German in Belgium: Linguistic Variation from a Contact Linguistic Point of View

Accepting a “New” Standard Variety: Comparing Explicit Attitudes in Luxembourg and Belgium

“…In the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft, Standard German is well-implemented in all domains. Sociolinguistic analyses show that it covers functions such as school, media, and administrative use (Ammon 1995;Combuchen 2009;Nelde and Darquennes 2002). More specifically, Standard German has a major role in the education system, both as the medium of instruction and as a school subject (Combuchen 2009) which, research suggests, influences attitudes significantly (Davies 2018;Horner and Weber 2015;Woolard and Gal 2001).…”

“…Neither of the two attitudinal studies reported above measured attitudes (explicit or implicit) towards Standard German and its vernaculars in relation to French, an additional standardised contact variety present in the region (Vari and Tamburelli 2020;Weber 2009). Thus, it remains unclear to what degree French might also carry prestige and perhaps even be a functional standard variety 2 for the vernaculars of the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft, with some studies reporting that it competes with Standard German over H(igh) domains in some parts of the region (Gramß 2008;Nelde and Darquennes 2002). French is found to be present next to Standard German in the work sphere and employment is also sought in neighbouring countries such as Germany, France and Luxembourg as well as in the francophone regions of Belgium (Gramß 2008;Möller 2017;Nelde and Darquennes 2002).…”

“…Thus, it remains unclear to what degree French might also carry prestige and perhaps even be a functional standard variety 2 for the vernaculars of the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft, with some studies reporting that it competes with Standard German over H(igh) domains in some parts of the region (Gramß 2008;Nelde and Darquennes 2002). French is found to be present next to Standard German in the work sphere and employment is also sought in neighbouring countries such as Germany, France and Luxembourg as well as in the francophone regions of Belgium (Gramß 2008;Möller 2017;Nelde and Darquennes 2002). Overall, this multilingual contact situation has led to some degree of language endangerment, with Moselle Franconian vernaculars being identified as vulnerable varieties (UNESCO 2017).…”

“…Overall, this multilingual contact situation has led to some degree of language endangerment, with Moselle Franconian vernaculars being identified as vulnerable varieties (UNESCO 2017). 3 The southern region of the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft, i.e., the Belgische Eifel (see Figure 1 below) has the most widespread usage and the highest levels of Moselle Franconian competence within the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft (Darquennes 2019;Nelde and Darquennes 2002;Weber 2009), making it particularly relevant to our study, as both competence and usage are well known to influence attitudes (Garrett 2010;Lambert et al 1968).…”