Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, shows a strong presence of non-standard language varieties, such as tussentaal (lit. ‘in-between language’) or regional dialects. However, Dutch as a second language (L2) education in Flanders mainly focuses on (Belgian) Standard Dutch, the official language variety in Flanders. Newcomers settling in Flanders seem to experience a large gap between the standard language advocated in policy and education and the multitude of non-standard language varieties they encounter in daily interactions. L2 teachers in Flanders are thus dealing with students who often struggle to communicate with L1 speakers of Dutch. In this empirical study, we address this issue by probing the opinions of L2 teachers: do they believe tussentaal and dialects form a communication threshold for their students? To what extent do they focus on non-standard language during their lessons, and what reservations or doubts do they possibly have about teaching non-standard language in the classroom? To answer these questions, we draw on fieldwork conducted in the East Flemish city of Ghent.

Misconception and contraception: knowledge and decision-making in contraceptive consultations with a language barrier Just like in general medical consultations, different domains of knowledge come together and are negotiated in contraceptive consultations, followed by decision-making on the contraceptive method. Research shows that a language barrier can hamper knowledge negotiation and decision-making in medical consultations. Our paper contributes to those findings by focussing on contraceptive counselling as a specific and underexplored consultation type. We gathered our data in a Belgian abortion clinic, where contraception is discussed during the consultations, and where an important part of the consultations are characterised by a language barrier. We adopt a Bourdieusian view on language as capital, and use a linguistic ethnographic and interactional sociolinguistic approach, complemented with analytical tools from conversation analysis on epistemics and deontics. The analysis of data fragments, ranging from a limited to a double language barrier, shows that this barrier is connected in various ways with how, and how much, knowledge is negotiated. Incomplete renditions, interruptions, epistemic and deontic claims from non-professional interpreters, along with a lack of shared contextualisation, impede clients to gather information and therefore influence decision-making. We conclude that a language barrier involves a potential risk for knowledge negotiation and decision-making in contraceptive consultations. More attention from healthcare professionals to language barriers could empower women in their sexual and reproductive health choices.

Standard Dutch, the key to integration in Flanders? About the challenges posed by non-standard Dutch to language learners in FlandersFlanders strongly encourages newcomers to take language courses to learn the official language, on the assumption that certified competence in Dutch will enhance integration. However, in Dutch L2-education the focus lies on Standard Dutch, and this contrasts to everyday spoken encounters in Flanders, where Standard Dutch is rarely used. Despite the perceived importance of learning the official language of the host society, the attested contrast between policy and language reality has up to now not been given much attention. In this publication we go into the results of a linguistic-ethnographic study conducted with language learners living in East-Flanders. We show that non-standard Dutch used by L1-speakers of Dutch sometimes causes comprehension difficulties in their interactions with the language learners. Based on interactional and interview data, we reflect on the question if L2-education should pay more attention to non-standard Dutch in class.

This paper investigates an abortion clinic’s procedural choices regarding the management of linguistic diversity. It focuses in particular on how language serves as capital for clients’ agency in decision-making regarding their abortion treatment. Based on linguistic-ethnographic fieldwork in a Flemish abortion clinic, we analyse the clinic’s institutional language policy, which states that clients should be able to speak Dutch, English or French in order to be eligible for a medical abortion—the alternative to a surgical abortion. We show how direct and smooth communication is considered a condition to ensure safety during the medical abortion treatment. We also discuss how, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the practical reorganisation of the clinic has led to more autonomy and empowerment for some clients, while it reinforced the already existing inequality for others. Finally, we discuss the clinic’s struggles with and lack of reflection on language support services. We conclude that the case of the abortion clinic can be considered as one of exclusive inclusion, and suggest that a higher awareness of language support and a critical rethinking of the safety procedure could strengthen this clinic further in its endeavour to help women confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.

The exceptional migratory flows in 2015-2016 have entailed several challenges for the Flemish public service interpreting sector, including a mismatch in supply and demand, a shortage of interpreters for lesser-used language varieties, and government budget constraints. In order to meet these challenges head-on, the Flemish Government Integration Agency, responsible for certifying public-service interpreters, has set up a research project designed to determine whether, and under what circumstances, briefly trained volunteer “language assistants” (LAs) could offer a valid additional form of language mediation. First, participants were trained and evaluated when interacting, mainly through role plays, with fellow trainees. Second, their interpreting performances during real-life service provision interactions were video-recorded and assessed. The LAs’ interpreting performances were assessed predominantly as unsatisfactory, with the main risks being linked to low interpreter competence, language proficiency, and deontological awareness. Those findings have been addressed in a follow-up project, by increasing the required CEFR level of Dutch and by changing the content of the training.