2014, vol. 1091 (pp. 240–257). Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy & Afûk.Google Scholar
Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trieschnigg, D. (2015). Finding and analyzing tweets from Limburg and Friesland. University of Twente. [Powerpoint slides]Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, R., & Nobels, J. M. P. (2010). Destandaardisatie en toe-eigening van schrijftaal. De chatcommunicatie van Vlaamse jongeren. In M. J. van der Wal & A. A. P. Francken (Eds.), Standaardtalen in beweging. Standaardisatie en destandaardisatie in Nederland, Vlaanderen en Zuid-Afrika (pp. 173–192). Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU & Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Ytsma, J. (1995). Frisian as first and second language. Sociolinguistic and sociopsychological Aspects of the acquisition of Frisian among Frisian and Dutch primary school children. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
(2007). Language use and language attitudes in Friesland. In D. Lasagabaster, & A. Huguet (Eds.), Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts. Language use and language attitudes (pp. 144–163). Clevedon: Multilingualism Matters.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2014). Coffeetweets: Bonding around the been on Twitter. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language on social media: Identity and community on the internet (pp. 139–160). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Robinson-Jones, Charlie
2024. Tension in the linguistic landscape: the implications of language choices for diversity and inclusion in multilingual museums representing minorities. International Journal of Multilingualism 21:2 ► pp. 881 ff. DOI logo
Rickert, Marie
2023. Bidialectal pre-school: enacting participation frames through linguistic and other semiotic means. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:4 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Cornips, Leonie, Jetske Klatter-Folmer, Trudie Schils & Romy Roumans
2022. A Longitudinal Comparison of Spelling and Reading Comprehension of Bidialectal and Monolingual Dutch Speaking Children in Primary School. In Handbook of Literacy in Diglossia and in Dialectal Contexts [Literacy Studies, 22], ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Heyen, Hauke
2022. #hokerbeest. In From West to North Frisia [NOWELE Supplement Series, 33], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Dijkstra, Jelske, Wilbert Heeringa, Lysbeth Jongbloed-Faber & Hans Van de Velde
2021. Using Twitter Data for the Study of Language Change in Low-Resource Languages. A Panel Study of Relative Pronouns in Frisian. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 DOI logo
Cornips, Leonie
2020. The impact of preschool attendance on children's bidialectism in The Netherlands: Why toddlers may stop speaking a regional language (Limburgish) at home. Language in Society 49:3 ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Kuipers-Zandberg, Helga & Ruth Kircher
2020. The Objective and Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality of West Frisian: Promotion and Perception of a Minority Language in the Netherlands. Sustainable Multilingualism 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Belmar, Guillem & Maggie Glass
2019. Virtual communities as breathing spaces for minority languages: Re-framing minority language use in social media. Adeptus :14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.