The impact of preschool attendance on children's bidialectism in The Netherlands: Why toddlers may stop speaking a regional language (Limburgish) at home

Abstract

This article addresses the question as to why toddlers in The Netherlands may stop speaking their regional language—Limburgish—as their home language after entering preschool, even when both parents speak Limburgish at home. The question is addressed through the concept of the total linguistic fact (Silverstein 1985): language ideology, language choice, and language practices mutually shape and inform each other. Language ideologies in wider society impact educational practices in preschool. Hierarchical teacher-child and influential peer interactions show the negative effects of speaking Limburgish. Preschool language socialization practices have a profound effect on language choice and shift by toddlers at home who are still in the midst of their linguistic, pragmatic, cognitive, and social development of both Limburgish and Dutch as first languages. (Regional language, language ideology, preschool)

Children’s Linguistic Repertoires Across Dialect and Standard Speech: Mirroring Input or Co-constructing Sociolinguistic Identities?

“…In other words, children learn about the social prestige and the socialindexical meanings of linguistic variation (cf. Cornips, 2020), even if this knowledge remains largely implicit during the preschool years (Kasberger & Kaiser, 2019;Kaiser & Kasberger forthc.). The obvious importance of the gender variable seems to underscore the growing importance of (different facets of) prestige (cf.…”

“…e.g., Foulkes & Docherty, 2006;Kerswill & Williams, 2000;Labov, 1964Labov, , 2001Macha, 1993). In fact, Cornips (2020) shows that the entrance to preschool may even lead to a (perhaps temporary) shift from the regional language variety to the majority language as children's home language, even when both parents speak the regional variety. But media also play a part in children's expansion of their L1 repertoires (Häcki Buhofer et al, 1994), although their exact impact on language acquisition depends on child attributes, content, stimulus characteristics and environmental context (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010;Richert et al, 2011).…”

“…Moreover, the acquisition of sociolinguistic variants also depends on the social understanding children bring along, including knowledge about the evaluative patterns with regard to language variation in the speech community in which they are growing up. Children are sensitive to asymmetries in the power dynamics of the languages and language varieties surrounding them, which impact linguistic practices, e.g., in preschool (Cornips, 2020). In fact, Sumner et al (2013) suggest that the strength of (exemplar-based) linguistic representations is not only determined by the frequency or typicality of variants in the input but also by their social weight, i.e.…”

Language policy and linguistic landscaping in a contemporary blue-collar workplace in the Dutch–German borderland

“…The placements of commemoration stones are not just acts of historical landscaping, but also of linguistic landscaping. These acts reproduce a familiar pattern in the linguistic landscape of Limburg, where standard Dutch is often used to construct formal, institutional, and authoritative situations, while Limburgish is typically used to construct situations characterised by informality, solidarity, and local and/ or regional identity (see, e.g., Cornips 2020;Thissen 2018). This pattern can be recognised in other ways as well.…”

Power dynamics at work

“…Hence, I believe that the societal infrastructure of Limburg should afford people to learn or teach Limburgish in case they wish to do so. At present, however, there are hardly any options for this, and preschools, despite good intentions, have even been observed to discourage speaking Limburgish at home (Cornips 2020b), so there is still much to be gained in this respect.…”